[ACT I] I support the Beast, I didn't want to kill him *SPOILERS*

[navaros]

[ACT I] I support the Beast, I didn't want to kill him *SPOILERS*

I support the Beast, I didn't want to kill him.I think the Beast deserves it's own thread too about not being bad and posts like that shouldn't only be buried amidst posts about Abigail in Abigail-centric threads or threads about technical ways to kill the Beast. Giving the Beast his due what this thread is for. ;D After Geralt found out the Beast was summoned by man's evil, then he should have been able to choose to let it live. How come this thought never entered Geralt's mind after he received this new information?I found this to be an annoyance in this game that Geralt must automatically kill the Beast, and Geralt gives no thought to/the player has no choice in letting the Beast live after he knew that man summoned him. After I heard that the Beast was summoned by man, I was sure that I would have a choice to not kill the Beast, then i was disappointed to learn there is no choice. I read in some Abigail threads that some other posters here also wanted to side with the Beast. That would be cool too. EIther siding with the Beast and directly killing Abigail and the whole town alongside the Beast. Or, simply choosing to leave town and then maybe a movie plays with the Beast eating everyone in town (this could even have some great comedic moments with characters like Odo being eaten in a humorous way). Post here if you support the Beast too, and were disappointed you didn't have a choice to side with the Beast, or simply leave town with the Beast alive and well.

 

[mkrzyzanowski]

I support the plan of de Eldersberg! The Beast was good too, the villagers was "bad guys" :]

 

[xhan]

I think when you're from hell it's usually a bad thing.

 

[Hiver.147]

I think when you're from hell it's usually a bad thing.

Usually but not always.I agree with the OP. There should have been a way to deal with the Beast in another way. After all the Beast does get its revenge on the villagers no matter what geralt does. And i like that. Because they deserve it. After Geralt finds that raped and murdered girl there should have been an option of (with abigails help) of realizing what the beast is and then hunting down those who created it by their deeds - because after all - those are the monsters.Maybe in the end Beast would go mad even if you helped it destroy all those people and Geralt would have to either destroy it or find a way to release it somehow. With the help of Zoltan and Shani - which would explain how they managed o get into Vizima later on. And save some kids too. Because they were the only ones that didnt have any part in all that.Would be a nice touch if we had options like these.

 

[gwildor]

No there shouldn't be an option to let it live, even though it is understandeble to wabt to let it live.But don't forget: Geralt is a professional monster slayer, born raised and payed to kill monsters.

 

[Eri94_user70]

geralt hadnt a choice, the beast attacked him! he killed it in self defense

 

[navaros]

Isn't there a line where Geralt says to Abigail "Ok, let's go take care of the Beast?" or something like that before the Beast attacks? I seem to remember Geralt pro-actively looking to go attack the Beast.In any case, it would be easy enough to have changed the scripting around so that the Beast never attacks Geralt first. Or allow Geralt to run away/escape despite being attacked, or bypass the Beast in another way. If a choice was put into the game to let the Beast live, then it would make sense to also put in other supporting things like that accomodate that concept.

 

[joriandrake]

there is no way gerald can evade the fight with the beastbut yes i support that is should bebut no, not with letting it live, this would be against the main idea behind witchersinstead i would prefer to have an option to gather all the info about the goody goody guard/witch/bandit/merchant/reverent and then tell the villagers that these were the real beastsIf these are killed the beast should disappear (or so it says the legend in the book) on its own, without a fight

 

[gwildor]

yes there is a line were geralt says : let's go kill the beast. don't remember exactly but I thought it was somewhere around leaving the cave with abigail.@joriandrake : this might be a good idea. I didn't finished the game yet, but does this happens once? or does geralt always kill the beast?maybe geralt should let the townspeople know before he can kill the beast, because otherwise it is invinceble or runs away for a while?

 

[Hiver.147]

thats what i said. there should be an option of "releasing" the beast in another way then killing it. poor beastie...

 

[mkrzyzanowski]

My idea: Before battle villagers want to kill us - Beast comes and attacks them with us. After fight Beast have done what it wanted and disappears. =]

 

[username_2071599]

a movie plays with the Beast eating everyone in town (this could even have some great comedic moments with characters like Odo being eaten in a humorous way).

