RPGWatch Side Quest - Manipulation and Perversion

This is very much what I was trying to say, Vio (though it may not seem like it-and I have no wish to draw down on my head the combined forces of Corwin and Prime Junta---Debate Team from Hell o_o)

That does it. Corwin -- you hold her down, I'll get the board with the nail in it.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
That does it. Corwin -- you hold her down, I'll get the board with the nail in it.

***quietly but quickly boards bus to unknown destination leaving no forwarding address...***
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
Apart from that, Witchers are supposed to be neutral and slay monsters. Whether going against this "nature" in favor of compassion or nobility is a good idea on the long run is one of the core themes of the game.

Indeed Vio but, while it isn't quite obvious from the game, the important thread in books is that Geralt is a non-typical Witcher because he is the only one who has human feelings. At first Geralt think that he is an experiment gone wrong but, as it turns out, this is exacly what his creators hoped to achieve. Unfortunatelly he was the only from his grup who survided the ordeal.

My point about the Rev was that he was unlikable and obnoxious, but should you really be basing a life-changing decision for all the people of the village on whether you like or dislike someone? I agree that he had a high conglomeration of negative traits, but he was the leader chosen by these people, rightly or wrongly. So theoretically, his worth could be evaluated on some level beyond his personality. I couldn't choose him either, and maybe that is part of how the devs wanted you to define Geralt

Couldn't agree more magerette. I was thinking long and hard about it: Abby was a necromancer and a lier but I still could not bring myself to side with Reverend and villagers against her.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
And ultimately, to how many of you would it have mattered how much of a jerk or a nice guy he is, as long as he was about to burn a witch? I would have chosen this option even with relatively clear indications that Abby had been doing something severely wrong - burning at the stake is not my idea of justice, no matter the crime. Don't forget, Gerald tells the Villagers to go home and contemplate starting new - to attack (and thus, to die), is the choice the villagers made.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
That's what we say today, knowing that in reality it was a huge and cruel injustice. But back in the day, people feared witches - and in that world, as opposed to ours, there really ARE witches.
Maybe they really believed it was a good thing. Even though their fear was being instrumentalized by the Rev, and even though it suited their ends (covering their crimes).

How about people who support the bombing of entire countries because they are "evil"? In an age where the internet provides an endless supply of information?
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
32
My point about the Rev was that he was unlikable and obnoxious, but should you really be basing a life-changing decision for all the people of the village on whether you like or dislike someone? I agree that he had a high conglomeration of negative traits, but he was the leader chosen by these people, rightly or wrongly. So theoretically, his worth could be evaluated on some level beyond his personality. I couldn't choose him either, and maybe that is part of how the devs wanted you to define Geralt.
Somehow, this interpretation reminds me of the personal test result of you. Jokes aside, this can make the choice feel more balanced (although I felt the number of the bodys of the villagers were rather exaggerating). Then, the designers are able to introduce the grayness and the cruelty of the world and offer a balanced choice to some extent. Thinking how long Abigail's thread and this thread went on, I think the "manipulation" of the designers worked very well.

Like GhanBuriGhan, I don't feel the manipulation as the way Corwin pointed out, though. Corwin and I must be very different since I thought the Rev's personality simply made me question his fairness and that Abigail's try on seducing Geralt somehow backs up testimony of her manipulative aspect. After all, I was not convinced to either side but I simply felt the idea of killing Abigail for the peace of the village disturbing somehow. I didn't expect it would end up with ruining whole the village. Exiling Abigail could have been an agreement but the Witcher is not a negotiator but a sword master. I still don't know the explanation for all the dead bodies there except those who are killed in the fight, tough. [Edit]Silly me. The ghost dogs must have assaulted whole the village and disappeared when Geralt killed the Hellhound, which explains why people inside houses stayed alive.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
278
It's the case of all story driven rpgs that you are manipulated to travel along the stories path. They are similar to those old dnd modules; you are given an adventure to do not a world to play in. Geralt does say that Act 1 is a place of so many bastards so I think it's quite clear he doesn't care for the people of that area. It's the same in PS:T and KoToR you do an area and move on to the next with some zones having a few more areas to play around in. The Witcher just forces the odd difficult choice your way because, in reality, one man can't always do what he wishes and is forced to make a decision. Basically, it forces you to take one side or another because the outside world demands it.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,080
Location
UK
Don't forget, Gerald tells the Villagers to go home and contemplate starting new - to attack (and thus, to die), is the choice the villagers made.
Right GhanBuriGhan, that's what I thought too!

That's what we say today, knowing that in reality it was a huge and cruel injustice. But back in the day, people feared witches - and in that world, as opposed to ours, there really ARE witches
But Gerald knew all about prejudice. He was subjected to it often enough.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
magerette said:
You pretty much know where everything you do will take you
If I understand you correctly, the difference is you are choosing to play a role in NWN, which you can choose to change based on your feelings att or based on story changes. In the Witcher it's really unambiguous in many parts, you are forced to unrealistically side someone.
Sure this has happened in other games but it was clear they did it based on their story, not trying to trick us into believing we are making a choice, which is the real manipulation, imo.
Once again I am drawn to the Triss and Shanni quest in chap 3, sure it's fine they need us to choose between the two for story purposes, no problem. In the instance you pick Triss which according to the story at EVERY level she is the only choice and yet even though Geralt has saved her life Beast and saved her from gang rape, given the child away and knows absolutely jack, nadda or squat about magic as she herself said after the Beast fight. Why rub our faces in it?

Ionstormsucks said:
Maybe they thought that sympathetic persons seldom want to burn young ladies
Lol. :)

Abigail had turned out to be an evil wrench who slyly tricked you into helping her to dispatch of her enemies in the village
Even if that had turned out to be true, the villagers still are trying to burn her for somethings she didn't do.

bkrueger said:
There are other similar situations, where it was obvious for me, what the "good" solution was, though the Witcher is claimed to be open in this regard.
Exactly. :)

Exactly these possibilities would be the "good" solutions from a non-biased point of view.
Sort of have to disagree here, up rooting a culture to replace it with a previous, becsue they were *there first* could hardly be called good. First was the previous culture good itself, if not and was replaced by a good culture then obviously it would be an evil act, so really the only good solution would be living together in peace, if I understand correctly.

Corwin said:
Think what it's doing for our reputations!!
This is like reading a great novel or seeing a great movie, feeling all warm and fuzzy. :happycry: :biggrin:

magerette said:
I did feel I was being asked to evaluate complex situations using a different value judgment system than my own--that is, trying to think like Geralt
Yes, so true The Witcher's strongest and best moments came from these times.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,772
I think "open in this regard" does not mean that there are no choices that are obviously better or worse than others - that would in fact greatly limit creative freedom. I think it did (and should!) mean that not every choice is along clear light side / dark side lines, that taking the "good" option can sometimes have negative consequences, not only to you, but even to others. It means it manages to create an atmosphere where decisions are not easy, where you start to think "where could this lead". That is what makes the witcher so strong, it makes you care about what you are doing. The abby example teaches us this lesson in chapter one. We can do the right thing, and say the right thing to the townpeople, but we can not save them, because they damn themselves.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
Back
Top Bottom