dragonbird Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Who was the first assassin, the one who Geralt kills at the end of TW1? He doesn't seem to be one of Letho's team, and wasn't wearing a medallion. Why doesn't Saskia still get poisoned if you're on Roche path? If the priest really did poison the goblet, he must have done it before going to the meeting with Henselt, as he's dead after that. So she should still have been poisoned, even though Stennis is dead and Geralt isn't there. Does this mean the priest wasn't the poisoner? Did Radovid still capture Philippa if you're on the Roche path? If you're on Iorveth's path, and rescue Triss, why do you pick up Philippa's dagger when you find Iorveth near the end? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it with him, so that he can still try to cure Saskia when he recovers? What did Cecil dream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spets21 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Who was the first assassin, the one who Geralt kills at the end of TW1? He doesn't seem to be one of Letho's team, and wasn't wearing a medallion. I assume that this guy is one of the members of the school of viper......developers didn't really clarify this part , they only said that this dude is a witcher at least thats what i understand. or may be i am wrong? Why doesn't Saskia still get poisoned if you're on Roche path? If the priest really did poison the goblet, he must have done it before going to the meeting with Henselt, as he's dead after that. So she should still have been poisoned, even though Stennis is dead and Geralt isn't there. Does this mean the priest wasn't the poisoner? because you are not there to save her, well thats just ,my thought it is just the same when your in roche path and Saskia losses the battle with henselt and vice versa when playing iorveth (henselth kills all of the blue stripes) Did Radovid still capture Philippa if you're on the Roche path? yes he did, i think he even mentions that on roche path when you speak to him in the camp. If you're on Iorveth's path, and rescue Triss, why do you pick up Philippa's dagger when you find Iorveth near the end? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it with him, so that he can still try to cure Saskia when he recovers? i don't really know about this one ,i am curious about this too after the battle he finds iorveth being so-rounded by guards.... hmm may be he meant it to give it back to iorveth after triss cures him. What did Cecil dream? dev's didnt quite made this clear as there are no cutscene but again i am assuming that the little dwarf is either a former drunk who's out of rehab lol and vowed to skalens mother that he woulndt drink any more(abstinent) or he has some thing going on with his nephew`s mother not sure of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonbird Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 I don't think "because you're not there to save her" is a vallid reason for Saskia not to get poisoned :) Thanks on the Philippa one. I must have missed that on the conversation. The others aren't answered in-game, so I'm probably looking for inventive replies. ;)I think I agree with your second choice on Cecil's dream. Poor guy, to have that revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenSquig Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Who was the first assassin, the one who Geralt kills at the end of TW1? He doesn't seem to be one of Letho's team, and wasn't wearing a medallion.- His name is never mentioned, but I seem to remember during the conversation between Geralt and Letho in the Kinglslayer's Hideout (Roche's path), Letho telling Geralt that he killled one of his own to save Foltest. I took this to mean Geralt killed another witcher (although not specifically one from the wolf school) Why doesn't Saskia still get poisoned if you're on Roche path? If the priest really did poison the goblet, he must have done it before going to the meeting with Henselt, as he's dead after that. So she should still have been poisoned, even though Stennis is dead and Geralt isn't there. Does this mean the priest wasn't the poisoner?- I noticed that Saskia was looking quite healthy when Geralt meets her to get Vandergrift’s sword (Roche's path). Maybe the plot failed or maybe she simply didnt drink it (The smith that made the cup said he put decorative reliefs inside the cup as well as outside, but it would cause scum to stick inside the cup... would you drink out of a scummy cup? ewwwww!) Iorveths path and Roche path do not neccessarliy have to in sync with the other, after all the fun of being able to make decisions is that it does change the story. Did Radovid still capture Philippa if you're on the Roche path?- I don't remember one way or the other. I'll have to watch for that when I get to that part on my current run. If you're on Iorveth's path, and rescue Triss, why do you pick up Philippa's dagger when you find Iorveth near the end? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it with him, so that he can still try to cure Saskia when he recovers?- Possibly, but when you consider Iorveth would have to face a hostile dragon thats controlled by a pissed-off sorceress to do it, I think a witcher would be better suited to try. What did Cecil dream?- Its never exactly said or shown what Cecil's dream was. Judging from the conversation between Geralt and Cecil, when Geralt was trying to get the key to the Harpy's Lair, it had to have been pretty bad, because Cecil immediately agreed to give the key when Geralt threatened to make it public (even though the door had been sealed by Cecil's grandfather for good reason). Definitely related to Cecil's drinking and his promise to Skalen Burdon's mother, he would always stay sober (which he has) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonbird Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 I wish Geralt had locked the door again after getting the dreams he needed. I dread to think what happen the next time someone wanders into the area. Makes sense on the dagger. On the poisoning, I think that this is one part of the game that is open to inventiveness on WHY it didn't happen. Obviously, there's no definitive answer. :) If the priest wasn't the poisoner, then the poison could have easily been added after they returned from the Henselt meeting. As Stennis died in the mist, the poisoner could easily have changed his mind about doing it. If it was the priest, then it meant that she didn't drink from the cup. The meeting was called primarily because of the mist, with the secondary reason being the arrival of Iorveth, Geralt and Zoltan. Iorveth would still have arrived, the other two didn't. Stennis is no longer present. Later events indicate that the reaction to Iorveth's arrival is probably similar on both paths, except that he seems to have better living quarters if you didn't show up. So, no drinking out of respect for Stennis? or because Zoltan isn't there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spets21 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 my money is on stenis as the poisoner, think of it this way #1.