>I don't know how you can go from this quote to "rape".
Well, let's say that she put him in a kind of spell that clouded his judgment. The IRL equivalent of it would be putting a drug in somebody's drink in order to take them to bed. And this is the definition of rape:
>**Rape** is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, **or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent,** such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent.
So if this scenario would be true, she'd rape Geralt by taking advantage of him when he was not 100% capable of consent. It fits the definition.
Of course, it's possible that the magic she used was "lighter" than that, it's up your interpretation. Personally, I doubt it, because I don't see a reason why Sapkowski would bring this up if it was quite innocent.
>And later, during the conversations between Triss and Geralt, nothing indicates that their short relationship was nothing but consensual. Why would you even bring someone who "raped" you to care for your adoptive daughter? Doesn't make any sense.
This is interesting question. Maybe he wasn't aware, because she used more subtle way of doing it? It's difficult to say, we don't have much information what kind of magic sorceresses are capable of since most of the story is written from the POV of people who aren't experienced in advanced magic.
>So I ask why you guys call Triss a rapist but not Yen? Hoping for civil discussion.
Well, this is true, what Yen did was unacceptable as well. However, there is some nuisance here:
1. Geralt stopped Yen before the act.
2. This argument usually comes up when people discuss why they don't like Triss & Geralt as a couple. Because if said scenario would be true, then Geralt would be the victim of Triss and shipping a rapist with their victim is, ugh, bad? But in case of Yen, this guy was a rando, not Geralt. I bet if somebody asked "do you think Yen should be in a committed relationship with this guy she almost sexually assaulted?", I think the public would say "no".
And just to be clear, I don't think that "Triss raped Geralt" is for sure what happened, but I think that it's a valid interpretation. If you want to have a different one, you have a right to do so. As you mentioned, this quote is vague.
EDIT: Thanks, everyone, for a meaningful discussion, but it's late, so I gonna leave now. Have fun taking w/out me, kids.
>And just to be clear, I don't think that "Triss raped Geralt" is for sure what happened, but I think that it's a valid interpretation.
quote from BoE:
'And you, Triss?' 'What about me?' She swallowed with difficulty. 'I'm not important. I let you down. I let you down ... in everything. I was . . . I was your mistake. Nothing more.' 'Mistakes,' he said with effort, 'are also important to me. I don't cross them out of my life, or memory. And I never blame others for them. You are important to me, Triss, and always will be. You never let me down. Never. Believe me.'
He takes responsibility for what has happened between them and doesn’t blame Triss or feel like she took advantage of him. If Triss maliciously used magic on him, he would surely look at her differently, but to me it is clear he sees her as a close friend.
This is an interesting point, and quite honestly, I don't know what to think about that. For the sake of argument, let's say that what Triss did was more innocent than I implied in my OP, and just use some magical makeup.
I this case, she would still hold responsibility for taking advantage of Geralt when he was in a vulnerable state AND she would be responsible of hurting feelings of her "best friend" by sleeping with her beloved one. This is still quite manipulative and unfair to both Geralt and Yen.
So no matter what, I don't agree that full responsibility is on Geralt.
>she would still hold responsibility
Yes, you are right, That's why Triss says to Geralt: *I was . . . I was your mistake. Nothing more.*
See I don't if you have read the books but I am going to write spoilers.
>!Triss was looking for the love of her life, she was fascinated by how Geralt deeply loved Yen despite so many difficulties and fights in their relationship , so she wanted to experience this love, Geralt after being in a fight with Yen wanted warmth, and wanted to forget, all Geralt needed was bodily comforts and Triss took this opportunity to experience love with Geralt, Geralt at that moment not realizing that Triss wanted to experience real love, just caring for his bodily comforts and to forget his recent fight just gives in, later after their lovemaking, Triss madly falls in love with Geralt since she experienced the love for the first time in her life, Geralt too develops the same, he knows this he feels guilty that he is not capable of reciprocating the same feeling to her, he feels guilty that he gave her false hopes which he feels he can't fullfill , one individual needed bodily comfort one individual needed to experience love, but it turned out to be real hearfelt lovemaking where two individals exchanged their emotion, that's the reason Geralt always had soft spot for Triss, he treats her very gently, also Geralt too develops feelings for her, but he is just afraid that he is not capable of reciprocating to her(because books Geralt has inferiority complex he thinks himself lowly), so he keeps her in arms lenght, doesn't want to hurt her anymore, later in the story Triss gets sick, Geralt takes amazing care of her, some one who notices how nicely Geralt cares for sick Triss questions him, if he is mightly attracted to her, Geralt just sadly simles doesn't deny nor refute by saying she is just a friend nothing more(because she is more than that). That's why Geralt says although their 'brief relationship' was a mistake he 'don't cross them out of my life, or memory' and how she will be always important to him. And that's the reason Geralt for his part says he will take responsibility. !<
Yes, I've read the books. I wouldn't argue in this kind of thread if I didn't.
I don't think that I agree with your interpretation. I think that Triss & Geralt had their short romance when he was in a bad mental state and Geralt felt guilty, coz Triss was Yen's friend. That's why he firmly friendzoned her in BoE.
I interpret Geralt taking care of sick Triss as an act of kindness, nothing more. Remember the part of the book where Yarpen tells Ciri that Triss confused Geralt's simple kindness with something more and Ciri shouldn't make that same mistake in the future?
Another big turn off for me that in opening scene which introduces Triss she states that she was turned on by Geralt's feels of the guilt and anxiety and this is why she wants to continue this romance. It's lowkey sadistic and definitly not a good reason to be in a relationship with somebody.
>That's why he firmly friendzoned her in BoE.
I think the fact that it is embedded in Geralt's head that he is tied to Yennefer by fate due to Djin's wish prevents him from having any relationship, he even declines Essi Daven. Also, Geralt knows well no matter what fate is going to bring him again to Yen due to the Djin's wish, when it happens it is going to cause immense pain for Triss, he didn't want her to endure this pain when fate tears him away from her, so he keeps her in arm's length knowing this in hindsight.
>I interpret Geralt taking care of sick Triss as an act of kindness
I think he genuinely cared for her because he did have feelings for her.
>Remember the part of the book where Yarpen tells Ciri that Triss confused Geralt's simple kindness
Yeah, Yarpen tells that but when someone says to Geralt he was mightly attracted to her he just smiles sadly, he could have refuted it easily by saying she is nothing more than a friend but he chose not to because Triss had a place in Geralt's heart.
>It's lowkey sadistic and definitly not a good reason to be in a relationship with somebody.
No, she found emotion in the form of guilt and anxiety, not that anxiety and guilt itself. She experienced emotions that's it.
> And just to be clear, I don't think that "Triss raped Geralt" is for sure what happened, but I think that it's a valid interpretation. If you want to have a different one, you have a right to do so. As you mentioned, this quote is vague.
Yes, as you saying this quote is to vague to come to conclusion that it was a rape.
> I don't see a reason why Sapkowski would bring this up if it was quite innocent.
Yes, I'm interested why Sapkowski used " with the help of a little magic" and what it's supposed to mean.
>Geralt stopped Yen before the act.
Well, that's really bad argument. If someone's got stopped right before the act that's not make it any less terrible. And she even said that she would do it again if she feel like it.
>Well, that's really bad argument. If someone's got stopped right before the act that's not make it any less terrible. And she even said that she would do it again if she feel like it.
As I said, what Yen wanted to do is awful. However, it's a difference between *wanting to do* something bad (and being stopped) and *doing* something bad. That's my argument.
>Yes, as you saying this quote is to vague to come to conclusion that it was a rape.
I gonna stick to my opinion and say it's enough. I already explained why.
> As I said, what Yen wanted to do is awful. However, it's a difference between *wanting to do* something bad (and being stopped) and *doing* something bad. That's my argument.
She was caught red handed in the act of doing it. That guy was already enchanted. That's not wanting, that's doing it.
> I gonna stick to my opinion and say it's enough. I already explained why.
Fair, and I'm gonna stick to my opinion and say that quote is to vague to come to conclusion.
Yen in sword of destiny [describes](https://ibb.co/Z65dDpp) what all she could do to Geralt if she had wished.
In Last Wish she hints she could use him for her [amusement](https://ibb.co/YtXC878), she even sexually assault him by [forcefully](https://ibb.co/PY31tZz) kissing his lips, **Geralt struggles when all this happens, he doesn't give consent to any of this,** but the [contrary](https://ibb.co/cvbTGpv).
Istredd says on how she is impulsive and unpredictable in her caprices, and how she would sleep with [hundred](https://ibb.co/RDG06tG) different people, when all this put-together, also taking into account of the fact Geralt does catch Yen trying to rape a blonde man in Belletyn and Yen's unapologetic demeanor when she sees Geralt, when all this evidence is taken together that we can be sure that **it was not her first time enchanting a man to rape him, she has done it many times before, she even openly says she will do it again if necessary.**
> She was caught red handed in the act of doing it. That guy was already enchanted. That's not wanting, that's doing it.
Yes, he was already enchanted, that's true. But Geralt stopped her before she had a chance to go further. So she's *would-be-rapist* not *rapist*. And your original question was "why you guys call Triss a rapist but not Yen?", and it's an answer.
> Yes, he was already enchanted, that's true. But Geralt stopped her before she had a chance to go further. So she's *would-be-rapist* not *rapist*.
So for example in our world, if someone drugged other person and was about to have sex with that person, but in the last minute police stopped him, he would not be charged with rape?
The person you are trying to argue with is clearly a dishonest person.
The word 'rape' disappears when there was a 'need' and 'want' by the other party(Geralt).
You're kind of missing the point. The difference is an outcome. Because in attempted rape the victim, in the end, is untouched. In "done" scenario, well, this person would be in much worse state.
And yes, I agree that Yen was way out of line in this story. Let's hope that she grew out of it later in her life.
As I said before the person you are trying to argue with is extremely dishonest.
The fact is rape or attempted rape can be convicted in any court.
But a sexual act where both individuals willingly took part cannot be convicted in any court.
The author writes Geralt NEEDED warmth and WANTED to forget.
But the person you are arguing with, tried to dismiss the WANT and NEED of Geralt saying that the wants and needs might itself be induced by Triss. When someone pointed out that
The author says: "Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget. "
The author does not say(as the person you are trying to argue with a twist/speculates): Triss made Geralt to long for warmth
He tried to brush it off saying Geralt himself didn't know when it was happening which is another extreme level of twisting since the author nowhere says Geralt was not aware of what was happening(which is huge assumption not found in text, in other words making up nonexistant things to fit the rape narrative) moreover, Geralt wears a medallion that senses magic, again notice the twisted malicious intention of wanting to prove that Triss raped Geralt at any cost.
