Convince me that Ciri is a good choice.

[LeKill3rFou]

Geralt hates trials too, but the quote about table is, indeed, Lambert's.

Not sure it's the right word, but Geralt seem more pragmatic about his past... At least, he doesn't seem as "traumatised" and have as much hatred as Lambert against their past.
Sometimes during the dialogues with Lambert, we could "almost" feel a bit of nostalgia

 

[Draconifors]

Real-world politics, and opinions of such, are not welcome on this forum so, please, no more of that kind of comments.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Not sure it's the right word, but Geralt seem more pragmatic about his past... At least, he doesn't seem as "traumatised" and have as much hatred as Lambert against their past.
Sometimes during the dialogues with Lambert, we could "almost" feel a bit of nostalgia

Yeah, pragmatic seems like the right word. Let's put it this way - Geralt hates what was done to him, but he accepted it and more or less moved on.
It's like as if he was drawn a big tattoo on his face when he was a child. It makes him noticeable, strange, bars him from certain positions in life - but it also makes him look more threatening to some nasty people, women kinda dig it and it's been decades since he got it, so he can't imagine his face without it anyway.
Lamber laments the pointlessness of it, the fact that all this trauma and horror was inflicted on him and many others seemingly for nothing, that all it will amount to is constant looks over the shoulder and inglorious death in some ditch. Geralt accepts all of this, but also realizes that he can do a lot of good regardless.

 

[Lleuwelyn]

Let's check the books then.
Blood of Elves, Chapter 2, Triss POV:

Later, in the same chapter:

Later-later, when she confronts the gang on Ciri's diet and upbrining:

At no point she stops and says "Oh, silly me, how could I forget that women can't be mutated into witchers?" and at no point other witchers say "Oh, Triss, silly you, women can't be mutated into witchers!" - when she first meets Ciri, she checks her for mutations, later she thinks that witchers would want to mutate her, but that they don't know how, for which she still thanks them later.

The only account of "only males surviving" that I could find was in the end of Chapter 2:

Which, again, doesn't say that women cannot, under any circumstances undergo trials - it doesn't even mention whether or not there were girls there at all, because the boy was the sole survivor out of the entire group. And if the girls were there, what percentage of the group were they? 10 out of 20? 1 out of 10?

Why? The last witcher was created conventionally decades ago, whatever formula that will appear later will most likely be either completely new or have some major changes to the original one. Besides, someone has to be the first successful subject - Ciri being the first is not improbable, considering all the insane things she's done before.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2025

Geralt hates trials too, but the quote about table is, indeed, Lambert's.

all you are describing here is Triss' internal thought processes. And even she seems to be very happy they didn't try to pass her on the trials. The other parts are just Ciri fantasising about being a Witcher. If i'm also remembering well, triss herself is one of the youngest additions to the sorceresses' lodge. She herself has also never participated in the process of witcher making. So her knowledge on the subect might also just be superficial.

And once again, if there were only males in the group, it would have not been needed to call him "male". That's pretty much logic here. there were girls in that group at least. And after all, it was for some reason decided to stop doing the trials on girls. If not any of these, plz tell me the reason why they otherwise stopped it? Be reminded also that the lodge of sorceresses was always involved in witcher making, so the decision to not do it on girls anymore comes from them too.

You are talking about a science that has been dropped for decades or more so you say yourself. So they'd have to start experimenting again.More massacring of children. Great. Now the chance they would be restarting that just for Ciri alone is minimal. After all if it's just to serve one person alone it's kind of pointless to do that. And of course, Ciri has like you said- her magical plot armor Elder blood. So what they are going to do then for the other girls? tap out her elder blood by the gallons to distribute it to the rest? try to enchant every girl they find to give them elder blood also in a big voodoo hocus pocus circle? and if said formula is made magically hocus pocus so much safer, then really is nothing special more about being a witcher too is it? Because everyone then can become one. Maybe we should turn the witcher then into an Isekai Manga and have our main character going to Kaer Morhen high school, going through puberty and debating who in the classroom would be his or her first love?

the more you look at it, the more non sensical it looks to have ciri pass the trials. It simply serves no practical sense. And it certainly would have been way easier for the devs to just let Ciri be who she was by the end of W3: a magical progeny without witcher mutations.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

And it certainly would have been way easier for the devs to just let Ciri be who she was by the end of W3: a magical progeny without witcher mutations.

Ok, I wonder... you mean that left Ciri in The Witcher 4, exactly as she is/appear at the end of The Witcher 3 would be a good idea and would make much more sense?
So like a "god-like fighter that absolutely nobody can challenge"?
Like that as a reminder (of course in death march) :

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

all you are describing here is Triss' internal thought processes. And even she seems to be very happy they didn't try to pass her on the trials. The other parts are just Ciri fantasising about being a Witcher. If i'm also remembering well, triss herself is one of the youngest additions to the sorceresses' lodge. She herself has also never participated in the process of witcher making. So her knowledge on the subect might also just be superficial.

I'm sorry, but this is turbo-cope. Triss, despite being young, is one of the most skillful sorceresses on the continent, she was invited into the Lodge and she was an adviser to King Foltest: there is no possible way that she would know about witcher Laboratorium, Trial of the Grasses, Trial of Change, the special herbs and mushrums - and at the same time be completely unaware about the most basic fact of what gender has a chance of passing any of it.

Because everyone then can become one. Maybe we should turn the witcher then into an Isekai Manga and have our main character going to Kaer Morhen high school, going through puberty and debating who in the classroom would be his or her first love?

My Witcher Academia, would unironically read.

For now, though, we have no idea how, why or where did Ciri underwent the Trials. It can be that there are other women like her or she can be the only one. It can be that there are multiple other new witchers or she can be the only one. We don't know how any of this will play out until the game gets released - or at least the synopsis drops. All I'm saying that the problems you are listing aren't applicable to Ciri alone - they are applicable to pretty much any Witcher sequel with character creation, especially if female witchers were an option there at all.
I'm sure the fact that writers have been pondering on how to move Ciri's journey forward for years included them writing an explanation on how did she become a witcher in the first place.

 

[Lleuwelyn]

I'm sorry, but this is turbo-cope. Triss, despite being young, is one of the most skillful sorceresses on the continent, she was invited into the Lodge and she was an adviser to King Foltest: there is no possible way that she would know about witcher Laboratorium, Trial of the Grasses, Trial of Change, the special herbs and mushrums - and at the same time be completely unaware about the most basic fact of what gender has a chance of passing any of it.

My Witcher Academia, would unironically read.

For now, though, we have no idea how, why or where did Ciri underwent the Trials. It can be that there are other women like her or she can be the only one. It can be that there are multiple other new witchers or she can be the only one. We don't know how any of this will play out until the game gets released - or at least the synopsis drops. All I'm saying that the problems you are listing aren't applicable to Ciri alone - they are applicable to pretty much any Witcher sequel with character creation, especially if female witchers were an option there at all.
I'm sure the fact that writers have been pondering on how to move Ciri's journey forward for years included them writing an explanation on how did she become a witcher in the first place.

Why not? since witcher making wasn't done anymore in her time, she most likely had a lot else on her plate than to focus on that. And she has never done it. So what would make her a expert on the matter overall? There is nothing to prove that she is. And let's not forget, she still is HAPPY that the trials weren't done on Ciri. So that's a double whammy there. Also don't forget she is also one of the only sorceresses out there. It's not like there are thousands of them to pick from. It's just that when Foltest needs a sorceress its not like she had to fill in an application form and stand in line.

And that answer from the my witcher academia is just unsatisfactory. It's just not because they say it, that i have to have complete trust in that. Or even accept what they come up with.

And all I'm saying is that if you make the formula safer, you remove the gravitas and speciality about becoming a witcher. If then everyone can become one, there is nothing special anymore. No moral stakes, no risk, no nothing. so the storytellers might as well just make an Isekai. Where you get dropped in a world where everyone is a witcher and you are the only one not being one. That's how ridiculous and story screwing that would get.

Post automatically merged: Jan 8, 2025

Ok, I wonder... you mean that left Ciri in The Witcher 4, exactly as she is/appear at the end of The Witcher 3 would be a good idea and would make much more sense?
So like a "god-like fighter that absolutely nobody can challenge"?
Like that as a reminder (of course in death march) :

yes indeed it would. you could still easily balance out her gameplay as well to not make her too overpowered at the beginning. or make up adapted enemies and bosses. It sure as hell would be a lot less lore bending that what we are about to witness in this version. Just look at all the hoola hoops writers will have to jump through just to make Ciri a witcher. You'd avoid all that.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Why not? since witcher making wasn't done anymore in her time, she most likely had a lot else on her plate than to focus on that. And she has never done it. So what would make her a expert on the matter overall? There is nothing to prove that she is. And let's not forget, she still is HAPPY that the trials weren't done on Ciri.

1) You don't have to be an expert to know basic things about a subject matter you are clearly interested in - and she is interested in witchers, both out of professional curiosity and because of her affection for Geralt. I don't want to repeat myself again and again, but the fact that she knows how the process works, she knows what tools are used and what consequences there are strongly implies that she know the limitations as well, especially considering that none of the actual witchers correct her on anything. It's impossible to know what GPU latency is and not know that you have to press the power button to turn up the PC.
Hell, she even later says to Geralt that "another vision would be more dangerous for [Ciri] than Trial of the Grasses" - did she mean that it would be more dangerous than a 100% guaranteed death?
2) Of course Triss was thankful that Ciri wasn't mutated - Ciri was a small child, who just lost her grandparents and her home, who was desperate and didn't know better. It's clearly a massive difference between her at that stage and her as a 25+ year old woman, who went through so much.

And that answer from the my witcher academia is just unsatisfactory. It's just not because they say it, that i have to have complete trust in that. Or even accept what they come up with.

You don't have to trust anything, but it seems that you are less cautious about potential explanations and more so willing to dismiss them entirely. I feel like you've already made up your mind and you aren't against the potential explanation of how Ciri was mutated, but the entire concept itself - which is fine, I guess, but considering the fact that CDPR handled much heavier concepts with a lot of care and attention, I trust their ability to explain how a magical girl became even more/ different type of magical girl.

And all I'm saying is that if you make the formula safer, you remove the gravitas and speciality about becoming a witcher. If then everyone can become one, there is nothing special anymore. No moral stakes, no risk, no nothing. so the storytellers might as well just make an Isekai. Where you get dropped in a world where everyone is a witcher and you are the only one not being one. That's how ridiculous and story screwing that would get.

The only thing I would somewhat agree with is the implication of making witcher mutations way less deadly - they were something bad actors were trying to get even with their current lethality, what would potentially stop some king/mage/really rich person to just mutate themselves an army of super-soldiers and conquer the world? That can be worked around with different explanations, like mutations being more safe, but having lesser success rate (a person won't die, but won't mutate either), the ingredients being rare, Ciri being an exception - or "the army of super-soldiers" being an entire plan of the main villain of the new game/trilogy and Ciri being an unwitting participant in their experiments, who knows?

Other than that, it doesn't really change anything. There is already a franchise where mutants are numerous, yet the question of risk and morality are the center focus - it's called X-Men. Witchers are still mutants, people still view them as dangerous freaks, witchers would still sometimes have to make tough decisions in the matters of life and death. And again, this is a massive assumption on your part, because the only new witcher we see is Ciri - maybe she is literally the one and only witcher that was created in the last 50+ years.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

yes indeed it would. you could still easily balance out her gameplay as well to not make her too overpowered at the beginning. or make up adapted enemies and bosses. It sure as hell would be a lot less lore bending that what we are about to witness in this version. Just look at all the hoola hoops writers will have to jump through just to make Ciri a witcher. You'd avoid all that.

Oh thanks for your answer! That's exactly the response I expected
To resume :
- Ciri becoming a witcher doesn't make sense and a bad idea, even if there is nothing in the lore or the games which prouves it's not possible.
- Ciri turning from an invicible fighter with god-like powers who is able to one-shot almost everything, who is likely probably one of the most powerful being out of there, to a "basic" fighter that even a random drowner/wolf/bear can kill, makes sense and is a good idea.

It prouves to me that you don't really bother about what makes sense or not, you're just bothered by Ciri becoming a witcher (and Ciri loosing her insane powers). So thanks again, I won't argue further, no need

 

[Lleuwelyn]

1) You don't have to be an expert to know basic things about a subject matter you are clearly interested in - and she is interested in witchers, both out of professional curiosity and because of her affection for Geralt. I don't want to repeat myself again and again, but the fact that she knows how the process works, she knows what tools are used and what consequences there are strongly implies that she know the limitations as well, especially considering that none of the actual witchers correct her on anything. It's impossible to know what GPU latency is and not know that you have to press the power button to turn up the PC.
Hell, she even later says to Geralt that "another vision would be more dangerous for [Ciri] than Trial of the Grasses" - did she mean that it would be more dangerous than a 100% guaranteed death?
2) Of course Triss was thankful that Ciri wasn't mutated - Ciri was a small child, who just lost her grandparents and her home, who was desperate and didn't know better. It's clearly a massive difference between her at that stage and her as a 25+ year old woman, who went through so much.

You don't have to trust anything, but it seems that you are less cautious about potential explanations and more so willing to dismiss them entirely. I feel like you've already made up your mind and you aren't against the potential explanation of how Ciri was mutated, but the entire concept itself - which is fine, I guess, but considering the fact that CDPR handled much heavier concepts with a lot of care and attention, I trust their ability to explain how a magical girl became even more/ different type of magical girl.

The only thing I would somewhat agree with is the implication of making witcher mutations way less deadly - they were something bad actors were trying to get even with their current lethality, what would potentially stop some king/mage/really rich person to just mutate themselves an army of super-soldiers and conquer the world? That can be worked around with different explanations, like mutations being more safe, but having lesser success rate (a person won't die, but won't mutate either), the ingredients being rare, Ciri being an exception - or "the army of super-soldiers" being an entire plan of the main villain of the new game/trilogy and Ciri being an unwitting participant in their experiments, who knows?

Other than that, it doesn't really change anything. There is already a franchise where mutants are numerous, yet the question of risk and morality are the center focus - it's called X-Men. Witchers are still mutants, people still view them as dangerous freaks, witchers would still sometimes have to make tough decisions in the matters of life and death. And again, this is a massive assumption on your part, because the only new witcher we see is Ciri - maybe she is literally the one and only witcher that was created in the last 50+ years.

So everybody who is just enthousiastic about a subject becomes an expert or can be seen as an equal to it in terms of value of opinion? As far as from her description on how the process works, she 's also not very detailed about it. she still cant really list specific herbs or something she just gives a bland description one could even get from just diagonical reading. Plus Ciri was never listed as being the top dog amongst the lodge of sorceresses. She can even be described to be somewhat of a backstabber and manipulator. Btw if she is actually afraid that the witchers might have tried to change or considered changing Ciri-a girl-, then that means she knew trials on girls have been done before and failed. Otherwise she wouldn't have to be worried at all if she knew that only boys had been tested upon. It wouldn't have even crossed her mind then.

I think I made myself pretty clear from the start I'm against Ciri turning a witcher. That should have been pretty clear from the start of all this. So for me to even consider spending my money on this game, it will need some very very strong reasoning behind this. And not some slapon "oh look how we never saw this" reason.

you can't compare moral decisions being made on a personal level and interrelational level to another universe like the x-men. Yes of course interrelational personal moral decisions and other like that would be still around. But guess what, they would also be still around if nobody had any mutant powers at all. because those are just human confiicts overall.

Witchers aren't only shunned for their unnatural appearances, they are also shunned because they got a reputation that if you can't pay up in gold, there is a chance they will ask for your children as payment. Law of surprise remember? So there is a good and understandable reason for people to hate witchers besides them looking uncanny. many of them could have lost children to the witchers in their hayday when mass experimenting took place. And that on itself is a really serious stake and moral dilemma you would be removing that is specifically to this universe. Namely that if experimenting would have to start again, serious sacrifice would be demanded again. You can't compare that to the X-men who were just born with their mutations.

Post automatically merged: Jan 9, 2025

Oh thanks for your answer! That's exactly the response I expected
To resume :
- Ciri becoming a witcher doesn't make sense and a bad idea, even if there is nothing in the lore or the games which prouves it's not possible.
- Ciri turning from an invicible fighter with god-like powers who is able to one-shot almost everything, who is likely probably one of the most powerful being out of there, to a "basic" fighter that even a random drowner/wolf/bear can kill, makes sense and is a good idea.

It prouves to me that you don't really bother about what makes sense or not, you're just bothered by Ciri becoming a witcher (and Ciri loosing her insane powers). So thanks again, I won't argue further, no need

I think it is your reply that shows everyone you don't really care about what makes sense. But you are free to think what you will. There is also nothing in the lore to absolutely prove that it is possible also. It's a knife that cuts on both sides you know.

I never said she should be getting killed by drowners from the start. That's you saying that. Besides, if you look at it that way, then think about this. In the end of W1 you most definitly destroy drowners and yet in the beginning of both w2 and w3 you get slaughtered by them again when being low level at the start of the game? Oh em gee what a horror! What inconsistency! oh wait no, it's just necessary game progression. Besides if you argue that the fight with the white frost drains her powers (as I have seen in this same topic), that means you can spend the game finding ways to gradually rekindle those powers and not have the trials. Oh look- it's a story.

There is only one thing your answer proves to me about yourself: you have never played a glass cannon mage type in any game and don't know how much fun they can be. Not all players in an RPG have to be tanks you know.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

So everybody who is just enthousiastic about a subject becomes an expert or can be seen as an equal to it in terms of value of opinion? As far as from her description on how the process works, she 's also not very detailed about it. she still cant really list specific herbs or something she just gives a bland description one could even get from just diagonical reading. Plus Ciri was never listed as being the top dog amongst the lodge of sorceresses. She can even be described to be somewhat of a backstabber and manipulator. Btw if she is actually afraid that the witchers might have tried to change or considered changing Ciri-a girl-, then that means she knew trials on girls have been done before and failed. Otherwise she wouldn't have to be worried at all if she knew that only boys had been tested upon. It wouldn't have even crossed her mind then.

"Plus Ciri was never listed as being the top dog amongst the lodge of sorceresses. She can even be described to be somewhat of a backstabber and manipulator. " - I assume you meant Triss, because Ciri was never a Lodge member. And Triss wasn't a manipulator, if anything, she was the one being manipulated by Phillipa - she was just young and insecure.
"Btw if she is actually afraid that the witchers might have tried to change or considered changing Ciri-a girl-, then that means she knew trials on girls have been done before and failed." ...No? If she knew that they were tried and failed, she wouldn't even consider that Ciri underwent them, because if she did she would be dead? She even states the reason why she was concerned about them feeding Ciri mushrooms and herbs - she thought that it would mess with Ciri's puberty and change her body in a rather radical way.

I think I made myself pretty clear from the start I'm against Ciri turning a witcher. That should have been pretty clear from the start of all this. So for me to even consider spending my money on this game, it will need some very very strong reasoning behind this. And not some slapon "oh look how we never saw this" reason.

You know what I was against of initially? Geralt having beard. When I first saw promos for Witcher 3, I thought to myself "Damn, why?". I hated when previously clean shaven characters started wearing beards all of a sudden back then and I hated the way I thought it would look on Geralt. Then I actually played the game, realized that he looks amazing with beard and now have trouble visualizing him without it.

Obviously, beard isn't as significant of a change as mutation, but it all depends on execution. Ciri with mutations is clearly something that developers and writers didn't come up with just for lulz, it will definitely have big implications to both main story and her character.

Witchers aren't only shunned for their unnatural appearances, they are also shunned because they got a reputation that if you can't pay up in gold, there is a chance they will ask for your children as payment. Law of surprise remember? So there is a good and understandable reason for people to hate witchers besides them looking uncanny. many of them could have lost children to the witchers in their hayday when mass experimenting took place. And that on itself is a really serious stake and moral dilemma you would be removing that is specifically to this universe. Namely that if experimenting would have to start again, serious sacrifice would be demanded again.

Interesting point, small correction though - Law of Surprise wasn't something that was invented by witchers and it wasn't invoked solely by them either.
But most often, the hatred for them was precisely because they are different - and not just different, but dangerously different, the "can kill five armed men in two seconds" type different. Seriously, how often was Geralt called "a monster who takes children" and how often was he called "freak", "mutant" and "vagabond"? I don't think most people who hated witchers cared primarily about orphans who were butchered, they cared that those who survived came back with cat eyes, sharp swords and superhuman reflexes. None of it is being removed, regardless of how less dangerous the process becomes, if it does so in the first place.

 

[WikiFox]

It's kind of interesting, how this topic continues with attempts to persuade someone who said a few times, that he can't be swayed in any way. I mean Lleuwelyn made it clear a few times that he has his vision and won't accept anything that doesn't fit it. It doesn't matter if it's objectively lore-friendly for Ciri to undergo trials or not - it's all about the fact that he doesn't want Ciri to become a witcher.

In my opinion it's safe to assume that it is possible to handle Ciri being a witcher in a numerous ways without breaking the lore or the universum even slightly. BUT even if we tried to force-deny it - all the arguments I am seeing so far are on the level of 'there wasn't clearly said that a girl can become a witcher so she definitely can't'... It's not even interpretation anymore. It's plain 'if it wasn't directly stated my opinion stands - even if it wasn't stated either'.

I am not writing this to try and be mean to Lleuwelyn - on the contrary, I accept that Ciri being a witcher is not his pair of shoes. that's perfectly fine to have one's own taste. I am just pointing that it seems to be going nowhere since one side is trying to use fragments and arguments to counter 'because I said so'.

PS: By no means I am trying to stop this exchange either, just wanted to share a comment since I am following the discussion here ^^

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

@WikiFox I don't think I will change anyone's mind over the Internet, but I like arguing with people, because it gives a better perspective on things and how people reach the conclusions they do. Some guy was writing paragraphs, lamenting about how disrespectful it is to the lore of the books and how a character creation would've been so much better - and then it turned out that he didn't read the books, doesn't really know what happened in them and doesn't care about how potentially lore-breaking character creator could be, he just doesn't like playing as a woman and wants to keep playing as Geralt-lite.

I give props to Lleuwelyn for not being like that, he at least isn't against Ciri on principle and is honest that he just doesn't like the direction her character has been taken in. But in general, there seems to be a lot of stuff surrounding this discourse that is just factually incorrect. About company, about writing, about in-universe lore. So, I think its good to point out some misconceptions that float around.

 

[Lleuwelyn]

"Plus Ciri was never listed as being the top dog amongst the lodge of sorceresses. She can even be described to be somewhat of a backstabber and manipulator. " - I assume you meant Triss, because Ciri was never a Lodge member. And Triss wasn't a manipulator, if anything, she was the one being manipulated by Phillipa - she was just young and insecure.
"Btw if she is actually afraid that the witchers might have tried to change or considered changing Ciri-a girl-, then that means she knew trials on girls have been done before and failed." ...No? If she knew that they were tried and failed, she wouldn't even consider that Ciri underwent them, because if she did she would be dead? She even states the reason why she was concerned about them feeding Ciri mushrooms and herbs - she thought that it would mess with Ciri's puberty and change her body in a rather radical way.

You know what I was against of initially? Geralt having beard. When I first saw promos for Witcher 3, I thought to myself "Damn, why?". I hated when previously clean shaven characters started wearing beards all of a sudden back then and I hated the way I thought it would look on Geralt. Then I actually played the game, realized that he looks amazing with beard and now have trouble visualizing him without it.

Obviously, beard isn't as significant of a change as mutation, but it all depends on execution. Ciri with mutations is clearly something that developers and writers didn't come up with just for lulz, it will definitely have big implications to both main story and her character.

Interesting point, small correction though - Law of Surprise wasn't something that was invented by witchers and it wasn't invoked solely by them either.
But most often, the hatred for them was precisely because they are different - and not just different, but dangerously different, the "can kill five armed men in two seconds" type different. Seriously, how often was Geralt called "a monster who takes children" and how often was he called "freak", "mutant" and "vagabond"? I don't think most people who hated witchers cared primarily about orphans who were butchered, they cared that those who survived came back with cat eyes, sharp swords and superhuman reflexes. None of it is being removed, regardless of how less dangerous the process becomes, if it does so in the first place.

