The Witcher 1 Thread

That would have been a great third neutral choice. Your logic is flawed though. This was not about saving. It was about choosing sides.

 

Letting the villagers have their 'trial' is the neutral side. Geralt doesn't intervene and simply walks away. If that involves kissing some villager ass, so be it.

 

If that's how you want to see it. It's not what you say to the villagers though if you side with them so your argument is still flawed. If you do not side with the witch you basically have to chose one of the "I see you are right here so I side with you" type of dialogue choices. There is not a single choice which basically says "Fuck you all" and also combat the Beast all by yourself with neither Abigail or the priests help.

 

In chapter IV Geralt reflects on his choice and states he didn't want to get involved. It is a bit inconsistent with the speech he gives in chapter I but I still see it as the most neutrally aligned choice.



Besides, a completely neutral choice (fuck you all) probably wouldn't have gotten him a city pass. So I consider it as necessary asskissing.

 

It's not just "a bit" inconsistent. There is not even a small tell tale that he was lying when the dialogue options come up.The lines from the voice actor are conveyed like he was convinced by the garbage either one of those 3 S.O.Bs spewed. There is also not even a minor flag which might implicate that he is "asskissing".

So no, I do not accept it to be a "neutral" choice. It's a clear choice against the witch and for the villagers. If Geralt thinks otherwise then he is just deluding himself.

 

yeah, the thing is, both books and games try to make you show that it is not always possible to stay impartial and refuse to choose sides, because when you do it you do in fact choose and choose the worse evil than if you would have intervened.

 

So a guy filthy mutant walks out from a cave with a witch and a magical beast is attacking a town. Do you really think the mob that welcomed them would just let him go? (witchers don't have immunity to pitchforks)

He either has to trade her to them or hack his way out. They could include more dialogue choices to make it smoother, but in this situation there were only 2 real outcomes.

Also: it's funny when people argue about good and evil, as if it's something written in stone and the other party just read it wrong and has to be corrected

If a good choice has a bad outcome, was that a good choice?

 

Yes, truth and goodness require sacrifices.

edit

 

notsureif.jpg

 

Codex cannot handle Emotionally Engaging games

 

Using strong language is an automatic indicator for strong emotions on the interwebs. You heard it here first people!

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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

 

Are you... retarded or something?

 

Need more rope?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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?

"Peace" as a weasel word.

 

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.