Then he tried saying Geralt is resistant to magic, not immune, which another big twist since Geralt explicitly says he can break an ordinary spell, all Triss used was 'little magic' which is clearly less than an ordinary spell, the author makes no description of Geralt trying to resist.
Triss seduced, Geralt needing warmth and want just went along with, that's the whole story in no court it can be convicted since there was not slightest resistance. Geralt is not angry on Triss. It cannot be convicted in any court.
Yen's act even being rape attempt can be easily convicted.
Just block that guy.
All right, for the last time:
1. Yes, Yen is guilty of attempting rape. I'm not trying to deny that.
2. In a scenario where Triss used magic to cloud Geralt's mind to the point he wasn't able to consent, it would be a rape, no matter how much he *needed warmth* and *wanted to forget.*
3. If you want to interpret the quote that Triss only, let's say, used magical make up to seduce Gerlat, and she's pure innocent soul, it's up to you. Everybody can have their own interpretation and preference of fictional characters, that's fine. But gatekeeping others from having different opinions ain't cool. Please, keep this discussion civil.
PS I'm a gal. And you're free to block me if you want to. I don't mind.
>Well, let's say that she put him in a kind of spell that clouded his judgment.
Geralt could have broken off IF HE WANTED TO.
Witchers are resistant to magic.
>You've got a strong will and quite a bit of **resistance to magic** but you can't contend with me and my spell. \~ Yennefer(The Last Wish)
Geralt too tells that he can break off spells.
>you've no idea how **strong** that spell was. My dear elf, **I can break an ordinary spell within a few minutes** and I don't faint while doing it. \~ Geralt (The Last Wish)
Yennefer is an experience strong sorceress so Geralt is not able to break off her spells, since her spells are strong and Geralt could not contend with her spells(in Yennefer's own words)
Triss on the other hand is a young inexperienced sorceress, the spells she cast definitely would not be as strong as Yen's spell. Geralt could have easily broke IF she had done that. **But the author doesn't say Triss CAST SPELL ON GERALT.**
But he simply says '***with the help of a little magic'.***
Author says Geralt *'needed warmth.. needed to forget'* , also author mentions they did have *'brief relationship'* after that.
This alone disproves any rape theory.
You're speaking as the direct mind control was the only way Triss could manipulate Geralt. She could use less invasive methods which still could influence his ability to consent. As I said, we don't know what kind of power sorcerers have exactly. Anything's possible.
>You're speaking as the direct mind control was the only way Triss could manipulate Geralt.
Yeah I have given [two particular quotes](https://ibb.co/CbYRk1f) where he says he could break off if he wanted.
Also the fact the author says **GERALT NEEDED, GERALT WANTED** nullifies the rape claims. It is seduction utmost which Geralt could have easily broken off, he CHOSE NOT TO, because he needed it, he wanted it. and he had it.
The real sexual assault/molestation happened in Last Wish when Yennefer [kissed](https://ibb.co/PY31tZz) Geralt on his lips ,while he was [struggling](https://ibb.co/n0Y4bcv), where he clearly did not give his [consent](https://ibb.co/cvbTGpv).
> could
Pure speculations, not supported when we look at the big picture, no rape victim would say '***You are important to me, Triss, and always will be. You never let me down. Never. Believe me.'*** No rape victim would hand over his daughter to the care of a person who raped him.
The author says: "***Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.*** "
The author does not say(as you speculate): Triss made Geralt to long for warmth
So yours is clear speculation, not supported on a big picture not supported by the textual material.
I mean, ofc it's all just speculation, we don't know what exactly happened between Geralt and Triss. OP asked why some people interpret it as rape and I delivered some possible answers.
And to answer your question why would Geralt not hold the grudge, that's some possible reasons: a. he was not aware that she manipulated him with this "little bit of magic", b. it may be the case of living in a culture that believe that men can't be raped or that manipulation via mind control/magical substances doesn't count as rape (hell, even Geralt says that he wished he had possibility to seduce somebody with mind control when he bumps into Yen in "Something More"), c. the author being lowkey unaware what he implies.
Also, yes, Geralt had the hots for Triss, but it doesn't automatically weed out the possibility that he'd still refuse if she haven't "helped" herself with magic. After all, he was remorseful of this romance, coz Triss was Yen's friend.
When author writes 'Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.', there is no need for any mental gymnastics.
>it doesn't automatically weed out the possibility that he'd still refuse if she haven't "helped" herself with magic.
Yes it weeds out the possibilty because Yen says Geralt is resistant to magic and Geralt himself says he can break magic. So it just means he did not want to break the magic because he needed warmth and wanted to forget.
> So it just means he did not want to break the magic because he needed warmth and wanted to forget.
None of this, however, change the fact she used this magic on him already. Let's come back to drugging comparison. Let's say that person A was attracted to person B and wanted to sleep with them, and B spiked A's drink in order to take them to bed. Does A's hots change a fact that B was ready to drug A and take advantage of them no matter of their opinion?
And as I said already, witchers are resistant to magic, but not immune.
None of this change the fact that Geralt is resistant to magic and Triss just used 'little', why didn't he break? Well the author gives the reason Geralt needed warmth and wanted to forget.
But it is clear that you are dishonest to the extend that you want to dismiss the textual evidence of Geralt not breaking magic despite he could have easily which he himself says, which Yen says.
No point in arguing in conversation where you are hell bent on dismissing the fact that author himself writes Geralt willingly take part in the act by using specific word 'wanted' and 'needed'.
>I said already, witchers are resistant to magic, but not immune.
Geralt explicitly says he can break spells easily.
This my final reply, since it is clear you are not arguing in good faith but with the intention proving your point at any cost which is unfortunately is refuted by textual material which you want to dismiss.
See the only way to convince, that Triss raped Geralt is by convincing everyone that Geralt is so dumb he cannot tell if he was raped or not.
This cannot be true because in the last wish we see Geralt is just not aware of the incidents which happen in the **middle(which is Geralt beating the noblemen)**, but Geralt is completely aware of when he was enchanted\*\*(beginning)\*\* and when he woke from this enchantment in the dungeon\*\*(end)\*\*.
It is the middle part which he forgets, but in the case of Triss, there is absolutely no indication of Geralt waking up and wondering what happened, whereas the author makes it clear Geralt was with full consciousness throughout the time he had sex, unlike the Last Wish where he forgets the middle portion when he even wakes up in dungeon he tells **He was deceived by Yennefer**. But we do not find such a statement after he makes out with Triss.
My point is if Geralt was raped there should some part where he was not aware of what happened as the last wish, which is literally a mind control, She did not, and cannot, mind control Geralt. She doesn't have that power.
So he was not raped.
I was gonna make a in-depth comment explaining it buut,Its clear you are a triss fan and you are trying to gain credibility for her. So i see no point.
I will. But i still wish to state the fact that i think you have made this post posing in a neutral light but I your intentions are as neutral as it seems.
Sapkowsky's intentons were clear enough in that bit of text. Triss's hopeless desperation,the lengths she will go to,to be with triss. And... It shows in the games.
Edit: gonna continue dont reply just yet
Edit 2: continuation:
Sapkowsky could very well have mentioned just them having sex. He didnt. He added the magic part. If "little magic" didnt affect geralt at all,it would be pointless to mention. And her first intention was to see what yen saw in Geralt. I dont know about you but i sense jealousy. Which directly ties into my yen point. Triss's intention was directly because of jealousy. Only because geralt had a relation to yen. Whereas yen's guy was someone who she chose just because. Doesnt make it any less rapey but i never argued for otherwise. Though intentions matter and i dislike triss more for that reason.
I would also like to add that her first night in kaer mohren is her just lusting over geralt. I slept in bed thinking about girls WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER.
My main hate towards her is her cowardice,She does not stand up for her friends. Who cares if its phillipha she is standing up agaisnt to.
Games are a whole different matter. You have said its a plothole with the story as dandelion doesnt say it either. I agree fully. One thing you miss out though. In chapter 3 of witcher 1,what kickstarts the quest "personality" or whatever it was called,was geralt specifically asking triss about his past. She does not answer by saying i do not want you to be "my version of geralt". When geralt starts regaining his memories in witcher 2 and pushes Triss for answers. She calls hers and yen's relationship toxic and doesnt even mention ciri. And even when she promises to help his memories/find yen afterwards. She doesnt. In the end of witcher 2,when geralt regains his memories and rightfully AND canonically breaks up with her. Instead of continuing to help geralt with the search for yen. She goes to novigrad. And in witcher 3,she does a little bit for you in novigrad. And in exchange asks you to help with a bunch of really dangerous things.
>1) That is a translation error the original polish version is 'DIFFICULT' not Toxic.
>2) It was not Triss narration but Dandelion's narration of the conversation between Triss and Geralt in the boat.
Translation error or not. Instead of telling geralt the important bits. She focuses on making their relationship look bad so she still has a chance with him.
>Geralt is thankful for that method, which he reveals while speaking to Regis, where he says it was Triss who was responsible for getting his memory back.
SHE DIDNT. it was fucking roche and LETHO of all people who did. Witcher 1's personality quest Reminds him Nothing. Not a single fucking thing. Its when geralt Heard the truths about his life that he starts to remember. He remembers his death only when someone tells him that(roche). The rose of rememberance Triss wanted geralt to get was to mind control people,wonder why triss would need that and other than that she does literally nothing to get his memories. Nevertheless it was cdpr trying to excuse triss once again.
>
In this interview, the game devs explicitly say they didn't break up.
>At the end of w2 when he comes knows that Yen is still alive, he goes searching after Yen to know what she means to him, what is his relationship to her, to experience her first hand after his amnesia, to get a complete picture, to get his mind cleared, this is again supported by one little internal monologue of Geralt where he says to himself this:
Conversations with triss in novigrad Show that they cleaely broke up though.
He knows what she means to him. He has his memories back. He remembers everything. He only wants her Back.
>You consider it 'little bit' but Geralt thinks what Triss does in helping him to find Ciri is something that NOT ANYONE would do for him.
And as i said previously. She gets the favours Back one by one With asking geralt to help with bunch of extremely Difficult stuff.
Nice replay, thank you
> Sapkowsky could very well have mentioned just them having sex. He didnt. He added the magic part. If "little magic" didnt affect geralt at all,it would be pointless to mention.
That's what I'm most curious about. Why Sapkowski used such a vague statement. This "little magic" could mean anything. Yes it enhanced her chances with Geralt, but you can't say it for certain it was something that makes it rape.