(Iorveth path)saskia gets poisoned and a bunch of quest follows after the round table scene, when you investigate further during the quest on royal blood that all the evidence points out on stenis and the priest but most of the blame goes to the priest as the one who commissioned the smith for the chalice plus all the stuff found on the priest house and the testimony of a peasant who indicates that stenis didn't actually ordered the priest to poison saskie ect. but how can a dead man defend himself right. so obviously if you persuade the mob not to lynch stenis then he gets crowned and saskia becomes a dragon and threatens to char everyone at the conclave and you know the rest that followed. #2.(roche path) stenis Dies at the beginning of the act as you travel along the mist you find his body lying somewhere henselt even makes a remark on that dead beat whose lying on the ground and you can even loot his sword. now your question was why doesn't Saskia still get poisoned if you're on Roche path? again stenis dies and there was no one to poison saskia........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonbird Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 That works, and using ockham's razor, it's nice and simple, so it should be correct. Stennis poisoner + Stennis dead = no poison attempt. I don't think we have an in-game answer to what happened to Philippa on Roche path, except that we know she's alive. I just ran the Chapter 3 Roche path again, and couldn't get Radovid to say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skevitj Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Who was the first assassin, the one who Geralt kills at the end of TW1? He doesn't seem to be one of Letho's team, and wasn't wearing a medallion. Why doesn't Saskia still get poisoned if you're on Roche path? If the priest really did poison the goblet, he must have done it before going to the meeting with Henselt, as he's dead after that. So she should still have been poisoned, even though Stennis is dead and Geralt isn't there. Does this mean the priest wasn't the poisoner? Did Radovid still capture Philippa if you're on the Roche path? If you're on Iorveth's path, and rescue Triss, why do you pick up Philippa's dagger when you find Iorveth near the end? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it with him, so that he can still try to cure Saskia when he recovers? What did Cecil dream?1. Didn't play the first, so can't help you there, but even from the start Triss indicates that they were a witcher. 2. The implication on Iorveth's path is that Olcan was responsible for acquiring the copied challice and poisoning it, while Stenis was responsible for clearing the kitchen area so the could switch it. The possibility is that Olcan poisoned it before the meeting with Henselt and Stennis was supposed to ensure it got into place before the Round-table-esque meeting after getting out of the mist. With Olcan dead (Iorveth's path), it doesn't matter, as his part is already done, but with Olcan and Stennis both dead (Roache's path), the challice is ready, just probably sitting somewhere in Olcan's room waiting for Stennis to do his part. Without either the plan falls apart and Saskia isn't poisoned. 3. AFAIK Philipa is captured under any circumstance, but as indicated if you save Triss on Iorveth's path, Iorveth manages to get to her and get the dagger, but she escapes even if Geralt and Iorveth are there, so it's pretty safe to assume she escapes under any circumstance too. 4. Why would you leave the dagger there? Iorveth is incapable of defending himself in his current condition, and couldn't hope to bring Saskia down anyway. Triss knows exactly where he is, given she teleports him out of there and the implication (especially if you complete Spellbreaker) is that you're going to be leaving with Iorveth (Either he's healthy and the three of you are leaving to find Saskia and head back to Vergen, or Geralt and Triss are leaving to gather Iorveth so Triss can heal him). The only plot hole would be if you somehow manage to acquire the dagger on Roache's path. 5. (Whoops, missed this one) Heavy drinking is a Dwarven tradition. Not drinking would be looked upon the same was as being a leper was. From what I understand, Cecil's dream indicates that he's attempting to stay sober, drinking as little as possible. Within a Dwarven town that would be like admitting to being a Neo-Nazi in our society. "... you're the Alderman, ages old tradition is vested in you..." as Geralt says, the implication is that if people were to find out he's trying to stay sober he's going to be made a laughing stock. That's my opinion anyway EDIT: Didn't see the date... was up the top of the first page, so I guess I just assumed it was recent. Oh well, I added something to the topic at least. Edited October 24, 2011 by Skevitj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonbird Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Hi there! Yup, a bit surprised to see a post come back to life, but they're all 'unanswered questions' anyway, so all views are valid :). Not sure about 4) though. The scenario only arises if you're on Iorveth path and rescue Triss. Iorveth is now in Vergen, and you're going off with Triss to find Yennefer, with nothing said about stopping off in Vergen en route. You're still removing the only means that Iorveth has of curing Saskia. But I agree that there's nothing to stop them making a side-trip to see how Iorveth is, in which case they can still give him the dagger or, if he's dead, tell Cecil or someone else about the secret and leave the dagger with him. In which case it would make sense to hold onto it for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skevitj Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Dunno, the dialogue just seemed to indicate that Triss intended (at Geralt's request) to heal him herself and that it may take months. Hence there isn't really any point in leaving the dagger there as you're going to be near Iorveth when he recovers. The information on Yennefer's location doesn't change no matter which ending you choose, so I'm just assuming Geralt's actions with regards to Yennefer aren't going to change with the ending. I'm probably interpreting it wrong, but Geralt and Dandelion's conversation about Yennefer on Iorveth's path (think the bit I'm referring to was the same on Roache's too) certainly seemed to indicate Geralt is largely undecided as to "what to do about Yennefer" although at that point he doesn't know where she is, but I wouldn't be surprised if he puts healing Saskia ahead of finding her. Of course that could just be the voice acting giving it a meaning which isn't there. Or me missing a conversation point which contradicts some part. Edited October 24, 2011 by Skevitj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts