Best moral decisions in The Witcher?

[GuyNwah]

Actually, in-breeding is a well-accepted technique with animals, as, for examples, horses. They do it to strengthen good genes. In-breeding does raise a chance of receiving two alleles of some recessive bad trait, but not every family carries them. This problem is more prevalent with some small isolated human populations, when a bad trait appeared through mutation, and spread. People from such groups are encouraged to have a genetic screening before marriage. But even if they do not, or decide to marry anyway, with a hope to get lucky, it may be dumb, but not evil, not seen as bad as incest. So just a chance of genetically-defective off-spring is not really an explanation.

Plus, people have sex with a purpose of reproduction how often, 5-10% of a time? What was the last time, if ever, did you have sex in order to have kids? />/>/>/>

As I remember from one of anthropology classes, kids who grow up in the same family, even if they are not related by blood, tend not to perceive each other as ex partners. Probably, psychology + biology. Also it may be a historic-religious thing: sex may be still seen on a sub-conscious level as sin and aggression, and family members should defend and take care of each other, not be aggressors. In other cultures insect was quite all right.

Disclaimer: don't think I am a weirdo, please. I have no personal interest in incestuous relations, cannibalism, or any other taboo-breaking behavior. I am simply curious how and why these taboos arise in our culture.

The problem with incest is not actually to do with inbreeding, though the degree to which human inbreeding is deleterious is both significant and well studied; see A Background Summary of Consanguineous Marriage. Inferences of the consequences of selective inbreeding taken from domestic animals, or from genetically very different mammals such as rats, should not be applied to humans.

The problem is that incest is not what we are pretending it is. It is actually a form of sexual abuse of children. Most incest is not between consenting adults (which we could assume Foltest's to be). The most common form of incest is rape of a daughter or stepdaughter by a father or stepfather, followed by rape of a child sister by an adult brother.

 

[volsung]

In general, a feature the first Witcher introduced was the ability to experience concrete consequences until much later, when there's nothing we can do about them and they hit us in the face. Not just whether a person lives or dies, but actual gameplay opportunities.

And I agree, you should absolutely play the whole game. Both to be precise.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Actually, she is. At least evil. She herself admits to Geralt that everyone hides their own monster inside them. Plus that doll... And no remorse about selling poison to a woman she knew would commit suicide with it...

She says everyone has a beast inside? Evil inclination is not news. One is not evil for having it - one becomes evil when it takes control of one's thoughts, speech and actions. She might be bitter and could use the doll for some kind of revenge, but not because she's just evil. Poison is questionable. I'd say she is a conflicted character. More chaotic, than evil.

 

[elwongo2]

Guys, I'm not going to play the first game again. I loved it but I logged plenty of time in it. that's why I'm asking you guys.

I've already started The Witcher 2 and I'm enjoying it.

What are the long-term consequences of what you can do at that one vilage?

 

[GuyNwah]

Guys, I'm not going to play the first game again. I loved it but I logged plenty of time in it. that's why I'm asking you guys. />/>/>/>

I've already started The Witcher 2 and I'm enjoying it.

What are the long-term consequences of what you can do at that one vilage?

Depending on a previous decision, you will have a choice of siding with the Squirrels, or with the Order, or getting the hell out of there. This determines your alignment for Act V, where the Squirrels and the Order are in an all-out war. If you took a side, the other will hate you. If you stayed neutral, both sides will hate you. Some quests will then play differently in Act V, depending on who is still on speaking terms with you.

Spoiler

If you sided with the Squirrels at the bank robbery in Act III, you cannot side with the Order in Act IV. And vice versa.

The quests affected in Act V are:

Getting from the Old Vizima wall to the field hospital. You'll accompany Zoltan, White Rayla, or two nurses (who will be ever so grateful) depending on whether you sided with the Squirrels, sided with the Order, or stayed neutral.

Getting out of Old Vizima from the field hospital. You'll rescue Toruviel on the way, rescue White Rayla on the way, or escort Shani out of the city, depending.

The last Sex Card. You'll have a chance for sex with Toruviel, White Rayla, or the two nurses, depending. White Rayla's sex card is suitably scary.

Crafting Raven's Armor. You'll get different versions of the armor, have to collect different artifacts to have it crafted, and have to go to different craftsmen (the dwarf Malcolm Stein, the Order Armorer, or Kalkstein, depending) to craft it.

 

[violetdreams]

Guys, how could you have sex with Abigail? It was completely transparent that she didn't want it, she was buying your loyalty. Ewww. It sounds like rape to me, or rather a thinly concealed rape, a woman letting you have her out of sheer despair. It's like kicking the one who's already down.

