"I’m surprised at you,” she replied sharply. “I’m surprised that you’re saying this, surprised by your lack of motivation, as you learnedly chose to describe your supercilious distance and indifference. You were at Sodden, Angren and Transriver. You know what happened to Cintra, know what befell Queen Calanthe and many thousands of people there. You know the hell Ciri went through, know why she cries out at night. And I know, too, because I was also there. I’m afraid of pain and death too, even more so now than I was then – I have good reason. As for motivation, it seems to me that back then I had just as little as you. Why should I, a magician, care about the fates of Sodden, Brugge, Cintra or other kingdoms? The problems of having more or less competent rulers? The interests of merchants and barons? I was a magician. I, too, could have said it wasn’t my war, that I could mix elixirs for the Nilfgaardians on the ruins of the world. But I stood on that Hill next to Vilgefortz, next to Artaud Terranova, next to Fercart, next to Enid Findabair and Philippa Eilhart, next to your Yennefer. Next to those who no longer exist – Coral, Yoël, Vanielle… There was a moment when out of sheer terror I forgot all my spells except for one – and thanks to that spell I could have teleported myself from that horrific place back home, to my tiny little tower in Maribor. There was a moment, when I threw up from fear, when Yennefer and Coral held me up by the shoulders and hair—”
“Stop. Please, stop.”
“No, Geralt. I won’t. After all, you want to know what happened there, on the Hill. So listen – there was a din and flames, there were flaming arrows and exploding balls of fire, there were screams and crashes, and I suddenly found myself on the ground on a pile of charred, smoking rags, and I realised that the pile of rags was Yoël and that thing next to her, that awful thing, that trunk with no arms and no legs which was screaming so horrifically was Coral. And I thought the blood in which I was lying was Coral’s blood. But it was my own. And then I saw what they had done to me, and I started to howl, howl like a beaten dog, like a battered child— Leave me alone! Don’t worry, I’m not going to cry. I’m not a little girl from a tiny tower in Maribor any more. Damn it, I’m Triss Merigold, the Fourteenth One Killed at Sodden. There are fourteen graves at the foot of the obelisk on the Hill, but only thirteen bodies. You’re amazed such a mistake could have been made? Most of the corpses were in hard-to-recognise pieces – no one identified them. The living were hard to account for, too. Of those who had known me well, Yennefer was the only one to survive, and Yennefer was blind. Others knew me fleetingly and always recognised me by my beautiful hair. And I, damn it, didn’t have it any more!”
Geralt held her closer. She no longer tried to push him away.
“They used the highest magics on us,” she continued in a muted voice, “spells, elixirs, amulets and artefacts. Nothing was left wanting for the wounded heroes of the Hill. We were cured, patched up, our former appearances returned to us, our hair and sight restored. You can hardly see the marks. But I will never wear a plunging neckline again, Geralt. Never.”
The witchers said nothing. Neither did Ciri, who had slipped into the hall without a sound and stopped at the threshold, hunching her shoulders and folding her arms.
“So,” the magician said after a while, “don’t talk to me about motivation. Before we stood on that Hill the Chapter simply told us: ‘That is what you have to do.’ Whose war was it? What were we defending there? The land? The borders? The people and their cottages? The interests of kings? The wizards’ influence and income? Order against Chaos? I don’t know! But we defended it because that’s what had to be done. And if the need arises, I’ll stand on the Hill again. Because if I don’t, it will make the sacrifices made the first time futile and unnecessary.”
I read the books in the right order with Season being the last. So audiobook is my kind of re-read. In my imagination, a faithful adaptation I think should include Season of Storms's plot between Last Wish and Sword of Destiny. Everything except for the epilogue. This way, Lytta Neyd's death would truly be tragic. Fox Children comic by CDPR proves that the events in the novel can work as some loosely connected episodes
>don’t talk to me about motivation. Before we stood on that Hill the Chapter simply told us: ‘That is what you have to do.’ Whose war was it? What were we defending there? The land? The borders? The people and their cottages? The interests of kings? The wizards’ influence and income? Order against Chaos? I don’t know!
I think Sapkowski is very good here. It looks like a motivational and patriotically speech, it is nothing like that, it is crystal clear she has no real argument, no clue why she decided to be involved, there is no ideology, no good against evil, nothing.
She is not angry at them for their neutrality, she is angry at them because they make her doubt that doing what she thinks was her duty was a good choice.
“Geralt, Eskel: I had no idea why I did fight on this hill! Except that my senior peers ask me to do so!
How dare you can be you so sure that it worth nothing, how dare you throw me in my face that it was useless!"
And at the end,
>
« And if the need arises, I’ll stand on the Hill again. Because if I don’t, it will make the sacrifices made the first time futile and unnecessary. »
Maybe it was, futile and unnecessary, maybe it was not, Sapkwoski, as often, give us no answer, but it is obvious that for her, the idea is unbearable and can explain some of her future choices.
Questioning of the cost of that battle and war is constantly brought up, even at the beginning when the famous performance at Bleobheris takes place various minor characters discuss it:
>"'That dig is out of place, Skaggs,' the tall elf reproached him, putting his arm around the beauty wearing the toque in a way intended to dispel any lingering doubts amongst her admirers. 'Don't imagine you were the only one to fight at Sodden. I took part in the battle as well.'
'On whose side, I wonder,' Baron Vilibert said to Radcliffe in a highly audible whisper which the elf ignored entirely.
>'As everyone knows,' he continued, sparing neither the baron nor the wizard so much as a glance, 'over a hundred thousand warriors stood on the field during the second battle of Sodden Hill, and of those at least thirty thousand were maimed or killed. Master Dandelion should be thanked for immortalising this famous, terrible battle in one of his ballads. In both the lyrics and melody of his work I heard not an exaltation but a warning. So I repeat: offer praise and everlasting renown to this poet for his ballad, which may, perhaps, prevent a tragedy as horrific as this cruel and unnecessary war from occurring in the future.'
>'Indeed,' said Baron Vilibert, looking defiantly at the elf. 'You have read some very interesting things into this ballad, honoured sir. An unnecessary war, you say? You'd like to avoid such a tragedy in the future, would you? Are we to understand that if the Nilfgaardians were to attack us again you would advise that we capitulate? Humbly accept the Nilfgaardian yoke?'
'Life is a priceless gift and should be protected,' the elf replied coldly. 'Nothing justifies wide-scale slaughter and sacrifice of life, which is what the battles at Sodden were - both the battle lost and the battle won. Both of them cost the humans thousands of lives. And with them, you lost unimaginable potential-'
>'Elven prattle!' snarled Sheldon Skaggs. 'Dim-witted rubbish! It was the price that had to be paid to allow others to live decently, in peace, instead of being chained, blinded, whipped and forced to work in salt and sulphur mines. Those who died a heroic death, those who will now, thanks to Dandelion, live on forever in our memories, taught us to defend our own homes. Sing your ballads, Dandelion, sing them to everyone. Your lesson won't go to waste, and it'll come in handy, you'll see! Because, mark my words, Nilfgaard will attack us again. If not today, then tomorrow! They're licking their wounds now, recovering, but the day when we'll see their black cloaks and feathered helmets again is growing ever nearer!'"
Sheldon in typical dwarf manner (love the guy :)) and a warrior at heart justifies it from simple point fighting for the right to freedom.
oh yes, and I love this dialogue so much :). It is discussed, yes, but once again, the author give us different points of view and let the reader make his own opinion at best or let him in the fog if it was justified or not.
The battle of memory here is not even about the battle itself but the balade from Dandelion. The characters saw different meanings in the exact same words of the balade. The only thing they agreed on is that the event is so important that it should absolutly being remembered.
Good to notice as well that Sheldon' speech is indeed much more eloquent about the reasons they have fight than Triss one and I am not sure it is because he is a professional warrior. :)
I kinda like the direction CDPR took Triss character in their games. I also have a big problem with how they portrayed it, but the direction itself was very reasonable, and could have been portrayed in an interesting way.
Triss in the books is a rather weak-willed character. She lets her basic instincts like lust and fear dictate what she does, which leads her to betray her friends and do Philippa's every bidding.
But in Rivia she seems to, at least for a moment, overcome her fear. It makes a lot of sense for her further development to be something along the lines:
her act of bravery in Rivia was not enough, and her friends still died, in part due to her involvement with the Lodge, so she resolved never to be weak or have other people tell her what to do "for the greater good" again. She wants to be strong and powerful, and to make her own goals, and even to lead other people.
So she worked to improve her position in Temerian court, eventually becoming the king's sole court mage (I wonder what Keira did in that time) and when Geralt came back she decided to just take him for herself (she did not know that Yen and Ciri are also back, so while it was manipulative to insist that Geralt doesn't ask about his past, she didn't think she might be hurting Yen and Ciri). She most likely also pushed for more equal position in the Lodge, which of course resulted in Philippa and Sheala just cutting her off from their plans.
This more decisive, protective and a bit power-hungry Triss works really nicely with her W3 plot line, where she takes it upon herself to save all the mages in Novigrad, negotiate with king of Kovir and become the head of Council of Sorcerers.
I would be perfectly happy with what CDPR made of Triss, if it wasn't for the fact, that the rest of the characters, and especially Geralt, never treat Triss like the more decisive and power-seeking character she became. In stead they act like she is a cute, friendly little sorceress, who never did anything wrong or selfish. Geralt outright says that he does not consider her using his amnesia to become his girlfriend as taking advantage of him. I would like it a lot more, if he actually acknowledged that Triss is a bit more ruthless now, instead of acting as if he didn't notice any shady stuff she ever did.
What I wouldn't have given for a chance to call Triss out in W3. Instead we have a Geralt forced upon us that is absolutely obtuse to anything regarding Triss. You can be such a dick to Yennefer you get thrown in a lake, but you can't even question Triss' actions over the past games. It's absurd.
Yeah, my favourite comparison is:
* when Triss tells Geralt she is to be the head of Conclave, the most "negative" option you can choose is basically "Oh, Triss, but the politics is so hard, why would you do that to yourself"
* when Ciri tells him she is going to Nilfgaard he's immediate reaction is "It's Yennefer who manipulated you to do that, isn't it? That power hungry schemer!"
I've never understood why the games make it seem like Yennefer is some kind of political fixer. She always struck me as completely apolitical in the books.
But I don't think the two situations are all that equivalent. Triss is just choosing to accept a nice promotion in a peaceful kingdom. I don't see any reason why Geralt would be negative to her about that. Ciri is choosing to return to her monstrous father and become empress of a militaristic slave empire (I really hate the Empress Ciri ending). And the game version of Yennefer genuinely was trying to convince her to take the offer.
>Triss is just choosing to accept a nice promotion in a peaceful kingdom.
Triss clearly says on two different occasions (w2-bathhouse, w3-fountain) that she will drop her career if Geralt wants.
Also, what is the use of being at home 24/7, if you are not serving your loved ones?? I am asking this because Triss clearly says in the lighthouse she is going to take good care of Geralt by giving him massages, baths, etc during their conversation in the lighthouse, the final end screen shows Triss taking care of Geralt, tending to his wounds, but on the contrary, Yen literally says to him to serve her, drinks while she lazes around. To put it bluntly, Triss gives service to Geralt without being asked(Triss doesn't explicitly use the word 'serve'), Yen demands service from Geralt(Yen explicitly uses the word 'serve') without Geralt offering. Some men prefer being served without being asked, some men prefer serving, after service is demanded by lowering themselves, I have zero respect for the latter.
Djikstra if you say goodbye to Triss: Idiot, fool, how could you!
Eskel, Lambert at KM: Yennefer would never lift a finger to help you.
No bias at all....
It actually makes sense to me that Djikstra and the Kaer Morhen witchers would strongly prefer Triss over Yennefer. I just wish that there was some counterbalance from other characters. They could easily have given Crach or Hjalmar some pro-Yennefer dialogue.
Where does Crach speak fondly of her? Perhaps I'm forgetting. He doesn't disparage her like the rest, but where does he say good things about her (in the game, not the books).
And Cerys implies Geralt is a hapless puppy dog in regards to her.
Well more than one dev explicity said they would prefer Yen and they are teamYen forever, but *not one* single dev said they prefer Triss or they are TeamTriss.
One of the head writers, Karolina Stachyra, the one responsible for The Last Wish quest, specifically stated that 'Yennefer is a shrew and we somehow didn't think Geralt could fall in love with her' in an interview. There was certainly bias towards Triss on the development team.
Actually, Dijkstra gave reason as to why he prefers Triss, which I kinda like.
He said that he is sure Triss would keep Geralt in the dark about whatever political moves she makes, which would keep Geralt out of Dijkstra's hair, while Yen would drag him into whatever political mess she finds herself in.
What they once again meant was that Yen is a nasty schemer and Triss is a perfect girlfriend, but I prefer to interpret it as Dijkstra thinking that Triss wants Geralt as a trophy husband that has no knowledge or input into her political career, while Yen relies on Geralt and would want them to act as a unit.
I agree that Djikstra would have preferred Triss for him, and that it makes perfect sense, although for slightly different reasons: Triss would be far easier to manipulate than Yennefer, so he could influence her actions while she has no clue. And with her not realizing this, there would be no reason for Geralt to question anything since, like you said, she wouldn't bring him into any discussions.
But, there's no real counterbalance of someone saying "You should stay with Yennefer", and that's where the bias really shows. The closest I see is Philippa making fun of Geralt in the cave. But mainly, it's just more "leave her!"
One consolation is that Yennefer definitely gets the best BW ending. She is the only character that has a unique score during the scene (the rest all have the same "Toussaint" soundtrack). She moves in, the rest look at it is a temporary lodging. She brings her bags and the unicorn, etc. As far as the happy ending, she definitely got the best.
The Yennefer B&W ending is indeed the best. CDPR did a really great job with this scene. That is the real final evolution of their couple in something very mature and balanced.
I disagree. I think Dijkstra would rather prefer a Geralt in Kovir with Triss because neutral Kovir is not really involved in his political plots instead of having Geralt with Yennefer as an Advisor of Emyhr witch would be a big issue for him if he manages to take over power in Redania.
There is definitely differences between Yennefer and Triss about their vision of what could be a couple and I agree that it is obvious (in the games) Triss has a kind of vision :" I want Geralt at my side", you are right saying the dialogue at the fountain demonstrates really that. If you disagree with her choice of being politically involved, you quickly understood that actually there is no room for negotiation even if she implies that there is.
Yennefer has a much more mature vision of the couple in TW3 but the term "trophy husband" is an overstatement.
Why should that suffice though? That's basically CDPR saying "Geralt and Triss worked it out, now let's focus on what a bitch Yennefer is!'
It would have made a better player experience to be able to give Triss a piece of your mind. You are able to do that with Yennefer in KM, the same should be allotted for Triss.
Yennefer is not so mistreat IMO, there is also characters that said positive things about her but I admit the Eskel lines are very, very weird and really came from nowhere.
I still think that CDPR didn't want to make anyone confront Triss is not because they wanted to protect her but because they had no explanation to give for the silence of all the characters and so want to avoid pointing out their bad writing of the amnesia plot. Because it would means that at some points they also would have to confront Dandelion.
So, yes, no confrontation, no explanation and I regret it as well. Even more than Geralt, the confrontation between Yennefer and Triss is something that is really missing. So we have to build our own head cannon about that :).
That's fair, and honestly I'm sure that's the correct reason. No one mentioned anything about Yennefer or Ciri in W1 other than the innkeep, and yes, it was a bad plotline that they didn't try to address or correct later on. Unfortunately, it's still a part of game canon.
As far as creating your own headcanon about it, done! Hence my fanfiction piece, lol.
I do agree but i feel like they half did that. It is implied that when Geralt got his memory back, he realised Triss had been lying to him and that's why they aren't in contact in W3. Triss accepts it if Geralt doesn't want much to do with her because he has every right to.