I feel I'm starting to write a book myself replying to all these answers lol...


But anyways, here it goes. Yes indeed I meant Triss, was indeed getting lost in my answer a bit. the manipulator part would then be of Triss towards Geralt. In the books she really isn't always that honest towards him. If I'm not wrong the mushroom feeding is in itself not a part of the trials of the grasses but goes on before that. The basic diet there is ment to strengthen someone's body in general and could also apply to a regular person.

Now if by socio-cultural reasons someone earlier said , traditionally the trials had only been done on boys and the girls had been simply left out of the equation entirely, then there really should not have been any reason for Triss to worry about Ciri being being approached to put through the trials already. And if she i already worried about the preparation phase, then holy hell she would be mortified about the trials themselves.

I've already done my admissions by accepting it's not Geralt in charge this time. Because frankly, a witcher game without Geralt in charge feels like a Batman game without Batman. And I seriously doubt Ciri will ever reach the same level of popularity Geralt had. Frankly, you have already lost quite a bit of paying players just over that. No matter how many times it was projected Ciri would be in charge in this one. But anyway, Ciri it is. There's no escaping that. But her being a fullon witcher? yeah that is pushing the line for me.

You are talking about a time where witcher making has become out of fashion. when we come to play and experience Geralt it's already behind the biggest witcher making haydays. But hate lingers very long. Do you actually think that if the relationship prior between common folk and the witchers was already good, they actually would have been deterred by their exceptional strength etc? No, they would have just seen them as protectors who do the monster hunting for them for a price. Deep hatred like that comes from a much darker background. Children being taken as payment to die horrendously provides that. And even orphans are cared for by a lot of people, even in this world. Reminder Witchers are sterlie. They can't make their own sons to carry on the family trade... So in the haydays it was part of the witcher ecosystem to take children to train and replace the witchers who got lost or died. And that is just such a key element to me that is such a core setting, changing it feels like sacrilidge. The witcher school that starts doing them again to further research it, could result in the local populace revolting against them. and that is the kind of stake and gravitas that should be implied to keep this story real and interesting.

Post automatically merged: Jan 10, 2025

It's kind of interesting, how this topic continues with attempts to persuade someone who said a few times, that he can't be swayed in any way. I mean Lleuwelyn made it clear a few times that he has his vision and won't accept anything that doesn't fit it. It doesn't matter if it's objectively lore-friendly for Ciri to undergo trials or not - it's all about the fact that he doesn't want Ciri to become a witcher.

In my opinion it's safe to assume that it is possible to handle Ciri being a witcher in a numerous ways without breaking the lore or the universum even slightly. BUT even if we tried to force-deny it - all the arguments I am seeing so far are on the level of 'there wasn't clearly said that a girl can become a witcher so she definitely can't'... It's not even interpretation anymore. It's plain 'if it wasn't directly stated my opinion stands - even if it wasn't stated either'.

I am not writing this to try and be mean to Lleuwelyn - on the contrary, I accept that Ciri being a witcher is not his pair of shoes. that's perfectly fine to have one's own taste. I am just pointing that it seems to be going nowhere since one side is trying to use fragments and arguments to counter 'because I said so'.

PS: By no means I am trying to stop this exchange either, just wanted to share a comment since I am following the discussion here ^^

the opposite reasoning has been happening as well. The reasoning that says "it was never stated that it was impossible, so per definition it's possible". I am just reacting to this statement that this a knife that cuts both ways. And both sides are throwing fragments that suits their part of the argument. As a discussion should go. You find the pieces that support your viewpoint and you throw them in there.

Post automatically merged: Jan 10, 2025

@WikiFox I don't think I will change anyone's mind over the Internet, but I like arguing with people, because it gives a better perspective on things and how people reach the conclusions they do. Some guy was writing paragraphs, lamenting about how disrespectful it is to the lore of the books and how a character creation would've been so much better - and then it turned out that he didn't read the books, doesn't really know what happened in them and doesn't care about how potentially lore-breaking character creator could be, he just doesn't like playing as a woman and wants to keep playing as Geralt-lite.

I give props to Lleuwelyn for not being like that, he at least isn't against Ciri on principle and is honest that he just doesn't like the direction her character has been taken in. But in general, there seems to be a lot of stuff surrounding this discourse that is just factually incorrect. About company, about writing, about in-universe lore. So, I think its good to point out some misconceptions that float around.

Well as you can see I like arguing with people too. And as long as we are not throwing axes at each other, being of the opposite point is fair enough. I would agree that a character creator in such an already rich and well written through lore would be extremely hard to fit in. The Idea is tempting but yeah definitly not. it's not like you can start a character in the witcher that is part of an army of thousands where you can easily fit him in because he is just a part of the masses. This is not the kind of lore for that. It's not Star Wars.