EccentricOwl, I sort of know why you aren't playing TW1. Maybe. Although my saves weren't corrupt I too lost momentum at one point, somewhere at the moment of getting to Murky Waters. The game seemed too long, but later I continued and was happy about it. The second game is much shorter, by the way.

 

[iisvloi]

Actually, Foltest's behavior is bad (sinful) only from a Judeo-Christian perspective (three major monotheistic religions). From a modern non-theistic moral perspective, it was permissible because it was between consenting adults. Neither his sister, nor Louise were raped, and in this case it is nobody's business what happens in somebody's bedroom. Nothing irredeemable about it. Foltest was shown in a very positive light in both TW1 and TW2.

Why exactly incest is morally bad (evil) even if both parties want this relationship, is something I have no idea how to argue for. It is more of a social taboo most people uphold, and it might have some negative consequences for the health of the children (though not even close to as much as people believe), but I don't see any EVIL in it.

I never said that he raped Adda (Foltest's sister, not daughter) or Luoisa. But I think it was also made clear in The Witcher universe that incest was at the very least frowned upon and considered amoral. Now doing an amoral act doesn't necessarily mean it to be evil; especially if the act isn't malicious in nature, but rather of an act of passion. As for the affair, Louisa was married to the 'old baron'at the time of the affair with Foltest that produced Anais and Boussy.

As for the Judeo-Christian perspective; it is not the only faith that is against incest. Plus I don't even need faith to tell me my personally morals. I don't have a sister, but I have a cousin that I admit from a purely observing perspective that she is quite attractive and also has a sweet personality that men would flock towards. Does that mean that I want to have sex or be in a romantic relationship with her? No, because I have a high enough moral standing to know that that would be wrong even to perform such acts with a blood relative if it was hypothetically consensual or not. Foltest, in my moral lens, performed something extremely amoral with his sister, and to a lesser extent, Luoisa, regardless if both causes were consensual, that only makes them just as guilty of the amoral act as foltest.

Now I never said that made him a purely bad person, because in my mind he counteracts his amoral love life with his devotion to fatherhood towards Adda (His daughter, not his sister) and Anais and Boussy. That makes him a real person, or as real as a fictional character can get. Real people in real life have both good qualities and bad qualities; something Sapkowski and CD Projekt knew well enough to create/protray a character as such.

 

[secondchildren]

Guys, how could you have sex with Abigail? It was completely transparent that she didn't want it, she was buying your loyalty. Ewww. It sounds like rape to me, or rather a thinly concealed rape, a woman letting you have her out of sheer despair. It's like kicking the one who's already down.

It wasn't actually for me. Abigail seemed that sort of a woman perferctly capable of taking care of herself. They the Devs put the things at the end of Act I, meaning Abigail basically "giving" herself to Geralt, is a cloudy subject (as many others in TW games). And by the tone of her voice you cannot exactly read a sort of refuse.

Anyway, maybe because I'm a woman too, but I also saw it as a kind of a rape every time I played. I think that I accept her only once just for curiosity of seeing her sex card.

 

[violetdreams]

It wasn't actually for me. Abigail seemed that sort of a woman perferctly capable of taking care of herself.

Her timing was very suspicious and suggested that she was buying Geralt's loyalty. She could have sex with Geralt any time before if she wanted to, but she chose a moment when the villagers were after her and Geralt could help her protect herself if given an incensitive to care. I agree that she was probably capable of protecting herself, she sounded like she could do it, but one against many? Noone would be too self-confident in such a situation. Besides, Geralt could side with the villagers and become a tough opponent.

I think that I accept her only once just for curiosity of seeing her sex card.

Yeah and her sex card suggests that she isn't that simple.

What about the elf-woman in the cave? I considered it an equally dubious sex situation, she was dying from hunger and despair and everything was wrong about sex happening and Geralt being happy about it. In my game we had sex accidentally, sometimes you don't see it coming... Another example is Celina, and while there was nothing overtly wrong in her case, the whole deed leaves a vaguely bad aftertaste. Like your Geralt is ready to use any opportunity, no matter the reason and whether she is sincerely willing or not. I'm really glad they did away with that BS in TW2 and all sex situations actually started to make sense.

 

[elwongo2]

Are there any decisions towards the endgame? I don't suppose there's any way to ally with, say, the Order's Grandmaster?

