[Act I] Is Abigail bad and guilty?

+
If you look at the journal entry for the Hellhound (the Beast's "real" name), you'll see that it always takes the appearance of a large dog. If Abigail had had a monkey, it would still have been a dog. And the Beast's form ... well, that ain't like no puppy I ever saw. :D
 
Corylea said:
If you look at the journal entry for the Hellhound (the Beast's "real" name), you'll see that it always takes the appearance of a large dog. If Abigail had had a monkey, it would still have been a dog. And the Beast's form ... well, that ain't like no puppy I ever saw. :D
My bad... overlooked the journal entry. Except, I still think I may be right. Maybe it's last appearances were all provoked by the evil deeds + a situation involving a puppy/dog - it's form. Anyways, possibilities could be endless without further 'real' game evidence... till then, I am gonna keep thinking of circumstances for this which will grow from ridiculous to absurd. :DI do think, however, that maybe we are thinking of things not even the creators knew could be a possibility as there are gaps all over the place. But hey, at the end of the day... who cares? Really... :peace:
 
Corylea said:
If you look at the journal entry for the Hellhound (the Beast's "real" name), you'll see that it always takes the appearance of a large dog. If Abigail had had a monkey, it would still have been a dog. And the Beast's form ... well, that ain't like no puppy I ever saw. :D
And Berengar's notes indicate that it is an 'Alzur's demon'. According to Abigail the demon Alzur met looked like a sphinx. Either Berengar was wrong or the demon takes different forms at different times. Possibly the hellhound is just one of many manifestations?
 
Thought I'd just add some of my thoughts on the subject... I'm on my third playthrough now, and last two times, I saved Abigail, just so you know. Although this time, I might kill her just of spite against the developers, who in this case went for waving a bloody huge sign saying "THE VILLAGERS ARE EEEEEEEVIL!!!!!" in my face all the time. So I felt uncomfortably like being pushed into saving her every time.OK, just a few thoughts. I might be a bit inaccurate, don't remember all the details right now, but here it goes:1) Did the Beast REALLY just appear because of the villagers' evil deeds? Because I remember that the very first short story about Geralt gives one of the main rules of the Witcherverse: magic doesn't happen by itself. If the devs decided to keep that rule, then someone must have summoned the Beast. And it seems like Abigail is the only spellcaster in the village...2) We really only seem to have Abigail's word for some of the "evil deeds". As mentioned before, it's unclear whether Mikul really raped his girlfriend... we DO know it was Abigail who gave her the poison, though... Odo and Haren are less ambiguous, although with Odo it still might be more complicated than what Abigail gives us.3) Olaf indeed mentions driving out the "filth" and drops it was their "kin"... And, seeing how the devs were pushing the "villagers are a stupid, murderous mob" idea, he probably really meant them killing or driving out their own... But this could be looked at from a different angle. The village is infested with undead monsters. Those undead are probably mostly former inhabitants of the village. Maybe, just maybe, dealing with the "filth" was in fact supposed to be fighting the undead infestation? Maybe the villagers were unwilling to kill the undead because they saw them as their former kin and the Reverend talked them into fighting? (*)4) There is also this ugly thing about Abigail belonging to the LHS cult...These are just a few of the things that went through my mind. Yes, there are arguments for saving Abigail. Yes, the Reverend seems to be a complete jerk. Yes, the game marks A. as "innocent". But it just irks me so much that in a game with some really well-developed characters, in a world of grey morality, Chapter I is so horribly black-and-white and cliche-ridden.(*) Just to be clear: the Witcherverse has some examples of citizens dealing with monster problems themselves without bothering to alert the authorities or witchers. This just in case someone asked how the villagers could have any way of fighting the undead.
 
The villagers in question WERE evil. The developers just showed that fact.. don't see how it's pushing you into saving Abigail. ???You just listed a lot of reasons that may suggest Abigail is evil(she IS evil.. just being in the LHS proves that) ... and those hints are being dropped everywhere in the game. Yet you say the chapter 1 is black and white morality?? :hmmm:
 
Question: Does the choice really force you to choose between the Lesser evil or just your gut instinct over exterior image?
 