Whether factual correctness about written lore I do also find it important to say that just because a character says or thinks something, it is not immediatly a pure truth. Characters are written to have their own minds, and only the author knows the overcoupling picture. therefor fragments which are just thoughtprocesses or imaginations of a character are for me just just a description of the characters emotions or mental state. Nothing more.

 

[koalahugs]

Okay, so the idea that the bit underlined here:

...all the arguments I am seeing so far are on the level of 'there wasn't clearly said that a girl can become a witcher so she definitely can't'...

And here:

the opposite reasoning has been happening as well. The reasoning that says "it was never stated that it was impossible, so per definition it's possible". I am just reacting to this statement that this a knife that cuts both ways.

...Are somehow equally rational is just not the case.

"I don't know if it's impossible, so technically it's still possible." I mean... yeah... That's a correct statement and literally how possibilities work.

Not: "I don't know if it's possible, therefore it must be impossible." Nope, that would be completely illogical, and misunderstands what the word "possible" is even describing. That would be like saying gravity didn't exist until Newton came along.

If however you want to argue why Ciri successfully undergoing the trials is IMPROBABLE, then okay. But even if she's an unlikely success, then that, in and of itself, would make her as choice of protagonist even more compelling.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

...Are somehow equally rational is just not the case.

That's what I though...
Starting from a fact : Nothing in the lore/games/books indicate that women can't pass the trial of the grasses and so being witchers.
There are two possibilites, which are both valid and both are not against the lore.
- Women might pass the trial of the grasses and so, might become witchers (at least, in Ciri specific case).
- Women can't pass the trial of the grasses at all and so, can't become witchers.

If you look at the trailer, CDPR picked up one of these two possibilities. Ciri passed the trial of the grasses and became a witcher. So it's not against the lore and it's perfectly valid, period.
This will make sense as long as CDPR doesn't just throw us "Ciri became a witcher" as the only explanation at the start of the game.

 

[Lleuwelyn]

That's what I though...
Starting from a fact : Nothing in the lore/games/books indicate that women can't pass the trial of the grasses and so being witchers.
There are two possibilites, which are both valid and both are not against the lore.
- Women might pass the trial of the grasses and so, might become witchers (at least, in Ciri specific case).
- Women can't pass the trial of the grasses at all and so, can't become witchers.

If you look at the trailer, CDPR picked up one of these two possibilities. Ciri passed the trial of the grasses and became a witcher. So it's not against the lore and it's perfectly valid, period.
This will make sense as long as CDPR doesn't just throw us "Ciri became a witcher" as the only explanation at the start of the game.

And this is where the break comes: I don't consider CDPR lore as the core lore. For me, it is the book lore that is the core lore. The way I accept CDPR adaptations is the same way if you want adapt a book into a movie or into a tv series. You have to make some adaptatations because you simply cannot fit all of the book in because of the format. So you accept minor changes up to a certain level. But not up to the level where it changes basically everything.

All I did when I quoted this was this:
main reasoning for the defenders:"it was never stated in the books it was impossible, so the possibility of it being possible is sill in the picture".
What I ment was:"it was never proven in the books it was possible also, so the possibility of it being impossible is also still in the picture".

let's put it in percentages:
For the defenders it's 100% possible for ciri to become a witcher.
For me it's like 0.10% possible and besides her personal wishes, all reasoning for her to attempt it in the first place are against that choice.

In my honest opinion, and it's an opinion only, I think the way Sapkowski had this in mind: he wanted the witchers to be a male only faction while counterbalancing that with making the lodge of sorceresses a female only faction. And for making new witchers, cooperation between the both is needed. In my opinion, they are the yin and yan. So in that sense it makes to make Geralt the extreme example of being a witcher, and make Ciri extremely affinate with magic. Sure, Geralt dabbles a bit with magic with his signs but isn't nowhere close to it like Ciri is. And vice versa, Ciri knows her way with a sword,but strictly physically isn't close being able to take physical punishment like Geralt can. Geralt outshines lambert and other witchers, while Ciri outshines the sorceresses with the way magic comes natural to her. And I think it's absolutely necessary to keep up this balance in order to distinguish the characters and keep on respecting both. By just making Ciri into a witcher or Geralt's female and better than him copy, it shows blatant disrespect towards Geralt's character. And that is a cardinal sin if you want to keep this game's series alive.

Post automatically merged: Jan 11, 2025

Okay, so the idea that the bit underlined here:



And here:



...Are somehow equally rational is just not the case.

"I don't know if it's impossible, so technically it's still possible." I mean... yeah... That's a correct statement and literally how possibilities work.

Not: "I don't know if it's possible, therefore it must be impossible." Nope, that would be completely illogical, and misunderstands what the word "possible" is even describing. That would be like saying gravity didn't exist until Newton came along.

If however you want to argue why Ciri successfully undergoing the trials is IMPROBABLE, then okay. But even if she's an unlikely success, then that, in and of itself, would make her as choice of protagonist even more compelling.

It was Wikifox who misinterpretated my statements. I never said it was completely impossible. I just said it doesn't make sense to me to make her a witcher for numerous reasons which i stated allover this topic already.