 

[GuyNwah]

Are there any decisions towards the endgame? I don't suppose there's any way to ally with, say, the Order's Grandmaster?

There are a few, none so dramatic as your decision to take a side or run away in Act IV. The big one is the fate of Adda.

Spoiler

She has gone back to being a striga. There was a foreshadowing of this in Act III, but in Act V, it's happened, and Foltest wants you to lift the curse again. You can lift the curse, at considerable risk to yourself, or kill her. Later, it's revealed that Radovid wants to marry her. He will be pleased if you lifted the curse, and morose if you killed her.

 

[secondchildren]

Her timing was very suspicious and suggested that she was buying Geralt's loyalty. She could have sex with Geralt any time before if she wanted to, but she chose a moment when the villagers were after her and Geralt could help her protect herself if given an incensitive to care. I agree that she was probably capable of protecting herself, she sounded like she could do it, but one against many? Noone would be too self-confident in such a situation. Besides, Geralt could side with the villagers and become a tough opponent.

Maybe you misunderstood me. Abigail situation at the end of ACT I is clear. What is less clear if if she actually wants to give herself to Geralt as and exchange act, or as a payment. As I said, being a woman myself I found a bit disgusting accepting the offer. But I am wondering if the Devs meant something more when writing that scene, or if some other players saw the thing in a different way than mine. Coz as I said, Abigail to me seems no woman in distress, in her attitude (not in the facts, in the situation).

Taking advantage of her might be seen in two ways. And eventually she never expressed any despising toward Geralt before the final event.

Yeah and her sex card suggests that she isn't that simple. />

Pretty much I even doubt she is totally, 100% innocent. That Odo doll in her house made me think. More likely she is the most innocent in the Outskirt events.

What about the elf-woman in the cave? I considered it an equally dubious sex situation, she was dying from hunger and despair and everything was wrong about sex happening and Geralt being happy about it. In my game we had sex accidentally, sometimes you don't see it coming...

Ew.... that is simply awkward! I seriously had problem in accepting the offer.
The way I see it is that they wanted to portrait a tough brutal world, where sex is also a monetary exchange. It's up to you and to your moral to decide whether it's accpetable or not.

There is another similar situation in W2. In Vergen, you can meet one of the elf-girls you saved before in Floatsam. She offers sex as a sign of gratitude. I found it horrible the same, but I guess it's just me.

Another example is Celina, and while there was nothing overtly wrong in her case, the whole deed leaves a vaguely bad aftertaste. Like your Geralt is ready to use any opportunity, no matter the reason and whether she is sincerely willing or not. I'm really glad they did away with that BS in TW2 and all sex situations actually started to make sense.

Oh well the entire game goes in that direction. It's my only complaint. Too many women willing of distributing sex to a witcher, simply surreal.
Celina's sex is given in spite, in regard to her sister. In that specifical occasion, Geralt is actually the toy for her, it's up to you to accept the role or not. Curious, coz I've always imagined that scene being pretty rough, I mean "mechanical". She seems to have not the slightest interest for Geralt. On the contrary, her sex card suggests a different situation and it's even among the sweetest sex cards (but that thanks to the artist

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I wouldn't take sex cards to be definitively related to the characters (i.e. revealing some unknown plot details about them). I'd view them as a somewhat separate creations and wouldn't draw any plot conclusions based on them. Unless of course authors intended them in that way.

 

[violetdreams]

Pretty much I even doubt she is totally, 100% innocent.

At least her guilt was not proven, unlike those of others. And selling poison, while a mean act that speaks of her indifference towards people, is not equal to selling children or rape.

The way I see it is that they wanted to portrait a tough brutal world, where sex is also a monetary exchange. It's up to you and to your moral to decide whether it's accpetable or not.

They sort of managed to portray that world, even without the sex situations. Characters keep constantly alluding to sex, whores, ploughing. Even kings do that. And I personally felt jarred when some gnome in Vergen called his date a fuck date. Too bad you couldn't punch him in the face like you could punch a Blue Stripe for insulting an elven woman. I think that's going too far to portray the world. At least to my non-native-English ears it sounds way too rude. Maybe to native speakers it's not like that.

But what shocked me most was a journal entry about Zyvik in TW2, he's described as a normal soldier and rape is mentioned. Probably that's how wars actually went, but I never quite thought about it before. We aren't told in the mass media that brave soldiers were raping left and right. And so we have Henselt whose chief crime is Ves, most people who punish him do that for her I'm sure... and yet look around, the journal and actual pieces of dialogue in the game suggest that each and every soldier is the same as him.