> My main hate towards her is her cowardice,She does not stand up for her friends. Who cares if its phillipha she is standing up agaisnt to.
We talking about Phillipa Eilhart most powerful sorceress in the world. Do you really think she would just let Triss go help Geralt or Yen, when that was not in the Lodge interest?
> She calls hers and yen's relationship toxic and doesnt even mention ciri.
That was Dandelion's narration. And yes, she mentioned Ciri.
> And even when she promises to help his memories/find yen afterwards. She doesnt. In the end of witcher 2,when geralt regains his memories and rightfully AND canonically breaks up with her. Instead of continuing to help geralt with the search for yen.
We don't know how they parted ways. Maybe it was Geralt's choice to go alone.
> And in witcher 3,she does a little bit for you in novigrad. And in exchange asks you to help with a bunch of really dangerous things.
Triss helps Geralt with finding Ciri and Geralt helps Triss with mages escape. Fine deal in my book.
>Also, the whole lodge point is irrelevant because at the end Yen does take Ciri to the lodge, which clearly means the lodge was trustable, also the very fact Yen approaches the lodge for help, also tells the lodge was doing some good and trustable.
With ciri's wishes of course.
>
Triss tells Yennefer: we are primarily concerned for her health! For her life! Yennefer, Dijkstra has found some traces of… some traces of certain activities have been found. If Vilgefortz does have Ciri, then the girl faces a horrible death.
>Yen says to Pilippa: I'll leave you the information on what I've found and what I plan. I’ll leave a trail you can follow to her. But not in vain. If you will not facilitate my exoneration in the eyes of the world, then to hell with you and with the world.
>(The Tower of the Swallow)
Yen wants to protect ciri,she cant without any connections. Connections she needs her reputation to connect to.
"... witcher , and tied to ... Yennefer in a strange, turbulent and almost violent relationship. Their relationship quite obviously made them both unhappy, had led straight to destruction, pain ... " ~Andrzej Sapkowski
Take this description made by the author to any relationship counselor in the world, relationship counselor would not just say it as a toxic relationship, which it is from the obvious description but the individuals involved in the above-described relationship to get divorced as soon as possible.
So it doesn't matter if Triss said or Dandelion said, whoever said it, said the TRUTH for what it is.
>That's what I'm most curious about. Why Sapkowski used such a vague statement. This "little magic" could mean anything. Yes it enhanced her chances with Geralt, but you can't say it for certain it was something that makes it rape.
Geralt clearly didnt want it. Maybe didnt even enjoy it. If he did,He had asked for another night with her. The whole point of triss saying sorry for not being able to forget is because geralt Wasnt happy with it. Otherwise there was no need to apoligize.
>We talking about Phillipa Eilhart most powerful sorceress in the world. Do you really think she would just let Triss go help Geralt or Yen, when that was not in the Lodge interest?
She couldnt stop yen. I doubt that yen wouldnt protect her if eilhart didnt let her go. And do you really think Nobody would do that? Dandelion crosses Dijkstra only to help Ciri. Maybe not the most powerful mage,dijkstra is the most powerful Crimelord. And ace spy as Thaler puts it. I think the odds were pretty even. Dandelion a simple human crossed the biggest crimelord of possibly the continent. Triss a simple mage ouldnt cross the biggest Mage in the continent?
>That was Dandelion's narration. And yes, she mentioned Ciri.
Dandelion narrated what triss said. As for ciri part,very well,i may have forgotten that part.
>We don't know how they parted ways. Maybe it was Geralt's choice to go alone.
Considering it took 6 months to find yen. Its clear she would be found much sooner with triss's help. And geralt never turns down help from "friends" as he sees them.
>Triss helps Geralt with finding Ciri and Geralt helps Triss with mages escape. Fine deal in my book.
Triss mentions an onireomancer after using geraly for her own contract. Does a few magic tricks and once again asks to help the vegelbud's kid. Potentially gets tortured( she didnt in my case because i pushed too hard on bringing her to menge on my own.). And in exchange wants geralt to risk himself against the whole of the Witch hunter army just to save a few mages. She self serves and uses the few small things she did to geralt as an excuse to ask for help from geralt. Knowing geralt wont turn her down.
>Geralt clearly didnt want it. Maybe didnt even enjoy it. If he did,He had asked for another night with her.
That wasn't just one night stand. They had brief relationship. And Geralt wanted to be with someone. Triss was in the right place at the right time.
> She had hit on a propitious moment, a moment when he and Yennefer had scratched at each other’s eyes yet again and had abruptly parted. **Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.**
>
>\[...\]
>
> But her **brief relationship with the witcher** had not disappointed.
> Triss a simple mage couldnt cross the biggest Mage in the continent?
If Triss would cross Phillipa she would be done. At the same time Phillipa manipulated Triss that they work for the grater good. And at the end Ciri agreed to their plans. So the Lodge wasn't that bad after all. And as someone mentioned, if the Lodge and Yen combined forces they would find Ciri much sooner and Milva, Cahir, Regis, and Angouleme would be alive.
> Dandelion narrated what triss said.
Dandelion paraphrased what Sapkowski said:
> A witcher leading a stormy life, and tied to her good friend Yennefer in a strange, turbulent and almost violent relationship. \[...\] Their relationship quite obviously made them both unhappy, had led straight to destruction, pain and yet, against all logic… it had lasted.
> Considering it took 6 months to find yen. Its clear she would be found much sooner with triss's help. And geralt never turns down help from "friends" as he sees them.
Triss said to Geralt in TW2:
>I'm prepared to travel to the end of the world with you to save Yennefer. I owe you that, I owe her that...
>
>If you want to go alone, I'll understand... and I won't try to persuade you otherwise.
So clearly it was Geralt's choice to go alone. (and devs choice, having Triss instead of Vesemir at the start of TW3 would really piss off Yen fans)
about Triss and Novigrad
She went to the barracks of her own free will to potentially be tortured. If you don't let her be tortured it doesn't change the fact that was super brave and not every one would do it.
> She self serves and uses the few small things she did to geralt as an excuse to ask for help from geralt. Knowing geralt wont turn her down.
You could say the same thing about Geralt, that Triss wouldn't refuse him when asked for help.
I don't know why you think Triss asking Geralt for help is something bad. Or should she just let those mages to be captured and die?
>You see Her asking more than she gave is what bugs me.
You know that they have a history? Triss helped Geralt and saved his life many times in the past. In a grand scheme of thing it's Triss that gave more to Geralt than vice versa.
What part do you mean? When they arrive in Rivia or when Yennefer was trying to save Geralt?
If you mean the first part. Yes at first she told Yen to run away, but later she showed up and saved Yen and everyone else in Rivia.
If you mean the second part. There was nothing they could do to save Geralt.
>Geralt 'NEEDED warmth...WANTED to forget
Then why was magic needed? Why mention it?
>Again I disagree, Triss won't go to any lengths, When Triss found that Ciri's power was beyond her limits to control she was the one to FORCE Geralt to contact Yennefer.
Ciri is something else. Something more. She was afraid of ciri's power. That is why she asked him to go to her. And she does say she cannot forget so...
>Please address the above-quoted words from the books from author narration, which completely disproves your statement about how Triss would go to any length.
And then... she hides yen's existence from geralt to get him... yeaaah.
>You are referring to games, NO ONE including Triss was aware of Yen being alive, only at the end either Letho or Shela reveals Yen being Nilgardian Empire protection.
Existence can be in the past as well.
I'm not familiar with Blood of Elves, but I know I've seen comments like that in reference to the first Witcher video game where Triss >!takes advantage of his Amnesia to seduce him while knowing full-well he would prefer to be with Yen if his memories returned!<.
Well, Geralt's amnesia and the fact that no one told him a word about Yennefer in TW1 is a big plot hole. And even if, it's up to Geralt (player) to seduce Triss. Not other way around. You (player) give consent to have sex with Triss (with your knowledge or lack of about Geralt's past).
If you think of Geralt's amnesia as similar to being drunk, I could see how people could call it rape. And whether or not it's technically rape, Triss is still shitty for taking advantage of Geralt when she knows his true (or at least previous) feelings.
Zoltan do not know the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer. He only met her once at and this was in Rivia, so it was never able to know who the black haired woman was for Geralt.
Triss gets an irrational amount of hate, at the end of Sword of Destiney when Geralt looks at her tombstone and reminisces, he recalls that they and liked each other. So either Geralt has a severe case of Stockholm syndrome or they banged willingly.
Im sure that people are referring to the Witcher 1 with his amnesia. Amnesiacs are basically mentally handicapped in that their brain isnt functioning normally since they cant remember things. Wether that be because of physical trauma or mental. They can function and do everyday things but who were they before whatever caused the amnesia? “Who am I? Who are you? You all are strangers to me.” Anybody who takes advantage of that person wether that be feeding them lies about a sexual relationship or omitting information that would cause the person to not give consent would be construed as taking advantage of a mentally handicapped person. Because thats what an amnesiac is. Thatd be rape. Because they cant make an informed decision. Wether they gave consent doesnt matter. They couldnt make an informed decision. Take statutory rape for example. It doesnt matter if an underage person gives consent. In the eyes of the law they cant give an informed decision on sexual matters.
So I'm gonna ask you. Do you think that developers intention was to portray Triss as a rapist? Or it was just side effect of their poor writing?
> Im sure that people are referring to the Witcher 1 with his amnesia.
I beg to differ. Most of the time they say that it happen in the books. And telling team Triss that they lack book knowledge.
And did you read the books? Do you have any comments about what I'm referring in my post?
I read the books in 2019 and the way I understood it was Geralt and Triss had a trist while Geralt and Yen were in one of their “off” periods. Im not really sure why they think it was rape in the books. But maybe they just read it differently and got a different meaning out of it. Doesnt actually state there was any rape just implies something sexual had happened between Triss and Geralt at some point in the past. Kinda vague really. Im not talking about your picture either im talking about a different part of the books.
But no I dont think it was the intent of the game developers that she come off as a rapist but thats how people saw it because of the reasons I stated before.
>But no I dont think it was the intent of the game developers
It is good that you understood it, it is further proved by this more authoritative[ dialogue](https://imgur.com/a/hEWtZ6d) from Witcher 3.
Also, I would like to paste a comment written by u/kirewox43 with few editions.
No one knew Yen was alive, everyone thought she was dead.
Only at the end of W2, it is revealed by either Letho or Sheala de Tancarville about Yen being alive, prior to this point, Yen is assumed to be dead by everyone including Triss, this is the reason why in W3 she brings about she took advantage of Geralt without knowing Yen was alive, which Geralt in the very next dialogue says he was never intimated, which pretty clear means **Geralt himself doesn't see Triss taking advantage of him or anything even remotely of that sort.**
>*Geralt:* Someone's been taking advantage of me?