I don't think Act I is obviously a black-white categorization. It's all dark grey, almost black. We don't have a proof for all accusations, e.g. Ilsa's rapist. The villagers are bad and hypocritical. Abigail is a bad woman as well but the villagers knew it. Nevertheless they sought out her when they needed unusal items. One guy who bought aphrodisiac from her was mentioned. Abigail knew about the villagers secret bad demands and took adventage from it when she sold them items they wanted. But when Beast case got worse they sacrificed Abigail as a pawn.
 
Tlazolteotl said:
Everyone is guilty, but just remember .. Witchers aren't meant to kill humans at all.
Or more precisely: A Witcher is no Judge or Jury. Only Executioner. (You'd need emotions for the the fore-mentioned, right? :whistle:)One, I think, could even suspect Abigail of taking advantage of Geralt? Maybe act to force him in a shield position? It did look like it outside the cave. :hmmm:
 
I think it's pretty obvious Abigail used Geralt as a shield.. She even offered sex for it. And it was up to the player to decide if you minded or not.
 
Dezired said:
I think it's pretty obvious Abigail used Geralt as a shield.. She even offered sex for it. And it was up to the player to decide if you minded or not.
Maybe not. As I recall, the player decides to shield her or not. Her offer did not substantiate his guard, but merely to show him her normality.
 
Tlazolteotl said:
Everyone is guilty, but just remember .. Witchers aren't meant to kill humans at all.
Yes, under normal circumstances ;D But in this case he is involved in the riot, resp. has a mission. So he had to make a decision. There are several occasions in the game where Geralt has to decide once again to kill humans. Gramps and the con artist Act II and Patrick de Weyze in Act IV or the Order's knights when Geralt is allied with the Scoi'tael.
 
PetraSilie said:
There are several occasions in the game where Geralt has to decide once again to kill humans. Gramps and the con artist Act II and Patrick de Weyze in Act IV or the Order's knights when Geralt is allied with the Scoi'tael.
Are these occasions not acts of self-defence? I don't think the opponents would let Geralt be an innocent by-stander. The game aside, it seems they drag him into battle.
 
PetraSilie said:
Yes in the case of Order and Scoia'tael it's self defense but not with Gramps and Patrick de Weyze.
I disagree, Geralt is pushed into a fight with de Weyze if he chooses that path, which, but no means, nulls their contract.Gramps, on the other hand, may be seen as a monster on the inside.
 
And ... that's why I use axes.'cos sometimes there are killings that gotta be done, and them monsters are not worthy of the time required to clean a sword.Axe, a quick wipe on the ground will do .. and if it's way messy, just discard it.
 
Tlazolteotl said:
And ... that's why I use axes.'cos sometimes there are killings that gotta be done, and them monsters are not worthy of the time required to clean a sword.Axe, a quick wipe on the ground will do .. and if it's way messy, just discard it.
;D I never actually looked at it that way. I try to be creative, but not that immersed. Nice :peace:
 
56236 said:
56236 said:
Yes in the case of Order and Scoia'tael it's self defense but not with Gramps and Patrick de Weyze.
I disagree, Geralt is pushed into a fight with de Weyze if he chooses that path, which, but no means, nulls their contract.Gramps, on the other hand, may be seen as a monster on the inside.
I hope you don't mind when I don't answer because I don't want the topic to drift away into OT.
 
PetraSilie said:
PetraSilie said:
...de Weyze.....Gramps.....
I hope you don't mind when I don't answer because I don't want the topic to drift away into OT.
I guess you're right, but that didn't stop you b4 playin' the Lead?? :D ;) Anyways, back OT...Let's assume Abigail used Geralt as a shield for her own purpose... Does that make her Guilty for wanting to save her neck?I mean, preservation of ones self is a right (even those days, hopefully; maybe not on parchment) and people would do anything...yeah, anything, but wait around like Abigail did with Geralt. My word - it's just a NPC standing around and we think it means something symbolic. :wall:Well, it's fun to discuss it.... points of view?? :whatthe:
 
Man how I love this topic been following it from day one :DYou may also look at it this way you have on one side a bunch of Villagers all with skeletons on there closet so to speak of. Leaded by a a Zealot priest who was not saint himself. Now you have Abigail one woman hiding for her life who was being blamed for all the hardship in the Village as well as the Beast.And is far form a saint herself and there only one person that can help her.This would be a judgement call on one part both side are guilty to a point it more of a matter of who is more guilty the Villagers and the Zealot priest or Abigail It more of a matter of the Lesser Evil
 
Top Bottom