The Witcher 1 Thread

[Perkel]

Was Jasques evil?

That is the whole point of TW. This only depends on your views.

For people who don't give a shit about afterlife, other people than family and friends, future of nation like me he was neutral/evil
For people who care about leftist ideal of perfect world he was evil because he killed people and saving ton of other people was not worth it.
For people who care about future, afterlife and their legacy he would be hero as he did what was needed to do in order to save people.

It's basically like Ceasars legion in FNV. What is better ? To die out of hunger, being raided and killed or live under dictator ship with less freedom but live and die of old age with kids and family.

Codex cannot handle Emotionally Engaging games

More like codex like to discuss cool concepts for future reference. Especially in medium filled with black and white and every color of rainbow but almost never gray.

 

[Serious_Business]

Some people on this forum take videogame stories a bit too personally.

This is all good fun, tells something about the writing, how engaging it is. The Witcher sings Blues and you want to listen

 

[bozia2012]

That is the whole point of TW. This only depends on your views.

For people who don't give a shit about afterlife, other people than family and friends, future of nation like me he was neutral/evil
For people who care about leftist ideal of perfect world he was evil because he killed people and saving ton of other people was not worth it.
For people who care about future, afterlife and their legacy he would be hero as he did what was needed to do in order to save people.

It's basically like Ceasars legion in FNV. What is better ? To die out of hunger, being raided and killed or live under dictator ship with less freedom but live and die of old age with kids and family.



More like codex like to discuss cool concepts for future reference. Especially in medium filled with black and white and every color of rainbow but almost never gray.

Didn't he meant to save the whole humanity? This is kind of a "the end justifies the means" scenario for some.

He saw the future, traveled in time. Maybe what he did was for the better? We'll never know.

 

[Ludo Lense]

The Neutral path is the "true" Witcher path, if I remember correctly. Even if you haven't read the books, you are told in-game that witchers behave like mercenaries with an ethical side, which is based on their refusal to involve in human killing. Then it comes another ethical question about how men can become monsters, which is presented in the interludes and during gameplay, and even in the ending (spoilers, but what the heck, is a 7 year old game). I do love the narrative in this game.

Well technically the rule is to never accept coin for killing the major races. They are monster slayers not assassins. But Witchers will still slaughter you if you wrong them (salamandra) or if they feel morally obliged (killing the executioners who payed Geralt in W3 cinematic for example). I remember you can refuse taking coin from someone after you kill some people and Geralt says he doesn't take money for human heads (it is in TW2).

 

[Metro]

Derp Witcher is about as emotionally engaging as an issue of FHM.

 

[Daemongar]

Really, that's all there is to it? Pussy? Cursed a whole town? No she didn't, they themselves put them into that situation, the witch didn't make it better, but you still failed to pay attention. She was afraid for her life and needed some sort of protection. She also didn't poison anyone. She sold the poison.
So you'd have an entire town rotten to the core, and one of the guy as thanks for your deeds gets you jailed and you still defend them. Wow, the sheer delusion and ignorance it takes to defend these fucktards.
I didn't have sex with the witch and I chose to tell her that I chose the lesser of two evils and that's exactly what it was.
Yeah, what else was left for her to do? The town had it out for her for a long time and no one would stand up for her. What do you think she could have done instead? It was her only move left. When you side with the witch, Geralt states that he wants them to leave him and the witch alone, yet after Geralt and Abigail fought for them against the Beast they still have the audacity to attack them as a whole pack. So not only are they rapists, murderers and two faced liars, they are also backstabbing assholes. They do not dare to lay a finger on Geralt when he was at full capacity.

Gosh, stop talking, the more you talk the more you show you have no clue what really happened in the village. There is absolutely no argument for the villagers.

Are you... retarded or something?

 

[bozia2012]

Are you... retarded or something?

Need more rope?

 

[Sykar]

Are you... retarded or something?

I was tempted to ask you the same question but then realized that it would have been a rhetorical one.

 

[Daemongar]

I was tempted to ask you the same question but then realized that it would have been a rhetorical one.