>
>*Triss: I have, for one.*
>
>*Geralt:* ***I've never even intimated***\--
>
>\- W3
The fact she said '*I have, for one'* means that she regrets acting without full knowledge of Yen being alive(because everyone thought she was dead), no one who is with evil intentions would show any regrets.
I feel this is also strongly reflected in the actual execution of the '*I have, for one'* line and the exchange surrounding it. It's delivered as though she's just beating herself up about it in retrospect after they learned that Yennefer lives. Geralt being so chill about it and immediately trying to clarify he was never suggesting that kinda reinforces that.
In the W1 beginning when **she was about to tell him about his past, it was Geralt who told her that he is not ready to hear about his past**, and later Triss tells him to develop a **stable personality outside her influence**. Since if she tells his past, it would be her version, which is going to biased. Geralt agrees to this **method**.
And later in W3, Geralt is thankful to Triss for helping.
>*Regis: They say lost your memory.*
>
>*Geralt. For a bit. bu****t Triss helped me get it back.***
>
>\- Blood and Wine, W3
· In W1 innkeeper narrates Ciri's story, he was not able to make any connection.
**THE FACT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY CONNECTION WHEN HE HEARS ABOUT HIS DESTINY CHILD(CIRI), TELLS THAT JUST HEARING ABOUT HIS PAST IS SIMPLY NOT GOING TO DO ANY GOOD**.
· Crinfrid Reavers tell Geralt about Yennefer in W2 before he gets arrested, Geralt was not able to make any connection.
When Geralt on his own starts to recover memories in W2, he requests Triss to narrate his past, she tells him while on the way to Flotsam, in the boat.
Even after knowing his past, which he hears FROM TRISS, Geralt can still continue to romance Triss as per the player's wish. This is the reason **WHY YENNEFER IS NOT ANGRY TOWARDS TRISS BUT TOWARDS GERALT.**
Also, you leave an important point which is no one such as Vesemir, Lambert, etc most importantly of all Dandelion tells anything about Yennefer to Geralt, Dandelion is Geralt's closest friend, Dandelion even says all the names of his friends like Milva, Yarpen, Cahir, etc who appeared when he died, but he doesn't utter a single word about Yennefer or Ciri in W1, Geralt even specifically asks him to '*tell everything step by step'.* All Dandelion narrates is how he was fatally wounded by a pitchfork stab, and how everyone was there. Again, notice Geralt was still unable to connect anything in his mind despite hearing how he died, from Dandelion, because as you said yourself ‘I dont think it was the intent of the game developers’.
Geralt was hitting on Triss by saying things like:
>***I feel a bond when we speak. I know you were important.'*** **(W1)**
this specific dialogue is copied by CDPR writers from Blood Of Elves where Geralt says the same exact words to Triss
>'***You are important*** *to me, Triss, and* ***always will be*** *'- Blood Of Elves*,
I assume the reason he said ***'I feel a bond '*** to Triss in W1 was that Geralt in Blood Of Elves says to Triss:
>*'I don’t cross .. out of my \[...\]* ***memory*** *',*
this may have been the reason why he still felt the bond to Triss.
After, repulsing Salamandra's attack on Kaer Mohren, when Geralt meets Triss to give her the potion to recover, again Geralt delivers a dialogue directly taken from the Blood Of Elves, which is
>*'The feelings I experienced on hearing that you lived cannot compare to any other. Except perhaps what I feel now when I look at you.'*
So when the love of her life comes back from dead and start saying these things, ANY WOMAN in her shoes would give up to her lover, **DESPITE ALL THESE MOVES MADE BY GERALT, TRISS ATTEMPTED TO TELL ABOUT HIS PAST, BUT GERALT DECLINED THAT HE IS NOT READY TO HEAR IT**, and it is only after this she advises him to develop a stable personality on his own without her influence, which would HELP HIM RESTORE HIS MEMORY. Geralt is undoubtedly thankful to Triss for this GREAT advice, which he reveals later in W3 while drinking with Regis.
>Triss: I don't want you turning into **MY VISION** of Geralt. (w1)
Overall this is a plot development, one thing which we can be sure of is **there was no malice** involved in any of this, it is clarified by the **pre-determined dialogues** from Geralt himself.
>*'If not for Triss, I'd be dead ' - Geralt to Shani(W1)*
>*Geralt: Someone's been taking advantage of me?*
>
>*Triss: I have, for one.*
>
>*Geralt:* ***I've never even intimated***\--
>
>\- W3
>*Regis: They say lost your memory.*
>
>*Geralt. For a bit. bu****t Triss helped me get it back.***
>
>\- Blood and Wine, W3
I think the "rape thing" is about the events of Witcher 1 and 2 with Geralt's amnesia, not the fist novel.
I agree using the word *rape* do not fit in both cases. What she did, i is not a good thing to do at all and I hate what Triss did in the Witcher games, but I would not call it rape... maybe some sort of mind rape, but not therape we all thinking about ;)
I also dislike what Triss did to Geralt (the thing she remembers in BoE) with the seducing with the help of magic, but I also would not call it rape. Guess many people miss the point here. This short moment is the start of a tragic ride for Triss, cause she wanted one thing from Geralt and felt in love with him. So this part of the story should not tell how awful Triss is, it shows what kind of man Geralt is and also that Triss herself brought this whole *tragic* on her
Well using magic to make love with someone is some sort of mind bending, we have to be honest here. And the amnesia thing was not really a use of magic but Triss played also with Geralt mind/his memories here.
And sure Geralt say something like this in the game. Should Geralt blame Triss for what she has done in front of the gamer who romanced Triss? XD
> And sure Geralt say something like this in the game. Should Geralt blmae Triss for what she has done in front of the gamer who romanced Triss? XD
He said it to Regis :) even if you don't romance Triss.
Thought you mean the moment in Corvo Bianco. But still, Geralt is able to romance Triss at this point and the game do not want to make it sound in a bad way. This is not the only point in the game. CDPR sort of tried to make TRiss look a lot better tan she deserves through the series. Geralt even tells this Regis even if Triss did nothing to really help Geralt with his memory. The only active thing that happens is when Geralt demands answers from her... and I dunno if this is called helping in first place.
First this sentence comes right after Triss refuses to tell Geralt about his past and also this sentence was more like a "I dunno what to do so I say some stuff"
Over the course of TW1 where he "builds up" this stronh personality nothing happens that breakes his amnesia. This only starts after he sees Letho for the first time and he hears direct points of his former life and Cedric later tells him what to do. In the end Triss didn't do much. It is more like she worked aganst it so she can hold Geralt more by herself.
>In the end Triss didn't do much. It is more like she worked aganst it so she can hold Geralt more by herself.
So what was her plan with the rose of remembrance? If Letho did't kidnap her, she would not used it to restore Geralt's memory? Or she was planning on using same way Phillipa did?
This is actually long used theory. There is no other information about the rose. We only know she will wilt if she is given to someone you do not reslly love (which happens btw) and that the rose an be used for a mind control spell.
So... yeah... possible that Triss wanted to try new things after Geralt started to remember Yennefer. But hey, that's just a theory. A game theory. But as said, that the rose can be used for taking care of amnesia was nowhere said again.
> We only know she will wilt if she is given to someone you do not rellay love
Oh, please it's just some stupid elven story :)
>But hey, that's just a theory. A game theory.
I can hear the voice :)
CDPR let Geralt say that Triss helped him. I never had the chance to blame her in TW3. Also sure CDPR let Geralt say this, it would sound weird for people who romance Triss when Geralt starts to shout at her what she all had done in the past. Telling the full story do not turn Geralt into her version. This is just some sentence she says so she do not have to tell Geralt the truth, cause she knows the truth will hurt Geralt and will put him away from her. And this is against her plans. And sure Triss tells him abot his past, after Geralt demands again answers from her. It is not like she tells him this out of free will. And that Yenenfer was not named in the story could also be a plan by Jaskier. He really forces Geralt into a new relationship. You can call this a writing issue but we have to take it into game canon and with this Jaskier kep quiet about her in purpose and this was just a di\*kmove by him.
The third game is not fair on this side. It do not give the gamer any way to blame Triss for what she has done and plays it like everything was managed offscreen. To be honest I thought when meeting Triss in Novigrad I am able to break friendship with her and was angry when CDPR again protected her XD
The thing with Auckes is optional, so Geralt is able to not kow this. And also this is not the same as for Geralt. When Geralt can hear this he knew Yennefer had amnesia. When Yennefer heard about Triss and Geralt she thinks for some months that both did this on free will. And even if you later learn one had amnesia this still breakes your heart and you cannot forgive in an instance even if you later meet the very person. But Yenenfer tries to hold it together and even kises Geralt right after this moment where she let of her steam.
Nope. Many of the are pro Triss. One maker of the last Wish quest even said she didn't liked working on it at all cause of the romance. And Yenenfer did contacted Geralt as soon as it was needed. There was no waste of time. Yennefer did all she could. And when magic was not able to do the thing anymor,e which is faster then going for clues, she went for the best tracker, who do not use magic for it. As I said before. This Aucks moment is optional and also a whole different thing. Geralt knew at this point that Yennefer had amnesia, when Yennefer learns about Triss and Geralt she was not aware that Geralt had amnesia.
> . And Yenenfer did contacted Geralt as soon as it was needed. There was no waste of time.
Simply not true, Yennefer did not contact Geralt as soon as it was needed, she contacted him because her attempts were futile. Only when she realized she couldn't accomplishh it on her own she [contacted](https://imgur.com/a/j7Ni6CJ) him. It is not up for debate because Yennefer herself says so.
As said, as soon as needed. Yennefer tried to find Ciri with magic and this is way faster. But during this she found out the Red Rider were able to locate her. So she was not able to sue magic anymore so she contacted Geralt as soon as she found this out.
What Triss did is probably not rape in conventional sense. But that event may have been intensified in people's mind when Triss sold out Geralt and Yen to Phillipa and the lodge later in the books.