 

[AvarageEnjoyer]

Now if by socio-cultural reasons someone earlier said , traditionally the trials had only been done on boys and the girls had been simply left out of the equation entirely, then there really should not have been any reason for Triss to worry about Ciri being being approached to put through the trials already. And if she i already worried about the preparation phase, then holy hell she would be mortified about the trials themselves.

I don't want to do this dance all over again, so let's leave it at that - it doesn't matter what reasons did Triss have for being worried about Ciri being mutated, the fact is that she was worried to begin with, which, considering her knowledge and the fact that it was mostly her internal thought process, means that her concerns weren't unfounded.

You are talking about a time where witcher making has become out of fashion. when we come to play and experience Geralt it's already behind the biggest witcher making haydays. But hate lingers very long. Do you actually think that if the relationship prior between common folk and the witchers was already good, they actually would have been deterred by their exceptional strength etc? No, they would have just seen them as protectors who do the monster hunting for them for a price. Deep hatred like that comes from a much darker background. Children being taken as payment to die horrendously provides that. And even orphans are cared for by a lot of people, even in this world. Reminder Witchers are sterlie. They can't make their own sons to carry on the family trade... So in the haydays it was part of the witcher ecosystem to take children to train and replace the witchers who got lost or died

If that was solely - or even mainly - the case, then the hatred wouldn't be this intense, because witchers themselves would be victimized orphans, who also went through all of these horrors. But it's not the case. From perspective of an ordinary person, Geralt is also someone's son, taken from his home against his will - yet he is still viewed with fear and disdain.

I've already done my admissions by accepting it's not Geralt in charge this time. Because frankly, a witcher game without Geralt in charge feels like a Batman game without Batman. And I seriously doubt Ciri will ever reach the same level of popularity Geralt had. Frankly, you have already lost quite a bit of paying players just over that.

I honestly consider that I wouldn't have played it if it was Geralt, especially if it was a sequel. His story ended conclusively in Blood and Wine, continuing it would be detrimental on all levels.
I thought that they would go with Eskel instead, but I can see why his mug wasn't considered marketable - which is a huge shame, because he is always pretty to me

 

[Lleuwelyn]

I don't want to do this dance all over again, so let's leave it at that - it doesn't matter what reasons did Triss have for being worried about Ciri being mutated, the fact is that she was worried to begin with, which, considering her knowledge and the fact that it was mostly her internal thought process, means that her concerns weren't unfounded.

If that was solely - or even mainly - the case, then the hatred wouldn't be this intense, because witchers themselves would be victimized orphans, who also went through all of these horrors. But it's not the case. From perspective of an ordinary person, Geralt is also someone's son, taken from his home against his will - yet he is still viewed with fear and disdain.

I honestly consider that I wouldn't have played it if it was Geralt, especially if it was a sequel. His story ended conclusively in Blood and Wine, continuing it would be detrimental on all levels.
I thought that they would go with Eskel instead, but I can see why his mug wasn't considered marketable - which is a huge shame, because he is always pretty to me
View attachment 11408851

Well on this we agree, be it from different perspectives. Triss should have been very worried if she thought the witchers would try to mutate Ciri.

Dont agree with this definity. Once they are witchers they are witchers, and considered being on the other side. Like you yourself said before, they return changed. And they do end up travelling for their work to remote and other regions. Most of them barely see any of their old family. If there are indeed any left since also many of them are indeed orphan. Secondary appearantly you don't know that rumors travel a lot faster than we physically do. Especially nasty ones like this. No witchers are not outright immediatly thrown out. Partially also because they are a lot more capable in fighting so if you don't have small army to deal with em, you'd better stay polite. But the distrust is heavy. And it's not just for them being stronger or looking differently.

And there is still a lot to show from Geralt's story. A prequel would still have lot of ground to cover. They could have put his trials in the game for example. Which would have been quite interesting to experience. And yes, Eskel, Lambert or a younger Vesemir would also have been a very legit choice.

 

[WikiFox]

@ Llewuelyn

Actually I did not missintepret your point of view at all. And it was very well pointed why by koalahugs already.

Possibility works differently than impossibility. Everything is by default possible. Unless prooved otherwise it stays this way. I understand you're saying that your point of view is just opposite, but from logical prospect your arguments need to be stated to be considered valid - thus I consider them 'because I said so'. From logical point that's what your 'ideas' are. And it's really nothing personal. As stated before - I accept that you have your own preference and that's perfectly fine. We all are different and that's a great thing.

I am saying that your argumentation is based on what you yourself think would best fit lore, not on facts already included in it. You directly say that if things are explained differently than what you would do then they are wrong. While others simply say that there are possibilities - without locking anything out.

@ AvarageEnjoyer

I am really fond of good exchanges of arguments as well - thus I've directly added that I am not trying to stop you all from continuation, I barely said that both sides are throwing arguments of different calbier with one side admitting that their mind is set and can't be swayed.