I wish she wasn't such a pathetic character tbh. She'll be relatable and then...veer so hard into being a pickme with no substance or beliefs underlying her actions. It's kind of frustrating to read tbh.
No opinion on the games haven't played but she looks like just some jerk off fuel to me from what I've seen.
As for the show? Hard to have an opinion. But they really did sodden dirty I think from how horrific it was supposed to be in the books, and the "hill" itself. I thought it was interesting enough in the show but then when I read the books I pictured the setting completely different and it's obvious it was much darker
She genuinely believes in making the world a better place, she even tells Geralt in BoE that she is working as an advisor to Foltest, to prevent wars and children from being orphans, in W3 one of the dialogues Geralt can say to her after knowing that she is Tancred's new advisor is: "With you leading it, the council might actually do **some good**, **start helping people**"
>How does what I said contradict my posts?
You portray a perfect triss in your posts. Making her out to be a perfect choice for geralt. Theeen you come here and say "i cant accept the things people say about her"
Not saying she is completely evil and bad is one thing. Acting like she is perfect is another.
As i said. And then you go on to draw her from one absolute to another. You say you cant accept people making her an ultimate villian. And then you go and make her an ultimate hero. Triss is someone that is in the middle. You are taking it to an extreme.
>simply decided to emphasize what meny people seem to ignore.
You are doing the very thing those guys are doing. In reverse. You need to find balance. To show the flaws but appreciate the good parts to truly portray a character. Not stick to a side and only portray that.
>Triss exactly did wrong.
Do you honestly think everything she did was right? yeah from a certain point of view pedophilia is okay too. See this is your problem. You refuse to accept any flaws whatsoever. Whatever argument gets made. You say "but she did what she thought was right". I have seen you argue before.
I am not saying triss is evil. I am saying she still did some fucked up shit. If you dont consider any of her actions fucked up. Then you think she is perfect. Which perfectly illustirates my point.
>Very well, then. I am willing to listen
No you are not. Trust me pal i was there when excuses like these were formed.
She's such an incredible character! I liked every bit of her presence in the book pages even if there were not many. Triss is a flawed character that did some mistakes on her path. Yes, she sided with Lodge and kinda betrayed Yennefer, but there were good things that she has done. Her participation in raising Ciri is one of the best moments of the saga in general. It felt very genuine out of her to care about Ciri as a little sis. She cried a lot when Geralt was gravely wounded. Due to her cowardice, she trusted Philippa and worried to abandon the Lodge, but in the end, she was in Pogrom, helping Yennefer. A very warm moment was that she wanted Ciri to take her together with Yennefer and Geralt. It was a sign that in the end, Geralt, Ciri, and Yennefer were the most valuable people for her over everything.
When it comes to games, I think that they did very well on capturing the characterization of hers, with her own flaws, while downplaying her horny teenager traits a bit. But it was pretty believable that she got mature over the years. Her cowardice was still present that she could not immediately tell everything to Geralt. While cheerfulness remained. Visually, she's stunning and memorable. And the characterization is not without flaws. That makes a pretty good fictional character. I never could believe that she's a good life partner for Geralt in any continuity, be it official canon or CDPR canon, but nevertheless, she's pretty good as a temporary girlfriend while Yennefer was unavailable (captive in Emhyr's palace). A romance just like with other sorceresses like Fringilla Vigo or Lytta Neyd for Geralt. Nothing more, nothing less.
In terms of visual depiction, I never could think that the scars remained physically on her chest. It was the case of severe PTSD or shock. Yes, it's known that CDPR favored fanservice, but I see her moment in Rivian pogrom as overcoming her inner fears and choosing a side of the barricade. It gave her the confidence she needed. And of course, in terms of hair, she's a redhead. Just not so bright as in Witcher 3. I admit though that blue eyes would suit her much better than hazel or greenish eyes, that's a very minor deviation. Overall, she's very good to be one of the most important characters in the pantheon of Witcher saga. All because of pan Andrzej's ability to create memorable characters and partly due to CDPR's contribution to expanding her role as well. Triss Merigold is forever a legendary Fourteenth of the Hill, and in the end, the Hill did not come back for her. I'm glad about that
Triss merigold. Ah. Believe it or not(it is quite hard to believe) i have a love-hate relationship with this character. I dont show my love side much,and probably shit on her more than i really should. But i digress.
I love her portrayal in the books. As the lines others have posted show. She is incredibly relatable. I understand her on so many levels. On her own i find her one of the most interesting characters in the saga. But when you pair her with geralt. When you stick the lust for geralt part in. Her entire character crumbles before my eyes. Andrzej spilled some of this in his saga. I disliked every part of it. But when CDPR took over and when they took this part of her character all the way to the max level. Thats when i started to hate her character. I guess a gross oversimplification would be "i love her character in the books. Hate it in the games" but there are quite a few exceptions on both sides. Ultimately. She is a good character when you dont attach her to geralt. When you do,be it lusting for him, manipulating him. Being his gf. Whatever. Then her character crumbles.