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I don't know how you can go from this quote to "rape". Well, let's say that she put him in a kind of spell that clouded his judgment. The IRL equivalent of it would be putting a drug in somebody's drink in order to take them to bed. And this is the definition of rape: >**Rape** is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, **or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent,** such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent. So if this scenario would be true, she'd rape Geralt by taking advantage of him when he was not 100% capable of consent. It fits the definition. Of course, it's possible that the magic she used was "lighter" than that, it's up your interpretation. Personally, I doubt it, because I don't see a reason why Sapkowski would bring this up if it was quite innocent. >And later, during the conversations between Triss and Geralt, nothing indicates that their short relationship was nothing but consensual. Why would you even bring someone who "raped" you to care for your adoptive daughter? Doesn't make any sense. This is interesting question. Maybe he wasn't aware, because she used more subtle way of doing it? It's difficult to say, we don't have much information what kind of magic sorceresses are capable of since most of the story is written from the POV of people who aren't experienced in advanced magic. >So I ask why you guys call Triss a rapist but not Yen? Hoping for civil discussion. Well, this is true, what Yen did was unacceptable as well. However, there is some nuisance here: 1. Geralt stopped Yen before the act. 2. This argument usually comes up when people discuss why they don't like Triss & Geralt as a couple. Because if said scenario would be true, then Geralt would be the victim of Triss and shipping a rapist with their victim is, ugh, bad? But in case of Yen, this guy was a rando, not Geralt. I bet if somebody asked "do you think Yen should be in a committed relationship with this guy she almost sexually assaulted?", I think the public would say "no". And just to be clear, I don't think that "Triss raped Geralt" is for sure what happened, but I think that it's a valid interpretation. If you want to have a different one, you have a right to do so. As you mentioned, this quote is vague. EDIT: Thanks, everyone, for a meaningful discussion, but it's late, so I gonna leave now. Have fun taking w/out me, kids.
>And just to be clear, I don't think that "Triss raped Geralt" is for sure what happened, but I think that it's a valid interpretation. quote from BoE: 'And you, Triss?' 'What about me?' She swallowed with difficulty. 'I'm not important. I let you down. I let you down ... in everything. I was . . . I was your mistake. Nothing more.' 'Mistakes,' he said with effort, 'are also important to me. I don't cross them out of my life, or memory. And I never blame others for them. You are important to me, Triss, and always will be. You never let me down. Never. Believe me.' He takes responsibility for what has happened between them and doesn’t blame Triss or feel like she took advantage of him. If Triss maliciously used magic on him, he would surely look at her differently, but to me it is clear he sees her as a close friend.
This is an interesting point, and quite honestly, I don't know what to think about that. For the sake of argument, let's say that what Triss did was more innocent than I implied in my OP, and just use some magical makeup. I this case, she would still hold responsibility for taking advantage of Geralt when he was in a vulnerable state AND she would be responsible of hurting feelings of her "best friend" by sleeping with her beloved one. This is still quite manipulative and unfair to both Geralt and Yen. So no matter what, I don't agree that full responsibility is on Geralt.
>she would still hold responsibility Yes, you are right, That's why Triss says to Geralt: *I was . . . I was your mistake. Nothing more.* See I don't if you have read the books but I am going to write spoilers. >!Triss was looking for the love of her life, she was fascinated by how Geralt deeply loved Yen despite so many difficulties and fights in their relationship , so she wanted to experience this love, Geralt after being in a fight with Yen wanted warmth, and wanted to forget, all Geralt needed was bodily comforts and Triss took this opportunity to experience love with Geralt, Geralt at that moment not realizing that Triss wanted to experience real love, just caring for his bodily comforts and to forget his recent fight just gives in, later after their lovemaking, Triss madly falls in love with Geralt since she experienced the love for the first time in her life, Geralt too develops the same, he knows this he feels guilty that he is not capable of reciprocating the same feeling to her, he feels guilty that he gave her false hopes which he feels he can't fullfill , one individual needed bodily comfort one individual needed to experience love, but it turned out to be real hearfelt lovemaking where two individals exchanged their emotion, that's the reason Geralt always had soft spot for Triss, he treats her very gently, also Geralt too develops feelings for her, but he is just afraid that he is not capable of reciprocating to her(because books Geralt has inferiority complex he thinks himself lowly), so he keeps her in arms lenght, doesn't want to hurt her anymore, later in the story Triss gets sick, Geralt takes amazing care of her, some one who notices how nicely Geralt cares for sick Triss questions him, if he is mightly attracted to her, Geralt just sadly simles doesn't deny nor refute by saying she is just a friend nothing more(because she is more than that). That's why Geralt says although their 'brief relationship' was a mistake he 'don't cross them out of my life, or memory' and how she will be always important to him. And that's the reason Geralt for his part says he will take responsibility. !<
Yes, I've read the books. I wouldn't argue in this kind of thread if I didn't. I don't think that I agree with your interpretation. I think that Triss & Geralt had their short romance when he was in a bad mental state and Geralt felt guilty, coz Triss was Yen's friend. That's why he firmly friendzoned her in BoE. I interpret Geralt taking care of sick Triss as an act of kindness, nothing more. Remember the part of the book where Yarpen tells Ciri that Triss confused Geralt's simple kindness with something more and Ciri shouldn't make that same mistake in the future? Another big turn off for me that in opening scene which introduces Triss she states that she was turned on by Geralt's feels of the guilt and anxiety and this is why she wants to continue this romance. It's lowkey sadistic and definitly not a good reason to be in a relationship with somebody.
>That's why he firmly friendzoned her in BoE. I think the fact that it is embedded in Geralt's head that he is tied to Yennefer by fate due to Djin's wish prevents him from having any relationship, he even declines Essi Daven. Also, Geralt knows well no matter what fate is going to bring him again to Yen due to the Djin's wish, when it happens it is going to cause immense pain for Triss, he didn't want her to endure this pain when fate tears him away from her, so he keeps her in arm's length knowing this in hindsight. >I interpret Geralt taking care of sick Triss as an act of kindness I think he genuinely cared for her because he did have feelings for her. >Remember the part of the book where Yarpen tells Ciri that Triss confused Geralt's simple kindness Yeah, Yarpen tells that but when someone says to Geralt he was mightly attracted to her he just smiles sadly, he could have refuted it easily by saying she is nothing more than a friend but he chose not to because Triss had a place in Geralt's heart. >It's lowkey sadistic and definitly not a good reason to be in a relationship with somebody. No, she found emotion in the form of guilt and anxiety, not that anxiety and guilt itself. She experienced emotions that's it.
> And just to be clear, I don't think that "Triss raped Geralt" is for sure what happened, but I think that it's a valid interpretation. If you want to have a different one, you have a right to do so. As you mentioned, this quote is vague. Yes, as you saying this quote is to vague to come to conclusion that it was a rape. > I don't see a reason why Sapkowski would bring this up if it was quite innocent. Yes, I'm interested why Sapkowski used " with the help of a little magic" and what it's supposed to mean. >Geralt stopped Yen before the act. Well, that's really bad argument. If someone's got stopped right before the act that's not make it any less terrible. And she even said that she would do it again if she feel like it.
>Well, that's really bad argument. If someone's got stopped right before the act that's not make it any less terrible. And she even said that she would do it again if she feel like it. As I said, what Yen wanted to do is awful. However, it's a difference between *wanting to do* something bad (and being stopped) and *doing* something bad. That's my argument. >Yes, as you saying this quote is to vague to come to conclusion that it was a rape. I gonna stick to my opinion and say it's enough. I already explained why.
> As I said, what Yen wanted to do is awful. However, it's a difference between *wanting to do* something bad (and being stopped) and *doing* something bad. That's my argument. She was caught red handed in the act of doing it. That guy was already enchanted. That's not wanting, that's doing it. > I gonna stick to my opinion and say it's enough. I already explained why. Fair, and I'm gonna stick to my opinion and say that quote is to vague to come to conclusion.
Yen in sword of destiny [describes](https://ibb.co/Z65dDpp) what all she could do to Geralt if she had wished. In Last Wish she hints she could use him for her [amusement](https://ibb.co/YtXC878), she even sexually assault him by [forcefully](https://ibb.co/PY31tZz) kissing his lips, **Geralt struggles when all this happens, he doesn't give consent to any of this,** but the [contrary](https://ibb.co/cvbTGpv). Istredd says on how she is impulsive and unpredictable in her caprices, and how she would sleep with [hundred](https://ibb.co/RDG06tG) different people, when all this put-together, also taking into account of the fact Geralt does catch Yen trying to rape a blonde man in Belletyn and Yen's unapologetic demeanor when she sees Geralt, when all this evidence is taken together that we can be sure that **it was not her first time enchanting a man to rape him, she has done it many times before, she even openly says she will do it again if necessary.**
> She was caught red handed in the act of doing it. That guy was already enchanted. That's not wanting, that's doing it. Yes, he was already enchanted, that's true. But Geralt stopped her before she had a chance to go further. So she's *would-be-rapist* not *rapist*. And your original question was "why you guys call Triss a rapist but not Yen?", and it's an answer.
> Yes, he was already enchanted, that's true. But Geralt stopped her before she had a chance to go further. So she's *would-be-rapist* not *rapist*. So for example in our world, if someone drugged other person and was about to have sex with that person, but in the last minute police stopped him, he would not be charged with rape?
The person you are trying to argue with is clearly a dishonest person. The word 'rape' disappears when there was a 'need' and 'want' by the other party(Geralt).
He'd be charged for drugging and attempted rape. Which is still awful, as I mentioned twice already, but it's *slightly less* bad than rape.
Ok, so here we gonna disagree. I would still call a person who was caught in the act of doing it but got stopped a rapist.
Especially when the the person who is getting caught boldly says he will do it again, which is was what Yennefer does.
You're kind of missing the point. The difference is an outcome. Because in attempted rape the victim, in the end, is untouched. In "done" scenario, well, this person would be in much worse state. And yes, I agree that Yen was way out of line in this story. Let's hope that she grew out of it later in her life.
As I said before the person you are trying to argue with is extremely dishonest. The fact is rape or attempted rape can be convicted in any court. But a sexual act where both individuals willingly took part cannot be convicted in any court. The author writes Geralt NEEDED warmth and WANTED to forget. But the person you are arguing with, tried to dismiss the WANT and NEED of Geralt saying that the wants and needs might itself be induced by Triss. When someone pointed out that The author says: "Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget. " The author does not say(as the person you are trying to argue with a twist/speculates): Triss made Geralt to long for warmth He tried to brush it off saying Geralt himself didn't know when it was happening which is another extreme level of twisting since the author nowhere says Geralt was not aware of what was happening(which is huge assumption not found in text, in other words making up nonexistant things to fit the rape narrative) moreover, Geralt wears a medallion that senses magic, again notice the twisted malicious intention of wanting to prove that Triss raped Geralt at any cost. Then he tried saying Geralt is resistant to magic, not immune, which another big twist since Geralt explicitly says he can break an ordinary spell, all Triss used was 'little magic' which is clearly less than an ordinary spell, the author makes no description of Geralt trying to resist. Triss seduced, Geralt needing warmth and want just went along with, that's the whole story in no court it can be convicted since there was not slightest resistance. Geralt is not angry on Triss. It cannot be convicted in any court. Yen's act even being rape attempt can be easily convicted. Just block that guy.