Then quit arguing for diminished C&C. TW isn't an adventure game. The developers put in multiple paths, and allow folks to select choices you don't like. The game asks the player to choose and unfortunately, there really is very little difference in the outcome. Saying that everyone must pick such and such based on the evidence before the player? That's just silly, and is making a case for decline. Arguing like this leads to boring black and white choices and dialogue wheels.

Or insomuch as to say: the game paints itself as having little as far as moral absolutes, involves rape, murder, and child slavery. However, at the end of the day, it allows the player to select their path. This is a good thing. Not all players LARP their games.

 

[Sykar]

Then quit arguing for diminished C&C. TW isn't an adventure game. The developers put in multiple paths, and allow folks to select choices you don't like. The game asks the player to choose and unfortunately, there really is very little difference in the outcome. Saying that everyone must pick such and such based on the evidence before the player? That's just silly, and is making a case for decline. Arguing like this leads to boring black and white choices and dialogue wheels.

Or insomuch as to say: the game paints itself as having little as far as moral absolutes, involves rape, murder, and child slavery. However, at the end of the day, it allows the player to select their path. This is a good thing. Not all players LARP their games.

Wow, shifting goal posts now, aren't we, because you got exposed for not having payed attention to what actually happened. I have no problem if you prefer to chose the villagers but stop pretending it was the "better" or to use your word of preference "right" choice. That is such a laughable and wrong "argument" and you got rightfully blasted for it.

 

[Daemongar]

I think it was the better choice, as I stated from the character perspective, and from an upholding the peace perspective, I think it was better for the community that she die. In the game, there isn't much difference, and no good comes of either choice. There are no "right" choices in the Witcher. That too hard to understand?

Again, you are arguing that saving her was the best call. I don't because it leads to obliterating the town. Given the two choices given, I upheld the peace. What did you do? Kill everyone based on a dog barking and ecionops being in a yard, and rumors from the same citizens you kill two minutes later. You are no better than Hitler!

 

[bozia2012]

I think it was the better choice, as I stated from the character perspective, and from an upholding the peace perspective, I think it was better for the community that she die. In the game, there isn't much difference, and no good comes of either choice. There are no "right" choices in the Witcher. That too hard to understand?

You don't know what comes from each choice. You have no further information from the village - almost immediately you have to leave and (conveniently) you can't go back.

I also felt a vibe from your posts, that you somehow know what was better. Why it was better for the mob to kill the witch?

Again, you are arguing that saving her was the best call. I don't because it leads to obliterating the town. Given the two choices given, I upheld the peace. What did you do? Kill everyone based on a dog barking and ecionops being in a yard, and rumors from the same citizens you kill two minutes later. You are no better than Hitler!

"Peace" as a weasel word.

 

[Sykar]

I think it was the better choice, as I stated from the character perspective, and from an upholding the peace perspective, I think it was better for the community that she die. In the game, there isn't much difference, and no good comes of either choice. There are no "right" choices in the Witcher. That too hard to understand?

Again, you are arguing that saving her was the best call. I don't because it leads to obliterating the town. Given the two choices given, I upheld the peace. What did you do? Kill everyone based on a dog barking and ecionops being in a yard, and rumors from the same citizens you kill two minutes later. You are no better than Hitler!

When you actually make the decision and leave to face the Beast, the mob does not dare lay a finger on Geralt and they were visibly intimidated. Furthermore, it is not Geralts choice to wipe them out, they attack Geralt because they felt "slighted" and he defended himself and the witch. If the village idiots would have left the matter alone they would have lived. Ultimately, it was THEIR choice to attack Geralt and risk getting killed by basically a professional killer for hire. Smart move there folks!
Furthermore, it does in no way obliterate the town. Some (minor) prominent figures are down and some commoners but that was not even close to be the entire village. Plenty of people were left so plenty of people to fill the spots. The village was not burned to the ground or completely annihilated, so your whole assumptions are just that, empty moronic assumptions.
Upheld the piece? No, not even close, you let rapists, two faced liars, murderers and weapon dealers go unpunished. But continue to pat yourself so much on the back you pathetic dumbfuck.