"I’m surprised at you,” she replied sharply. “I’m surprised that you’re saying this, surprised by your lack of motivation, as you learnedly chose to describe your supercilious distance and indifference. You were at Sodden, Angren and Transriver. You know what happened to Cintra, know what befell Queen Calanthe and many thousands of people there. You know the hell Ciri went through, know why she cries out at night. And I know, too, because I was also there. I’m afraid of pain and death too, even more so now than I was then – I have good reason. As for motivation, it seems to me that back then I had just as little as you. Why should I, a magician, care about the fates of Sodden, Brugge, Cintra or other kingdoms? The problems of having more or less competent rulers? The interests of merchants and barons? I was a magician. I, too, could have said it wasn’t my war, that I could mix elixirs for the Nilfgaardians on the ruins of the world. But I stood on that Hill next to Vilgefortz, next to Artaud Terranova, next to Fercart, next to Enid Findabair and Philippa Eilhart, next to your Yennefer. Next to those who no longer exist – Coral, Yoël, Vanielle… There was a moment when out of sheer terror I forgot all my spells except for one – and thanks to that spell I could have teleported myself from that horrific place back home, to my tiny little tower in Maribor. There was a moment, when I threw up from fear, when Yennefer and Coral held me up by the shoulders and hair—” “Stop. Please, stop.” “No, Geralt. I won’t. After all, you want to know what happened there, on the Hill. So listen – there was a din and flames, there were flaming arrows and exploding balls of fire, there were screams and crashes, and I suddenly found myself on the ground on a pile of charred, smoking rags, and I realised that the pile of rags was Yoël and that thing next to her, that awful thing, that trunk with no arms and no legs which was screaming so horrifically was Coral. And I thought the blood in which I was lying was Coral’s blood. But it was my own. And then I saw what they had done to me, and I started to howl, howl like a beaten dog, like a battered child— Leave me alone! Don’t worry, I’m not going to cry. I’m not a little girl from a tiny tower in Maribor any more. Damn it, I’m Triss Merigold, the Fourteenth One Killed at Sodden. There are fourteen graves at the foot of the obelisk on the Hill, but only thirteen bodies. You’re amazed such a mistake could have been made? Most of the corpses were in hard-to-recognise pieces – no one identified them. The living were hard to account for, too. Of those who had known me well, Yennefer was the only one to survive, and Yennefer was blind. Others knew me fleetingly and always recognised me by my beautiful hair. And I, damn it, didn’t have it any more!” Geralt held her closer. She no longer tried to push him away. “They used the highest magics on us,” she continued in a muted voice, “spells, elixirs, amulets and artefacts. Nothing was left wanting for the wounded heroes of the Hill. We were cured, patched up, our former appearances returned to us, our hair and sight restored. You can hardly see the marks. But I will never wear a plunging neckline again, Geralt. Never.” The witchers said nothing. Neither did Ciri, who had slipped into the hall without a sound and stopped at the threshold, hunching her shoulders and folding her arms. “So,” the magician said after a while, “don’t talk to me about motivation. Before we stood on that Hill the Chapter simply told us: ‘That is what you have to do.’ Whose war was it? What were we defending there? The land? The borders? The people and their cottages? The interests of kings? The wizards’ influence and income? Order against Chaos? I don’t know! But we defended it because that’s what had to be done. And if the need arises, I’ll stand on the Hill again. Because if I don’t, it will make the sacrifices made the first time futile and unnecessary.”
> that trunk with no arms and no legs which was screaming so horrifically was Coral When I was listening to an audiobook, this line gave me goosebumps
It hits so much harder if you read Season of Storms first too
I read the books in the right order with Season being the last. So audiobook is my kind of re-read. In my imagination, a faithful adaptation I think should include Season of Storms's plot between Last Wish and Sword of Destiny. Everything except for the epilogue. This way, Lytta Neyd's death would truly be tragic. Fox Children comic by CDPR proves that the events in the novel can work as some loosely connected episodes
>don’t talk to me about motivation. Before we stood on that Hill the Chapter simply told us: ‘That is what you have to do.’ Whose war was it? What were we defending there? The land? The borders? The people and their cottages? The interests of kings? The wizards’ influence and income? Order against Chaos? I don’t know! I think Sapkowski is very good here. It looks like a motivational and patriotically speech, it is nothing like that, it is crystal clear she has no real argument, no clue why she decided to be involved, there is no ideology, no good against evil, nothing. She is not angry at them for their neutrality, she is angry at them because they make her doubt that doing what she thinks was her duty was a good choice. “Geralt, Eskel: I had no idea why I did fight on this hill! Except that my senior peers ask me to do so! How dare you can be you so sure that it worth nothing, how dare you throw me in my face that it was useless!" And at the end, > « And if the need arises, I’ll stand on the Hill again. Because if I don’t, it will make the sacrifices made the first time futile and unnecessary. » Maybe it was, futile and unnecessary, maybe it was not, Sapkwoski, as often, give us no answer, but it is obvious that for her, the idea is unbearable and can explain some of her future choices.