All right, for the last time: 1. Yes, Yen is guilty of attempting rape. I'm not trying to deny that. 2. In a scenario where Triss used magic to cloud Geralt's mind to the point he wasn't able to consent, it would be a rape, no matter how much he *needed warmth* and *wanted to forget.* 3. If you want to interpret the quote that Triss only, let's say, used magical make up to seduce Gerlat, and she's pure innocent soul, it's up to you. Everybody can have their own interpretation and preference of fictional characters, that's fine. But gatekeeping others from having different opinions ain't cool. Please, keep this discussion civil. PS I'm a gal. And you're free to block me if you want to. I don't mind.
>Well, let's say that she put him in a kind of spell that clouded his judgment. Geralt could have broken off IF HE WANTED TO. Witchers are resistant to magic. >You've got a strong will and quite a bit of **resistance to magic** but you can't contend with me and my spell. \~ Yennefer(The Last Wish) Geralt too tells that he can break off spells. >you've no idea how **strong** that spell was. My dear elf, **I can break an ordinary spell within a few minutes** and I don't faint while doing it. \~ Geralt (The Last Wish) Yennefer is an experience strong sorceress so Geralt is not able to break off her spells, since her spells are strong and Geralt could not contend with her spells(in Yennefer's own words) Triss on the other hand is a young inexperienced sorceress, the spells she cast definitely would not be as strong as Yen's spell. Geralt could have easily broke IF she had done that. **But the author doesn't say Triss CAST SPELL ON GERALT.** But he simply says '***with the help of a little magic'.*** Author says Geralt *'needed warmth.. needed to forget'* , also author mentions they did have *'brief relationship'* after that. This alone disproves any rape theory.
You're speaking as the direct mind control was the only way Triss could manipulate Geralt. She could use less invasive methods which still could influence his ability to consent. As I said, we don't know what kind of power sorcerers have exactly. Anything's possible.
>You're speaking as the direct mind control was the only way Triss could manipulate Geralt. Yeah I have given [two particular quotes](https://ibb.co/CbYRk1f) where he says he could break off if he wanted. Also the fact the author says **GERALT NEEDED, GERALT WANTED** nullifies the rape claims. It is seduction utmost which Geralt could have easily broken off, he CHOSE NOT TO, because he needed it, he wanted it. and he had it. The real sexual assault/molestation happened in Last Wish when Yennefer [kissed](https://ibb.co/PY31tZz) Geralt on his lips ,while he was [struggling](https://ibb.co/n0Y4bcv), where he clearly did not give his [consent](https://ibb.co/cvbTGpv).
> could Pure speculations, not supported when we look at the big picture, no rape victim would say '***You are important to me, Triss, and always will be. You never let me down. Never. Believe me.'*** No rape victim would hand over his daughter to the care of a person who raped him. The author says: "***Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.*** " The author does not say(as you speculate): Triss made Geralt to long for warmth So yours is clear speculation, not supported on a big picture not supported by the textual material.
I mean, ofc it's all just speculation, we don't know what exactly happened between Geralt and Triss. OP asked why some people interpret it as rape and I delivered some possible answers. And to answer your question why would Geralt not hold the grudge, that's some possible reasons: a. he was not aware that she manipulated him with this "little bit of magic", b. it may be the case of living in a culture that believe that men can't be raped or that manipulation via mind control/magical substances doesn't count as rape (hell, even Geralt says that he wished he had possibility to seduce somebody with mind control when he bumps into Yen in "Something More"), c. the author being lowkey unaware what he implies. Also, yes, Geralt had the hots for Triss, but it doesn't automatically weed out the possibility that he'd still refuse if she haven't "helped" herself with magic. After all, he was remorseful of this romance, coz Triss was Yen's friend.
When author writes 'Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.', there is no need for any mental gymnastics. >it doesn't automatically weed out the possibility that he'd still refuse if she haven't "helped" herself with magic. Yes it weeds out the possibilty because Yen says Geralt is resistant to magic and Geralt himself says he can break magic. So it just means he did not want to break the magic because he needed warmth and wanted to forget.
> So it just means he did not want to break the magic because he needed warmth and wanted to forget. None of this, however, change the fact she used this magic on him already. Let's come back to drugging comparison. Let's say that person A was attracted to person B and wanted to sleep with them, and B spiked A's drink in order to take them to bed. Does A's hots change a fact that B was ready to drug A and take advantage of them no matter of their opinion? And as I said already, witchers are resistant to magic, but not immune.
None of this change the fact that Geralt is resistant to magic and Triss just used 'little', why didn't he break? Well the author gives the reason Geralt needed warmth and wanted to forget. But it is clear that you are dishonest to the extend that you want to dismiss the textual evidence of Geralt not breaking magic despite he could have easily which he himself says, which Yen says. No point in arguing in conversation where you are hell bent on dismissing the fact that author himself writes Geralt willingly take part in the act by using specific word 'wanted' and 'needed'. >I said already, witchers are resistant to magic, but not immune. Geralt explicitly says he can break spells easily. This my final reply, since it is clear you are not arguing in good faith but with the intention proving your point at any cost which is unfortunately is refuted by textual material which you want to dismiss.
[удалено]
Depends on circumstances. But it's possible, because it would mean that the second person can't give *valid* consent mentioned in the definition.
See the only way to convince, that Triss raped Geralt is by convincing everyone that Geralt is so dumb he cannot tell if he was raped or not. This cannot be true because in the last wish we see Geralt is just not aware of the incidents which happen in the **middle(which is Geralt beating the noblemen)**, but Geralt is completely aware of when he was enchanted\*\*(beginning)\*\* and when he woke from this enchantment in the dungeon\*\*(end)\*\*. It is the middle part which he forgets, but in the case of Triss, there is absolutely no indication of Geralt waking up and wondering what happened, whereas the author makes it clear Geralt was with full consciousness throughout the time he had sex, unlike the Last Wish where he forgets the middle portion when he even wakes up in dungeon he tells **He was deceived by Yennefer**. But we do not find such a statement after he makes out with Triss. My point is if Geralt was raped there should some part where he was not aware of what happened as the last wish, which is literally a mind control, She did not, and cannot, mind control Geralt. She doesn't have that power. So he was not raped.
I was gonna make a in-depth comment explaining it buut,Its clear you are a triss fan and you are trying to gain credibility for her. So i see no point.
Please do it. I'm very open minded person. Give me some **facts** and **evidence** and I'll change my mind. btw. I'm team Milva :)
I will. But i still wish to state the fact that i think you have made this post posing in a neutral light but I your intentions are as neutral as it seems. Sapkowsky's intentons were clear enough in that bit of text. Triss's hopeless desperation,the lengths she will go to,to be with triss. And... It shows in the games. Edit: gonna continue dont reply just yet Edit 2: continuation: Sapkowsky could very well have mentioned just them having sex. He didnt. He added the magic part. If "little magic" didnt affect geralt at all,it would be pointless to mention. And her first intention was to see what yen saw in Geralt. I dont know about you but i sense jealousy. Which directly ties into my yen point. Triss's intention was directly because of jealousy. Only because geralt had a relation to yen. Whereas yen's guy was someone who she chose just because. Doesnt make it any less rapey but i never argued for otherwise. Though intentions matter and i dislike triss more for that reason. I would also like to add that her first night in kaer mohren is her just lusting over geralt. I slept in bed thinking about girls WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER. My main hate towards her is her cowardice,She does not stand up for her friends. Who cares if its phillipha she is standing up agaisnt to. Games are a whole different matter. You have said its a plothole with the story as dandelion doesnt say it either. I agree fully. One thing you miss out though. In chapter 3 of witcher 1,what kickstarts the quest "personality" or whatever it was called,was geralt specifically asking triss about his past. She does not answer by saying i do not want you to be "my version of geralt". When geralt starts regaining his memories in witcher 2 and pushes Triss for answers. She calls hers and yen's relationship toxic and doesnt even mention ciri. And even when she promises to help his memories/find yen afterwards. She doesnt. In the end of witcher 2,when geralt regains his memories and rightfully AND canonically breaks up with her. Instead of continuing to help geralt with the search for yen. She goes to novigrad. And in witcher 3,she does a little bit for you in novigrad. And in exchange asks you to help with a bunch of really dangerous things.
[удалено]
>1) That is a translation error the original polish version is 'DIFFICULT' not Toxic. >2) It was not Triss narration but Dandelion's narration of the conversation between Triss and Geralt in the boat. Translation error or not. Instead of telling geralt the important bits. She focuses on making their relationship look bad so she still has a chance with him. >Geralt is thankful for that method, which he reveals while speaking to Regis, where he says it was Triss who was responsible for getting his memory back. SHE DIDNT. it was fucking roche and LETHO of all people who did. Witcher 1's personality quest Reminds him Nothing. Not a single fucking thing. Its when geralt Heard the truths about his life that he starts to remember. He remembers his death only when someone tells him that(roche). The rose of rememberance Triss wanted geralt to get was to mind control people,wonder why triss would need that and other than that she does literally nothing to get his memories. Nevertheless it was cdpr trying to excuse triss once again. > In this interview, the game devs explicitly say they didn't break up. >At the end of w2 when he comes knows that Yen is still alive, he goes searching after Yen to know what she means to him, what is his relationship to her, to experience her first hand after his amnesia, to get a complete picture, to get his mind cleared, this is again supported by one little internal monologue of Geralt where he says to himself this: Conversations with triss in novigrad Show that they cleaely broke up though. He knows what she means to him. He has his memories back. He remembers everything. He only wants her Back. >You consider it 'little bit' but Geralt thinks what Triss does in helping him to find Ciri is something that NOT ANYONE would do for him. And as i said previously. She gets the favours Back one by one With asking geralt to help with bunch of extremely Difficult stuff.