That Hitler comment painted you to be even more retarded than I thought and it does not one iota matter if you meant that seriously or as a sad attempt to troll me. That was so idiotic it is beyond comprehension that you brought it even up.

 

[Consul]

I think it was the better choice, as I stated from the character perspective, and from an upholding the peace perspective, I think it was better for the community that she die. In the game, there isn't much difference, and no good comes of either choice. There are no "right" choices in the Witcher. That too hard to understand?

Again, you are arguing that saving her was the best call. I don't because it leads to obliterating the town. Given the two choices given, I upheld the peace. What did you do? Kill everyone based on a dog barking and ecionops being in a yard, and rumors from the same citizens you kill two minutes later. You are no better than Hitler!

 

[naossano]

There was also a lot of people killed by the salamandra and people killed by Geralt in the Inn.

 

[Daemongar]

When you actually make the decision and leave to face the Beast, the mob does not dare lay a finger on Geralt and they were visibly intimidated. Furthermore, it is not Geralts choice to wipe them out, they attack Geralt because they felt "slighted" and he defended himself and the witch. If the village idiots would have left the matter alone they would have lived. Ultimately, it was THEIR choice to attack Geralt and risk getting killed by basically a professional killer for hire. Smart move there folks!
Furthermore, it does in no way obliterate the town. Some (minor) prominent figures are down and some commoners but that was not even close to be the entire village. Plenty of people were left so plenty of people to fill the spots. The village was not burned to the ground or completely annihilated, so your whole assumptions are just that, empty moronic assumptions.
Upheld the piece? No, not even close, you let rapists, two faced liars, murderers and weapon dealers go unpunished. But continue to pat yourself so much on the back you pathetic dumbfuck.

That Hitler comment painted you to be even more retarded than I thought and it does not one iota matter if you meant that seriously or as a sad attempt to troll me. That was so idiotic it is beyond comprehension that you brought it even up.

I wonder if you are white-knighting her because she's a helpless female? Is that it? You want Geralt to be some kind of Paladin. You've said it yourself, you didn't have sex with her. Classic white knight move. However, since she is a gal incapable of evil, you are going to save her from the men of the village? Face it, if I sold heroin and someone died from it, they'd send me to jail as if I killed the person. Abigail murdered a woman who's only crime was enticing a man to uncontrolled passion. In the good ol' USA Abigail would face murder charges. Now, you want to let her go?

Face it: the Witcher isn't a Paladin, and women can be evil. Quit trying to put both in a mold of your choosing.

 

[Sykar]

I wonder if you are white-knighting her because she's a helpless female? Is that it? You want Geralt to be some kind of Paladin. You've said it yourself, you didn't have sex with her. Classic white knight move. However, since she is a gal incapable of evil, you are going to save her from the men of the village? Face it, if I sold heroin and someone died from it, they'd send me to jail as if I killed the person. Abigail murdered a woman who's only crime was enticing a man to uncontrolled passion. In the good ol' USA Abigail would face murder charges. Now, you want to let her go?

Face it: the Witcher isn't a Paladin, and women can be evil. Quit trying to put both in a mold of your choosing.

Wow, after the Hitler remark comes a retarded "herp derp you SJW/mangina/white knight" accusation and congrats on proving again that you didn't pay attention to what acutally happened, dumbfuck. Keep digging that hole.

 

[Daemongar]

She sold poison to a woman knowing she would kill herself. No wonder Alvin ends up all fucked up in the end, you left him to that psychopath.

 

[Sykar]

She sold poison to a woman knowing she would kill herself. No wonder Alvin ends up all fucked up in the end, you left him to that psychopath.

 

[bozia2012]

 

[Xbalanque]

She sold poison to a woman knowing she would kill herself. No wonder Alvin ends up all fucked up in the end, you left him to that psychopath.

well yes, because he would end up a much better guy if he grew up in a place were gang-raping a woman was a common practice, accepted by the priest who preferred young boys, such as Alvin himself and who would without a moments thought sell them.