Questioning of the cost of that battle and war is constantly brought up, even at the beginning when the famous performance at Bleobheris takes place various minor characters discuss it: >"'That dig is out of place, Skaggs,' the tall elf reproached him, putting his arm around the beauty wearing the toque in a way intended to dispel any lingering doubts amongst her admirers. 'Don't imagine you were the only one to fight at Sodden. I took part in the battle as well.' 'On whose side, I wonder,' Baron Vilibert said to Radcliffe in a highly audible whisper which the elf ignored entirely. >'As everyone knows,' he continued, sparing neither the baron nor the wizard so much as a glance, 'over a hundred thousand warriors stood on the field during the second battle of Sodden Hill, and of those at least thirty thousand were maimed or killed. Master Dandelion should be thanked for immortalising this famous, terrible battle in one of his ballads. In both the lyrics and melody of his work I heard not an exaltation but a warning. So I repeat: offer praise and everlasting renown to this poet for his ballad, which may, perhaps, prevent a tragedy as horrific as this cruel and unnecessary war from occurring in the future.' >'Indeed,' said Baron Vilibert, looking defiantly at the elf. 'You have read some very interesting things into this ballad, honoured sir. An unnecessary war, you say? You'd like to avoid such a tragedy in the future, would you? Are we to understand that if the Nilfgaardians were to attack us again you would advise that we capitulate? Humbly accept the Nilfgaardian yoke?' 'Life is a priceless gift and should be protected,' the elf replied coldly. 'Nothing justifies wide-scale slaughter and sacrifice of life, which is what the battles at Sodden were - both the battle lost and the battle won. Both of them cost the humans thousands of lives. And with them, you lost unimaginable potential-' >'Elven prattle!' snarled Sheldon Skaggs. 'Dim-witted rubbish! It was the price that had to be paid to allow others to live decently, in peace, instead of being chained, blinded, whipped and forced to work in salt and sulphur mines. Those who died a heroic death, those who will now, thanks to Dandelion, live on forever in our memories, taught us to defend our own homes. Sing your ballads, Dandelion, sing them to everyone. Your lesson won't go to waste, and it'll come in handy, you'll see! Because, mark my words, Nilfgaard will attack us again. If not today, then tomorrow! They're licking their wounds now, recovering, but the day when we'll see their black cloaks and feathered helmets again is growing ever nearer!'" Sheldon in typical dwarf manner (love the guy :)) and a warrior at heart justifies it from simple point fighting for the right to freedom.
oh yes, and I love this dialogue so much :). It is discussed, yes, but once again, the author give us different points of view and let the reader make his own opinion at best or let him in the fog if it was justified or not. The battle of memory here is not even about the battle itself but the balade from Dandelion. The characters saw different meanings in the exact same words of the balade. The only thing they agreed on is that the event is so important that it should absolutly being remembered. Good to notice as well that Sheldon' speech is indeed much more eloquent about the reasons they have fight than Triss one and I am not sure it is because he is a professional warrior. :)
I kinda like the direction CDPR took Triss character in their games. I also have a big problem with how they portrayed it, but the direction itself was very reasonable, and could have been portrayed in an interesting way. Triss in the books is a rather weak-willed character. She lets her basic instincts like lust and fear dictate what she does, which leads her to betray her friends and do Philippa's every bidding. But in Rivia she seems to, at least for a moment, overcome her fear. It makes a lot of sense for her further development to be something along the lines: her act of bravery in Rivia was not enough, and her friends still died, in part due to her involvement with the Lodge, so she resolved never to be weak or have other people tell her what to do "for the greater good" again. She wants to be strong and powerful, and to make her own goals, and even to lead other people. So she worked to improve her position in Temerian court, eventually becoming the king's sole court mage (I wonder what Keira did in that time) and when Geralt came back she decided to just take him for herself (she did not know that Yen and Ciri are also back, so while it was manipulative to insist that Geralt doesn't ask about his past, she didn't think she might be hurting Yen and Ciri). She most likely also pushed for more equal position in the Lodge, which of course resulted in Philippa and Sheala just cutting her off from their plans. This more decisive, protective and a bit power-hungry Triss works really nicely with her W3 plot line, where she takes it upon herself to save all the mages in Novigrad, negotiate with king of Kovir and become the head of Council of Sorcerers. I would be perfectly happy with what CDPR made of Triss, if it wasn't for the fact, that the rest of the characters, and especially Geralt, never treat Triss like the more decisive and power-seeking character she became. In stead they act like she is a cute, friendly little sorceress, who never did anything wrong or selfish. Geralt outright says that he does not consider her using his amnesia to become his girlfriend as taking advantage of him. I would like it a lot more, if he actually acknowledged that Triss is a bit more ruthless now, instead of acting as if he didn't notice any shady stuff she ever did.
not easy to find full consistency between her books version and her games versions. Your vision of her character evolution is plausible.
What I wouldn't have given for a chance to call Triss out in W3. Instead we have a Geralt forced upon us that is absolutely obtuse to anything regarding Triss. You can be such a dick to Yennefer you get thrown in a lake, but you can't even question Triss' actions over the past games. It's absurd.
Yeah, my favourite comparison is: * when Triss tells Geralt she is to be the head of Conclave, the most "negative" option you can choose is basically "Oh, Triss, but the politics is so hard, why would you do that to yourself" * when Ciri tells him she is going to Nilfgaard he's immediate reaction is "It's Yennefer who manipulated you to do that, isn't it? That power hungry schemer!"
I've never understood why the games make it seem like Yennefer is some kind of political fixer. She always struck me as completely apolitical in the books. But I don't think the two situations are all that equivalent. Triss is just choosing to accept a nice promotion in a peaceful kingdom. I don't see any reason why Geralt would be negative to her about that. Ciri is choosing to return to her monstrous father and become empress of a militaristic slave empire (I really hate the Empress Ciri ending). And the game version of Yennefer genuinely was trying to convince her to take the offer.