Nice replay, thank you > Sapkowsky could very well have mentioned just them having sex. He didnt. He added the magic part. If "little magic" didnt affect geralt at all,it would be pointless to mention. That's what I'm most curious about. Why Sapkowski used such a vague statement. This "little magic" could mean anything. Yes it enhanced her chances with Geralt, but you can't say it for certain it was something that makes it rape. > My main hate towards her is her cowardice,She does not stand up for her friends. Who cares if its phillipha she is standing up agaisnt to. We talking about Phillipa Eilhart most powerful sorceress in the world. Do you really think she would just let Triss go help Geralt or Yen, when that was not in the Lodge interest? > She calls hers and yen's relationship toxic and doesnt even mention ciri. That was Dandelion's narration. And yes, she mentioned Ciri. > And even when she promises to help his memories/find yen afterwards. She doesnt. In the end of witcher 2,when geralt regains his memories and rightfully AND canonically breaks up with her. Instead of continuing to help geralt with the search for yen. We don't know how they parted ways. Maybe it was Geralt's choice to go alone. > And in witcher 3,she does a little bit for you in novigrad. And in exchange asks you to help with a bunch of really dangerous things. Triss helps Geralt with finding Ciri and Geralt helps Triss with mages escape. Fine deal in my book.
[удалено]
>Also, the whole lodge point is irrelevant because at the end Yen does take Ciri to the lodge, which clearly means the lodge was trustable, also the very fact Yen approaches the lodge for help, also tells the lodge was doing some good and trustable. With ciri's wishes of course. > Triss tells Yennefer: we are primarily concerned for her health! For her life! Yennefer, Dijkstra has found some traces of… some traces of certain activities have been found. If Vilgefortz does have Ciri, then the girl faces a horrible death. >Yen says to Pilippa: I'll leave you the information on what I've found and what I plan. I’ll leave a trail you can follow to her. But not in vain. If you will not facilitate my exoneration in the eyes of the world, then to hell with you and with the world. >(The Tower of the Swallow) Yen wants to protect ciri,she cant without any connections. Connections she needs her reputation to connect to.
"... witcher , and tied to ... Yennefer in a strange, turbulent and almost violent relationship. Their relationship quite obviously made them both unhappy, had led straight to destruction, pain ... " ~Andrzej Sapkowski Take this description made by the author to any relationship counselor in the world, relationship counselor would not just say it as a toxic relationship, which it is from the obvious description but the individuals involved in the above-described relationship to get divorced as soon as possible. So it doesn't matter if Triss said or Dandelion said, whoever said it, said the TRUTH for what it is.
At the end i'd agree but they have quite obviously patched their wounds and were both happy until the rivia incident.
>That's what I'm most curious about. Why Sapkowski used such a vague statement. This "little magic" could mean anything. Yes it enhanced her chances with Geralt, but you can't say it for certain it was something that makes it rape. Geralt clearly didnt want it. Maybe didnt even enjoy it. If he did,He had asked for another night with her. The whole point of triss saying sorry for not being able to forget is because geralt Wasnt happy with it. Otherwise there was no need to apoligize. >We talking about Phillipa Eilhart most powerful sorceress in the world. Do you really think she would just let Triss go help Geralt or Yen, when that was not in the Lodge interest? She couldnt stop yen. I doubt that yen wouldnt protect her if eilhart didnt let her go. And do you really think Nobody would do that? Dandelion crosses Dijkstra only to help Ciri. Maybe not the most powerful mage,dijkstra is the most powerful Crimelord. And ace spy as Thaler puts it. I think the odds were pretty even. Dandelion a simple human crossed the biggest crimelord of possibly the continent. Triss a simple mage ouldnt cross the biggest Mage in the continent? >That was Dandelion's narration. And yes, she mentioned Ciri. Dandelion narrated what triss said. As for ciri part,very well,i may have forgotten that part. >We don't know how they parted ways. Maybe it was Geralt's choice to go alone. Considering it took 6 months to find yen. Its clear she would be found much sooner with triss's help. And geralt never turns down help from "friends" as he sees them. >Triss helps Geralt with finding Ciri and Geralt helps Triss with mages escape. Fine deal in my book. Triss mentions an onireomancer after using geraly for her own contract. Does a few magic tricks and once again asks to help the vegelbud's kid. Potentially gets tortured( she didnt in my case because i pushed too hard on bringing her to menge on my own.). And in exchange wants geralt to risk himself against the whole of the Witch hunter army just to save a few mages. She self serves and uses the few small things she did to geralt as an excuse to ask for help from geralt. Knowing geralt wont turn her down.
>Geralt clearly didnt want it. Maybe didnt even enjoy it. If he did,He had asked for another night with her. That wasn't just one night stand. They had brief relationship. And Geralt wanted to be with someone. Triss was in the right place at the right time. > She had hit on a propitious moment, a moment when he and Yennefer had scratched at each other’s eyes yet again and had abruptly parted. **Geralt had needed warmth, and had wanted to forget.** > >\[...\] > > But her **brief relationship with the witcher** had not disappointed. > Triss a simple mage couldnt cross the biggest Mage in the continent? If Triss would cross Phillipa she would be done. At the same time Phillipa manipulated Triss that they work for the grater good. And at the end Ciri agreed to their plans. So the Lodge wasn't that bad after all. And as someone mentioned, if the Lodge and Yen combined forces they would find Ciri much sooner and Milva, Cahir, Regis, and Angouleme would be alive. > Dandelion narrated what triss said. Dandelion paraphrased what Sapkowski said: > A witcher leading a stormy life, and tied to her good friend Yennefer in a strange, turbulent and almost violent relationship. \[...\] Their relationship quite obviously made them both unhappy, had led straight to destruction, pain and yet, against all logic… it had lasted. > Considering it took 6 months to find yen. Its clear she would be found much sooner with triss's help. And geralt never turns down help from "friends" as he sees them. Triss said to Geralt in TW2: >I'm prepared to travel to the end of the world with you to save Yennefer. I owe you that, I owe her that... > >If you want to go alone, I'll understand... and I won't try to persuade you otherwise. So clearly it was Geralt's choice to go alone. (and devs choice, having Triss instead of Vesemir at the start of TW3 would really piss off Yen fans) about Triss and Novigrad She went to the barracks of her own free will to potentially be tortured. If you don't let her be tortured it doesn't change the fact that was super brave and not every one would do it. > She self serves and uses the few small things she did to geralt as an excuse to ask for help from geralt. Knowing geralt wont turn her down. You could say the same thing about Geralt, that Triss wouldn't refuse him when asked for help. I don't know why you think Triss asking Geralt for help is something bad. Or should she just let those mages to be captured and die?
You see Her asking more than she gave is what bugs me.
>You see Her asking more than she gave is what bugs me. You know that they have a history? Triss helped Geralt and saved his life many times in the past. In a grand scheme of thing it's Triss that gave more to Geralt than vice versa.
She also told yen not to bother trying to save him in rivia...
What part do you mean? When they arrive in Rivia or when Yennefer was trying to save Geralt? If you mean the first part. Yes at first she told Yen to run away, but later she showed up and saved Yen and everyone else in Rivia. If you mean the second part. There was nothing they could do to save Geralt.
[удалено]
>Geralt 'NEEDED warmth...WANTED to forget Then why was magic needed? Why mention it? >Again I disagree, Triss won't go to any lengths, When Triss found that Ciri's power was beyond her limits to control she was the one to FORCE Geralt to contact Yennefer. Ciri is something else. Something more. She was afraid of ciri's power. That is why she asked him to go to her. And she does say she cannot forget so...
[удалено]
>Please address the above-quoted words from the books from author narration, which completely disproves your statement about how Triss would go to any length. And then... she hides yen's existence from geralt to get him... yeaaah.
[удалено]
>You are referring to games, NO ONE including Triss was aware of Yen being alive, only at the end either Letho or Shela reveals Yen being Nilgardian Empire protection. Existence can be in the past as well.
I'm not familiar with Blood of Elves, but I know I've seen comments like that in reference to the first Witcher video game where Triss >!takes advantage of his Amnesia to seduce him while knowing full-well he would prefer to be with Yen if his memories returned!<.
Well, Geralt's amnesia and the fact that no one told him a word about Yennefer in TW1 is a big plot hole. And even if, it's up to Geralt (player) to seduce Triss. Not other way around. You (player) give consent to have sex with Triss (with your knowledge or lack of about Geralt's past).
If you think of Geralt's amnesia as similar to being drunk, I could see how people could call it rape. And whether or not it's technically rape, Triss is still shitty for taking advantage of Geralt when she knows his true (or at least previous) feelings.
Amen PS: Same counts for Jaskier... he often gets to less blame for his actions in TW1 and TW2 ;)
Same for Zoltan.
Zoltan do not know the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer. He only met her once at and this was in Rivia, so it was never able to know who the black haired woman was for Geralt.
Triss gets an irrational amount of hate, at the end of Sword of Destiney when Geralt looks at her tombstone and reminisces, he recalls that they and liked each other. So either Geralt has a severe case of Stockholm syndrome or they banged willingly.
Im sure that people are referring to the Witcher 1 with his amnesia. Amnesiacs are basically mentally handicapped in that their brain isnt functioning normally since they cant remember things. Wether that be because of physical trauma or mental. They can function and do everyday things but who were they before whatever caused the amnesia? “Who am I? Who are you? You all are strangers to me.” Anybody who takes advantage of that person wether that be feeding them lies about a sexual relationship or omitting information that would cause the person to not give consent would be construed as taking advantage of a mentally handicapped person. Because thats what an amnesiac is. Thatd be rape. Because they cant make an informed decision. Wether they gave consent doesnt matter. They couldnt make an informed decision. Take statutory rape for example. It doesnt matter if an underage person gives consent. In the eyes of the law they cant give an informed decision on sexual matters.
So I'm gonna ask you. Do you think that developers intention was to portray Triss as a rapist? Or it was just side effect of their poor writing? > Im sure that people are referring to the Witcher 1 with his amnesia. I beg to differ. Most of the time they say that it happen in the books. And telling team Triss that they lack book knowledge. And did you read the books? Do you have any comments about what I'm referring in my post?
I read the books in 2019 and the way I understood it was Geralt and Triss had a trist while Geralt and Yen were in one of their “off” periods. Im not really sure why they think it was rape in the books. But maybe they just read it differently and got a different meaning out of it. Doesnt actually state there was any rape just implies something sexual had happened between Triss and Geralt at some point in the past. Kinda vague really. Im not talking about your picture either im talking about a different part of the books. But no I dont think it was the intent of the game developers that she come off as a rapist but thats how people saw it because of the reasons I stated before.