I've always imagined that scene being pretty rough, I mean "mechanical". She seems to have not the slightest interest for Geralt.(but that thanks to the artist

 

[dragonbird]

There is another similar situation in W2. In Vergen, you can meet one of the elf-girls you saved before in Floatsam. She offers sex as a sign of gratitude. I found it horrible the same, but I guess it's just me.

I totally agree with you about Abigail, the sex is offered as a bribe, pure and simple. I don't know whether or not I'd classify it as rape, or as a technique used by a scheming woman. I tend towards the latter, but it's been a long time since I played and I can't remember the dialogue. Who makes the first suggestion? If it's Geralt, then it's rape.

I don't agree about the elf-girl though. In her case I see it as a gift (and reward) freely given, something that she'll enjoy as much as Geralt. But the succubus offer is definitely bribery, blatant and obvious. As is the vampire choice in the Blue Eyes quest.

And back on difficult decisions? Yes, Abigail is right up there at the top. I usually side with her because I detest the Reverend, but I don't think she's an innocent. The Stennis decision in TW2 is a close second. Blue Eyes is an easy one though, I always side with the vampires because I agree with them.

 

[GuyNwah]

I totally agree with you about Abigail, the sex is offered as a bribe, pure and simple. I don't know whether or not I'd classify it as rape, or as a technique used by a scheming woman. I tend towards the latter, but it's been a long time since I played and I can't remember the dialogue. Who makes the first suggestion? If it's Geralt, then it's rape.

I don't agree about the elf-girl though. In her case I see it as a gift (and reward) freely given, something that she'll enjoy as much as Geralt. But the succubus offer is definitely bribery, blatant and obvious. As is the vampire choice in the Blue Eyes quest.

And back on difficult decisions? Yes, Abigail is right up there at the top. I usually side with her because I detest the Reverend, but I don't think she's an innocent. The Stennis decision in TW2 is a close second. Blue Eyes is an easy one though, I always side with the vampires because I agree with them.

It's Abigail. She offers him something like "a chance to see how unique I really am".

I'd say that Geralt never takes advantage of a woman who isn't willing to be taken advantage of. That doesn't constitute any kind of praise. In most of these situations, a gentleman would have thought better of it, and not done so. But it's a long way from being some kind of serial rapist.

To me, the most questionable case is not any of those mentioned so far but the naive "Lute Girl".

 

[dragonbird]

To me, the most questionable case is not any of those mentioned so far but the naive "Lute Girl".

I'd forgotten her, probably because I never let Geralt take advantage of that particular situation. Yes, that would definitely be predatory.

 

[Eri94_user70]

Hmmm... Letting Abigail go without holding the "cave party" is anti-deontological. Witchers love women, collectors love cards... And working people love payments in advance for services provided later (in said case, siding with her and sparing her life/defending her from the murderous peasants). Plus, she is offering herself up by her own free will. It would be rude to say no to a lady.

When you meet her later in the village, and you ask her whether she remembers that cave or not (geralt probably needed some extra relaxation in murky waters...), she says like your average, typical, real life woman, "the past is the past, nothing more". I always preferred living to the fullest with risks, rather than playing nice, loose chances now and get full of regrets/grudges later. Everyone knows the saying about life, i guess... (life is like an ash, faq her before she sits on you). Playing nice = Loosing chances now and get rejected later (plus being labelled as an impotent jackass and time waster, instead of nice guy), playing tough = enjoy your life, especially if with the dangers involved your future and survival is quite uncertain.

That, and the kids were so scared they abandoned the cave as soon as my Salamanders lost their innards to the steel sword. Plus, that reminded me of the video game rating trends: seeing extreme melee gore is alright, but watching a sex scene (even if blurred and card-ified) is evil? Very bright, indeed!

 

[GuyNwah]

But what shocked me most was a journal entry about Zyvik in TW2, he's described as a normal soldier and rape is mentioned. Probably that's how wars actually went, but I never quite thought about it before. We aren't told in the mass media that brave soldiers were raping left and right. And so we have Henselt whose chief crime is Ves, most people who punish him do that for her I'm sure... and yet look around, the journal and actual pieces of dialogue in the game suggest that each and every soldier is the same as him.

"...shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;"

Yes, in the Bad Old Days, soldiers would rape every woman they could, and were given orders to do so, or at least freedom to do so under the understanding that they would.

The order "Havoc!" meant the army was at liberty to murder and rape civilians, and plunder and pillage their property.

The practice has not been fully stamped out in the last century or even this one.