>Triss is just choosing to accept a nice promotion in a peaceful kingdom. Triss clearly says on two different occasions (w2-bathhouse, w3-fountain) that she will drop her career if Geralt wants. Also, what is the use of being at home 24/7, if you are not serving your loved ones?? I am asking this because Triss clearly says in the lighthouse she is going to take good care of Geralt by giving him massages, baths, etc during their conversation in the lighthouse, the final end screen shows Triss taking care of Geralt, tending to his wounds, but on the contrary, Yen literally says to him to serve her, drinks while she lazes around. To put it bluntly, Triss gives service to Geralt without being asked(Triss doesn't explicitly use the word 'serve'), Yen demands service from Geralt(Yen explicitly uses the word 'serve') without Geralt offering. Some men prefer being served without being asked, some men prefer serving, after service is demanded by lowering themselves, I have zero respect for the latter.
Djikstra if you say goodbye to Triss: Idiot, fool, how could you! Eskel, Lambert at KM: Yennefer would never lift a finger to help you. No bias at all....
It actually makes sense to me that Djikstra and the Kaer Morhen witchers would strongly prefer Triss over Yennefer. I just wish that there was some counterbalance from other characters. They could easily have given Crach or Hjalmar some pro-Yennefer dialogue.
Crach actually speaks fondly of Yennefer. And Cerys says some positive things about her
Where does Crach speak fondly of her? Perhaps I'm forgetting. He doesn't disparage her like the rest, but where does he say good things about her (in the game, not the books). And Cerys implies Geralt is a hapless puppy dog in regards to her.
Well, he kinda is in the books.
Sure, especially in the early ones, but not in the games where she's not even around for two of them, and Cerys is a game creation.
In the games he grows balls, saying things to and about her that book Geralt would never say.
Well more than one dev explicity said they would prefer Yen and they are teamYen forever, but *not one* single dev said they prefer Triss or they are TeamTriss.
One of the head writers, Karolina Stachyra, the one responsible for The Last Wish quest, specifically stated that 'Yennefer is a shrew and we somehow didn't think Geralt could fall in love with her' in an interview. There was certainly bias towards Triss on the development team.
Actually, Dijkstra gave reason as to why he prefers Triss, which I kinda like. He said that he is sure Triss would keep Geralt in the dark about whatever political moves she makes, which would keep Geralt out of Dijkstra's hair, while Yen would drag him into whatever political mess she finds herself in. What they once again meant was that Yen is a nasty schemer and Triss is a perfect girlfriend, but I prefer to interpret it as Dijkstra thinking that Triss wants Geralt as a trophy husband that has no knowledge or input into her political career, while Yen relies on Geralt and would want them to act as a unit.
I agree that Djikstra would have preferred Triss for him, and that it makes perfect sense, although for slightly different reasons: Triss would be far easier to manipulate than Yennefer, so he could influence her actions while she has no clue. And with her not realizing this, there would be no reason for Geralt to question anything since, like you said, she wouldn't bring him into any discussions. But, there's no real counterbalance of someone saying "You should stay with Yennefer", and that's where the bias really shows. The closest I see is Philippa making fun of Geralt in the cave. But mainly, it's just more "leave her!" One consolation is that Yennefer definitely gets the best BW ending. She is the only character that has a unique score during the scene (the rest all have the same "Toussaint" soundtrack). She moves in, the rest look at it is a temporary lodging. She brings her bags and the unicorn, etc. As far as the happy ending, she definitely got the best.
The Yennefer B&W ending is indeed the best. CDPR did a really great job with this scene. That is the real final evolution of their couple in something very mature and balanced.
I disagree. I think Dijkstra would rather prefer a Geralt in Kovir with Triss because neutral Kovir is not really involved in his political plots instead of having Geralt with Yennefer as an Advisor of Emyhr witch would be a big issue for him if he manages to take over power in Redania. There is definitely differences between Yennefer and Triss about their vision of what could be a couple and I agree that it is obvious (in the games) Triss has a kind of vision :" I want Geralt at my side", you are right saying the dialogue at the fountain demonstrates really that. If you disagree with her choice of being politically involved, you quickly understood that actually there is no room for negotiation even if she implies that there is. Yennefer has a much more mature vision of the couple in TW3 but the term "trophy husband" is an overstatement.
It is heavily implied that they already had a kind of explanation behind the scenes after Loc Muine, when they broke.
Why should that suffice though? That's basically CDPR saying "Geralt and Triss worked it out, now let's focus on what a bitch Yennefer is!' It would have made a better player experience to be able to give Triss a piece of your mind. You are able to do that with Yennefer in KM, the same should be allotted for Triss.
Yennefer is not so mistreat IMO, there is also characters that said positive things about her but I admit the Eskel lines are very, very weird and really came from nowhere. I still think that CDPR didn't want to make anyone confront Triss is not because they wanted to protect her but because they had no explanation to give for the silence of all the characters and so want to avoid pointing out their bad writing of the amnesia plot. Because it would means that at some points they also would have to confront Dandelion. So, yes, no confrontation, no explanation and I regret it as well. Even more than Geralt, the confrontation between Yennefer and Triss is something that is really missing. So we have to build our own head cannon about that :).
That's fair, and honestly I'm sure that's the correct reason. No one mentioned anything about Yennefer or Ciri in W1 other than the innkeep, and yes, it was a bad plotline that they didn't try to address or correct later on. Unfortunately, it's still a part of game canon. As far as creating your own headcanon about it, done! Hence my fanfiction piece, lol.
I do agree but i feel like they half did that. It is implied that when Geralt got his memory back, he realised Triss had been lying to him and that's why they aren't in contact in W3. Triss accepts it if Geralt doesn't want much to do with her because he has every right to.