I think this is the place in the Witcher when you actually have the right choice You can refuse to get involved and have an innocent woman killed or take your stand. Neither way do you preserve the peace. That is your meta-knowledge of the outcome which has nothing to do with the storyline itself. They may have just as well changed their ways.

 

[Consul]

For me it was the easiest choice in the game. The community was rotten to it's core. The Beast was spawned because of their actions. When Geralt killed it, with little help from Abigail (therefore saving the village) it became clear that they have learned nothing. They tried to backstab Geralt, despite the fact that he just freed them from the monster they themselves created. They could change, but decided not to, which resulted in their death.

 

[Xbalanque]

She sold poison to a woman knowing she would kill herself. No wonder Alvin ends up all fucked up in the end, you left him to that psychopath.

And what exactly makes her more responsible for the death of the girl than the guys who raped her?

 

[Daemongar]

And what exactly makes her more responsible for the death of the girl than the guys who raped her?

She sold her the poison. It's a Class C Felony in the US and as such, a person (in the right state) can be executed.

940.02(2)(a) (a) By manufacture, distribution or delivery, in violation of s. 961.41, of a controlled substance included in schedule I or II under ch. 961, of a controlled substance analog of a controlled substance included in schedule I or II under ch. 961 or of ketamine or flunitrazepam, if another human being uses the controlled substance or controlled substance analog and dies as a result of that use. ​

She could have helped the woman and sent her for treatment, but instead, to make a dirty buck she sold her poison to kill herself. The same way she poisoned (not fatally) the man who came to her thinking she was a prostitute when you met her, the same way she gave the drug to Alvin knowing it may harm him.

It is interesting that someone could argue that the whole town is evil, summoning the devil-dog, and forget that Abigail was a resident of the town. That is, her evil contributed just as much as anyone's. She may not have summoned the dog from her actions, but she cannot see how her complete indifference to the evil, even making a buck off it, contributed to the beat. She was just as wicked as the residents.

The Witcher points it out himself in his dialog with Abigail when she rattles off the sins of the town. “You knew but did nothing.” And she voices complete indifference “No business of mine how the poisons are used… “ Then she goes on “Don’t let them harm me. My sins are not as great as they say.” Then makes a play to make sweet love to the Witcher.

The town was evil, she knew about it, she made a buck off it. She’s as guilty as the hawk who sold weapons to the Salamanders and the Squirrels. If his indifference and pursuit of coin summoned the beast, so did hers

 

[Sykar]

She sold her the poison. It's a Class C Felony in the US and as such, a person (in the right state) can be executed.

940.02(2)(a) (a) By manufacture, distribution or delivery, in violation of s. 961.41, of a controlled substance included in schedule I or II under ch. 961, of a controlled substance analog of a controlled substance included in schedule I or II under ch. 961 or of ketamine or flunitrazepam, if another human being uses the controlled substance or controlled substance analog and dies as a result of that use. ​

She could have helped the woman and sent her for treatment, but instead, to make a dirty buck she sold her poison to kill herself. The same way she poisoned (not fatally) the man who came to her thinking she was a prostitute when you met her, the same way she gave the drug to Alvin knowing it may harm him.

It is interesting that someone could argue that the whole town is evil, summoning the devil-dog, and forget that Abigail was a resident of the town. That is, her evil contributed just as much as anyone's. She may not have summoned the dog from her actions, but she cannot see how her complete indifference to the evil, even making a buck off it, contributed to the beat. She was just as wicked as the residents.

The Witcher points it out himself in his dialog with Abigail when she rattles off the sins of the town. “You knew but did nothing.” And she voices complete indifference “No business of mine how the poisons are used… “ Then she goes on “Don’t let them harm me. My sins are not as great as they say.” Then makes a play to make sweet love to the Witcher.

The town was evil, she knew about it, she made a buck off it. She’s as guilty as the hawk who sold weapons to the Salamanders and the Squirrels. If his indifference and pursuit of coin summoned the beast, so did hers