Ooookay... What constitutes "being eaten in a humorous way"? That the Beast and some barghests will pull out his entrails and have a food fight?

geralt hadnt a choice, the beast attacked him! he killed it in self defense

I shall hereby start wearing a T-shirt that says: "Geralt shot first".I have another option, without killing anyone. Look, if the Beast was summoned by the villagers' collective evil deeds, then it should be banishable by them proceeding to do good. No more raping, no more illegal weapons trade, no more killing and Vesna can set up a book club for young women, instead of making out with any hunky stranger who kills some green dogs.You see what I mean? Convincing both the villagers and Abigail to subscribe to a different worldview would end the reign of the Beast. And, if you still want a Big Bad Boss at the end of Act I, then hey - maybe the villagers will want to start worshipping Melitele, goddess of love and mercy, in preference to the Eternal Flame. I guess that would pretty much piss off the Reverend... There's your BBB.

 

[petra_silie]

On the last cutscene I got the impression that there was no chance to convince the stubborn villagers. I had the feeling they will never regret what they have done. Even when Geralt accuses them none of them showed the slightest insight. But they shift the blame on Abigail.Supporting the Beast would mean Geralt agrees to the evilness of the villagers. The Beast is pure evilness The Beast nourishes on the evilness of the poeple. It has no own personality to side with. Maybe... if Geralt kills all responsibles the Beast vanishes as well... though he did it after he defeated the Beast, so it actually makes no difference.[X] no support for the Beast ]:->

 

[username_2071599]

Maybe... if Geralt kills all responsibles the Beast vanishes as well...

This actually sounds too much like a "fight fire with fire" style party...EDIT: Same goes to hiver's post below.

 

[Hiver.147]

No, no, no. The beast isnt evil. Its only a reaction of evil that villagers did.namely rape and murder of that girl. i think i remember someone saying that Beast is almost a vengefull spirit of that girl. Anyway there si no way that "changing the view of the villagers" could be believable. they would probably laugh at Geralt for suggesting so or just lying to him and then after he has left raping and killing Abigail.My idea is the best one. Geralt should have been able to kill all of the villagers (monsters) who did this deed and so appease the beast and return it to the pits of flaming HELL where she came from!But i quite like the way beast killed everyone in the end. That was good. It got atleast some satisfaction that way.

 

[petra_silie]

Maybe... if Geralt kills all responsibles the Beast vanishes as well...

This actually sounds too much like a "fight fire with fire" style party...EDIT: Same goes to hiver's post below.

The villagers had to die somehow or other... at least they attacked Geralt after he finished the Beast. Maybe there had been a more suitable solution for punishment. I felt a bit uncomfortable to kill the fat Odo, a guy who isn't educated in fighting. btw... I haven't tried the other way yet, send Abigail to the mob. Did the villagers attack Geralt then as well though he complied?

 

[username_2071599]

btw... I haven't tried the other way yet, send Abigail to the mob. Did the villagers attack Geralt then as well though he complied?

Villagers do not attack Geralt, and the Beast is busy chasing them, basically you don't get Abigail's healing help, but the Beast is easier to kill because it has more targets to choose from.

 

[Hiver.147]

This actually sounds too much like a "fight fire with fire" style party...EDIT: Same goes to hiver's post below.

Thats too much of a simplistic moral view to be applicable to the realistic world of the Witcher.And its not really correct, anyway. If you do have some specific argument it would be better to display it fully then to reach for some vague folk sayings.

 

[username_2071599]

If you do have some specific argument it would be better to display it fully then to reach for some vague folk sayings.

There you go, then. You argue that Geralt should have "killed all the villagers (monsters)". In your view, therefore, because some of the inhabitants of the outskirts commited heinous acts, it makes everyone from the village evil monsters, and you therefore propose cleansing, claiming that "if evil disappears, the Beast disappears". Well, for one, evil will stay there anyway (Echinops are a good indicator of that), and second, by killing everyone, you'd engage in more evil (it's a different thing to kill bandits in self-defense, or monsters which are a threat to human race, and descending like a spirit of vengeance upon simple inhabitants of a village), which, if anything, would just strengthen the Beast.This is my 'simplistic' morality.

 

[planewalker]

Who says Geralt kills every villager? After the fight with the Beast, only the Reverend, Odo, Mikul and Haren appear (IIRC), and they're the one responsible for the heinous acts. I don't remember slaughtering any beggars, peasant women or elderly ladies. ???