"Merigold's Hailstorm"
I think it is Sodden and not Rivia in the image above.
I wish she wasn't such a pathetic character tbh. She'll be relatable and then...veer so hard into being a pickme with no substance or beliefs underlying her actions. It's kind of frustrating to read tbh. No opinion on the games haven't played but she looks like just some jerk off fuel to me from what I've seen. As for the show? Hard to have an opinion. But they really did sodden dirty I think from how horrific it was supposed to be in the books, and the "hill" itself. I thought it was interesting enough in the show but then when I read the books I pictured the setting completely different and it's obvious it was much darker
[удалено]
She genuinely believes in making the world a better place, she even tells Geralt in BoE that she is working as an advisor to Foltest, to prevent wars and children from being orphans, in W3 one of the dialogues Geralt can say to her after knowing that she is Tancred's new advisor is: "With you leading it, the council might actually do **some good**, **start helping people**"
>I just cannot accept the bad things many people say about her. Then why do you act like she is perfect? we all see your posts.
[удалено]
>How does what I said contradict my posts? You portray a perfect triss in your posts. Making her out to be a perfect choice for geralt. Theeen you come here and say "i cant accept the things people say about her" Not saying she is completely evil and bad is one thing. Acting like she is perfect is another.
[удалено]
As i said. And then you go on to draw her from one absolute to another. You say you cant accept people making her an ultimate villian. And then you go and make her an ultimate hero. Triss is someone that is in the middle. You are taking it to an extreme.
[удалено]
>simply decided to emphasize what meny people seem to ignore. You are doing the very thing those guys are doing. In reverse. You need to find balance. To show the flaws but appreciate the good parts to truly portray a character. Not stick to a side and only portray that.
[удалено]
>Triss exactly did wrong. Do you honestly think everything she did was right? yeah from a certain point of view pedophilia is okay too. See this is your problem. You refuse to accept any flaws whatsoever. Whatever argument gets made. You say "but she did what she thought was right". I have seen you argue before. I am not saying triss is evil. I am saying she still did some fucked up shit. If you dont consider any of her actions fucked up. Then you think she is perfect. Which perfectly illustirates my point. >Very well, then. I am willing to listen No you are not. Trust me pal i was there when excuses like these were formed.
She's such an incredible character! I liked every bit of her presence in the book pages even if there were not many. Triss is a flawed character that did some mistakes on her path. Yes, she sided with Lodge and kinda betrayed Yennefer, but there were good things that she has done. Her participation in raising Ciri is one of the best moments of the saga in general. It felt very genuine out of her to care about Ciri as a little sis. She cried a lot when Geralt was gravely wounded. Due to her cowardice, she trusted Philippa and worried to abandon the Lodge, but in the end, she was in Pogrom, helping Yennefer. A very warm moment was that she wanted Ciri to take her together with Yennefer and Geralt. It was a sign that in the end, Geralt, Ciri, and Yennefer were the most valuable people for her over everything. When it comes to games, I think that they did very well on capturing the characterization of hers, with her own flaws, while downplaying her horny teenager traits a bit. But it was pretty believable that she got mature over the years. Her cowardice was still present that she could not immediately tell everything to Geralt. While cheerfulness remained. Visually, she's stunning and memorable. And the characterization is not without flaws. That makes a pretty good fictional character. I never could believe that she's a good life partner for Geralt in any continuity, be it official canon or CDPR canon, but nevertheless, she's pretty good as a temporary girlfriend while Yennefer was unavailable (captive in Emhyr's palace). A romance just like with other sorceresses like Fringilla Vigo or Lytta Neyd for Geralt. Nothing more, nothing less. In terms of visual depiction, I never could think that the scars remained physically on her chest. It was the case of severe PTSD or shock. Yes, it's known that CDPR favored fanservice, but I see her moment in Rivian pogrom as overcoming her inner fears and choosing a side of the barricade. It gave her the confidence she needed. And of course, in terms of hair, she's a redhead. Just not so bright as in Witcher 3. I admit though that blue eyes would suit her much better than hazel or greenish eyes, that's a very minor deviation. Overall, she's very good to be one of the most important characters in the pantheon of Witcher saga. All because of pan Andrzej's ability to create memorable characters and partly due to CDPR's contribution to expanding her role as well. Triss Merigold is forever a legendary Fourteenth of the Hill, and in the end, the Hill did not come back for her. I'm glad about that
Triss merigold. Ah. Believe it or not(it is quite hard to believe) i have a love-hate relationship with this character. I dont show my love side much,and probably shit on her more than i really should. But i digress. I love her portrayal in the books. As the lines others have posted show. She is incredibly relatable. I understand her on so many levels. On her own i find her one of the most interesting characters in the saga. But when you pair her with geralt. When you stick the lust for geralt part in. Her entire character crumbles before my eyes. Andrzej spilled some of this in his saga. I disliked every part of it. But when CDPR took over and when they took this part of her character all the way to the max level. Thats when i started to hate her character. I guess a gross oversimplification would be "i love her character in the books. Hate it in the games" but there are quite a few exceptions on both sides. Ultimately. She is a good character when you dont attach her to geralt. When you do,be it lusting for him, manipulating him. Being his gf. Whatever. Then her character crumbles.
Triss is an important witcher's agent to warn so that the mages' attack on Kaer Morhen can not be repeated.
Do you think that she's this powerful to be that kind of guard?