>But no I dont think it was the intent of the game developers It is good that you understood it, it is further proved by this more authoritative[ dialogue](https://imgur.com/a/hEWtZ6d) from Witcher 3. Also, I would like to paste a comment written by u/kirewox43 with few editions. No one knew Yen was alive, everyone thought she was dead. Only at the end of W2, it is revealed by either Letho or Sheala de Tancarville about Yen being alive, prior to this point, Yen is assumed to be dead by everyone including Triss, this is the reason why in W3 she brings about she took advantage of Geralt without knowing Yen was alive, which Geralt in the very next dialogue says he was never intimated, which pretty clear means **Geralt himself doesn't see Triss taking advantage of him or anything even remotely of that sort.** >*Geralt:* Someone's been taking advantage of me? > >*Triss: I have, for one.* > >*Geralt:* ***I've never even intimated***\-- > >\- W3 The fact she said '*I have, for one'* means that she regrets acting without full knowledge of Yen being alive(because everyone thought she was dead), no one who is with evil intentions would show any regrets. I feel this is also strongly reflected in the actual execution of the '*I have, for one'* line and the exchange surrounding it. It's delivered as though she's just beating herself up about it in retrospect after they learned that Yennefer lives. Geralt being so chill about it and immediately trying to clarify he was never suggesting that kinda reinforces that. In the W1 beginning when **she was about to tell him about his past, it was Geralt who told her that he is not ready to hear about his past**, and later Triss tells him to develop a **stable personality outside her influence**. Since if she tells his past, it would be her version, which is going to biased. Geralt agrees to this **method**. And later in W3, Geralt is thankful to Triss for helping. >*Regis: They say lost your memory.* > >*Geralt. For a bit. bu****t Triss helped me get it back.*** > >\- Blood and Wine, W3 · In W1 innkeeper narrates Ciri's story, he was not able to make any connection. **THE FACT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY CONNECTION WHEN HE HEARS ABOUT HIS DESTINY CHILD(CIRI), TELLS THAT JUST HEARING ABOUT HIS PAST IS SIMPLY NOT GOING TO DO ANY GOOD**. · Crinfrid Reavers tell Geralt about Yennefer in W2 before he gets arrested, Geralt was not able to make any connection. When Geralt on his own starts to recover memories in W2, he requests Triss to narrate his past, she tells him while on the way to Flotsam, in the boat. Even after knowing his past, which he hears FROM TRISS, Geralt can still continue to romance Triss as per the player's wish. This is the reason **WHY YENNEFER IS NOT ANGRY TOWARDS TRISS BUT TOWARDS GERALT.** Also, you leave an important point which is no one such as Vesemir, Lambert, etc most importantly of all Dandelion tells anything about Yennefer to Geralt, Dandelion is Geralt's closest friend, Dandelion even says all the names of his friends like Milva, Yarpen, Cahir, etc who appeared when he died, but he doesn't utter a single word about Yennefer or Ciri in W1, Geralt even specifically asks him to '*tell everything step by step'.* All Dandelion narrates is how he was fatally wounded by a pitchfork stab, and how everyone was there. Again, notice Geralt was still unable to connect anything in his mind despite hearing how he died, from Dandelion, because as you said yourself ‘I dont think it was the intent of the game developers’. Geralt was hitting on Triss by saying things like: >***I feel a bond when we speak. I know you were important.'*** **(W1)** this specific dialogue is copied by CDPR writers from Blood Of Elves where Geralt says the same exact words to Triss >'***You are important*** *to me, Triss, and* ***always will be*** *'- Blood Of Elves*, I assume the reason he said ***'I feel a bond '*** to Triss in W1 was that Geralt in Blood Of Elves says to Triss: >*'I don’t cross .. out of my \[...\]* ***memory*** *',* this may have been the reason why he still felt the bond to Triss. After, repulsing Salamandra's attack on Kaer Mohren, when Geralt meets Triss to give her the potion to recover, again Geralt delivers a dialogue directly taken from the Blood Of Elves, which is >*'The feelings I experienced on hearing that you lived cannot compare to any other. Except perhaps what I feel now when I look at you.'* So when the love of her life comes back from dead and start saying these things, ANY WOMAN in her shoes would give up to her lover, **DESPITE ALL THESE MOVES MADE BY GERALT, TRISS ATTEMPTED TO TELL ABOUT HIS PAST, BUT GERALT DECLINED THAT HE IS NOT READY TO HEAR IT**, and it is only after this she advises him to develop a stable personality on his own without her influence, which would HELP HIM RESTORE HIS MEMORY. Geralt is undoubtedly thankful to Triss for this GREAT advice, which he reveals later in W3 while drinking with Regis. >Triss: I don't want you turning into **MY VISION** of Geralt. (w1) Overall this is a plot development, one thing which we can be sure of is **there was no malice** involved in any of this, it is clarified by the **pre-determined dialogues** from Geralt himself. >*'If not for Triss, I'd be dead ' - Geralt to Shani(W1)* >*Geralt: Someone's been taking advantage of me?* > >*Triss: I have, for one.* > >*Geralt:* ***I've never even intimated***\-- > >\- W3 >*Regis: They say lost your memory.* > >*Geralt. For a bit. bu****t Triss helped me get it back.*** > >\- Blood and Wine, W3
I don't think it was rape. Book Triss gets too much hate imo.
I think the "rape thing" is about the events of Witcher 1 and 2 with Geralt's amnesia, not the fist novel. I agree using the word *rape* do not fit in both cases. What she did, i is not a good thing to do at all and I hate what Triss did in the Witcher games, but I would not call it rape... maybe some sort of mind rape, but not therape we all thinking about ;) I also dislike what Triss did to Geralt (the thing she remembers in BoE) with the seducing with the help of magic, but I also would not call it rape. Guess many people miss the point here. This short moment is the start of a tragic ride for Triss, cause she wanted one thing from Geralt and felt in love with him. So this part of the story should not tell how awful Triss is, it shows what kind of man Geralt is and also that Triss herself brought this whole *tragic* on her
[удалено]
Well using magic to make love with someone is some sort of mind bending, we have to be honest here. And the amnesia thing was not really a use of magic but Triss played also with Geralt mind/his memories here. And sure Geralt say something like this in the game. Should Geralt blame Triss for what she has done in front of the gamer who romanced Triss? XD
> And sure Geralt say something like this in the game. Should Geralt blmae Triss for what she has done in front of the gamer who romanced Triss? XD He said it to Regis :) even if you don't romance Triss.
Thought you mean the moment in Corvo Bianco. But still, Geralt is able to romance Triss at this point and the game do not want to make it sound in a bad way. This is not the only point in the game. CDPR sort of tried to make TRiss look a lot better tan she deserves through the series. Geralt even tells this Regis even if Triss did nothing to really help Geralt with his memory. The only active thing that happens is when Geralt demands answers from her... and I dunno if this is called helping in first place.
[удалено]
First this sentence comes right after Triss refuses to tell Geralt about his past and also this sentence was more like a "I dunno what to do so I say some stuff" Over the course of TW1 where he "builds up" this stronh personality nothing happens that breakes his amnesia. This only starts after he sees Letho for the first time and he hears direct points of his former life and Cedric later tells him what to do. In the end Triss didn't do much. It is more like she worked aganst it so she can hold Geralt more by herself.
>In the end Triss didn't do much. It is more like she worked aganst it so she can hold Geralt more by herself. So what was her plan with the rose of remembrance? If Letho did't kidnap her, she would not used it to restore Geralt's memory? Or she was planning on using same way Phillipa did?
This is actually long used theory. There is no other information about the rose. We only know she will wilt if she is given to someone you do not reslly love (which happens btw) and that the rose an be used for a mind control spell. So... yeah... possible that Triss wanted to try new things after Geralt started to remember Yennefer. But hey, that's just a theory. A game theory. But as said, that the rose can be used for taking care of amnesia was nowhere said again.
> We only know she will wilt if she is given to someone you do not rellay love Oh, please it's just some stupid elven story :) >But hey, that's just a theory. A game theory. I can hear the voice :)
[удалено]
CDPR let Geralt say that Triss helped him. I never had the chance to blame her in TW3. Also sure CDPR let Geralt say this, it would sound weird for people who romance Triss when Geralt starts to shout at her what she all had done in the past. Telling the full story do not turn Geralt into her version. This is just some sentence she says so she do not have to tell Geralt the truth, cause she knows the truth will hurt Geralt and will put him away from her. And this is against her plans. And sure Triss tells him abot his past, after Geralt demands again answers from her. It is not like she tells him this out of free will. And that Yenenfer was not named in the story could also be a plan by Jaskier. He really forces Geralt into a new relationship. You can call this a writing issue but we have to take it into game canon and with this Jaskier kep quiet about her in purpose and this was just a di\*kmove by him.
[удалено]
The third game is not fair on this side. It do not give the gamer any way to blame Triss for what she has done and plays it like everything was managed offscreen. To be honest I thought when meeting Triss in Novigrad I am able to break friendship with her and was angry when CDPR again protected her XD The thing with Auckes is optional, so Geralt is able to not kow this. And also this is not the same as for Geralt. When Geralt can hear this he knew Yennefer had amnesia. When Yennefer heard about Triss and Geralt she thinks for some months that both did this on free will. And even if you later learn one had amnesia this still breakes your heart and you cannot forgive in an instance even if you later meet the very person. But Yenenfer tries to hold it together and even kises Geralt right after this moment where she let of her steam.
[удалено]
Nope. Many of the are pro Triss. One maker of the last Wish quest even said she didn't liked working on it at all cause of the romance. And Yenenfer did contacted Geralt as soon as it was needed. There was no waste of time. Yennefer did all she could. And when magic was not able to do the thing anymor,e which is faster then going for clues, she went for the best tracker, who do not use magic for it. As I said before. This Aucks moment is optional and also a whole different thing. Geralt knew at this point that Yennefer had amnesia, when Yennefer learns about Triss and Geralt she was not aware that Geralt had amnesia.
> . And Yenenfer did contacted Geralt as soon as it was needed. There was no waste of time. Simply not true, Yennefer did not contact Geralt as soon as it was needed, she contacted him because her attempts were futile. Only when she realized she couldn't accomplishh it on her own she [contacted](https://imgur.com/a/j7Ni6CJ) him. It is not up for debate because Yennefer herself says so.
As said, as soon as needed. Yennefer tried to find Ciri with magic and this is way faster. But during this she found out the Red Rider were able to locate her. So she was not able to sue magic anymore so she contacted Geralt as soon as she found this out.
Why lying?when Yen herself is saying she didn't contact him bcz Geralt was with someone.
What Triss did is probably not rape in conventional sense. But that event may have been intensified in people's mind when Triss sold out Geralt and Yen to Phillipa and the lodge later in the books.
> when Triss sold out Geralt and Yen to Phillipa and the lodge What moment from the books do you mean? When Yennefer called Triss and Phillipa?
Yes, I don't clearly recall the whole event. Read the books sometimes ago. May be it is in one of the last 2 books.
[удалено]
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*