It's still a highly social construct. And it's a bit problematic because in the fantasy of the witcher world there are truly "evil" monsters which just kill for no goo reason at all.I take it as related but a little bit more.
Evil = Morally bad to the point one needs to be opposed either by imprisonment or violence.
I think we can easily agree that out of them three the Bloody Baron is by far the best written and most interesting character...The Bloody Baron is an all-round rotten person but he is reasonable, guilt-ridden, and you can make improvements to his personality simply through talking with him about his problems. Radovid and Whoreson, by contrast, can only be stopped by violence given their positions and cruelty. I agree, however, Whoreson seems to be a largely 2-dimensional character who we discover is a serial killer, I think, just for some "cheap heat" (as they say in Professional Wrestling).
I also think Radovid is less interesting as Kookoo Crazy Pants than if he'd been portrayed as a sincere believer in the Eternal Fire, a man who wants to kill all the nonhumans, mages, and others because he honestly believes it would make the world a better place. You could also have him actively working with the Eternal Fire just to target the neutral mages so all of the survivors must side with him for protection. There's plenty of ways Radovid could have been portrayed as contemptible and monstrous without being Caligula.
But Emhyr let Ciri go (in the books). In the moment of his biggest personal triumph, surrounded by his whole army he showed mercy and, yes, humanity at last. He had achieved his greatest goal but he gives it up because there was still something good in him. And by doing so, he changed destiny. The one from whom you would have expected it the least showed that humanity and free will can still prevail, even in the darkest hours. He proved that even one of the supposedly most evil persons in the world is capable of empathy and humanity. Too bad they presented such a one-dimensional Emhyr in the games...Really, I can't hate Radovid as much as Emhyr because Radovid is clearly nuts while Emhyr knows EXACTLY what he's doing and stands by it.
How do you come to that conclusion? In the books that's only speculation. What we do know is that the Hunt enslaves human beings in smaller numbers from time to time and that they massacred humans in their own world (though we don't know how that happend exactly). That they are racists is absolutely true. But many people in the Witcher world are plain racists as well. Does Geralt kill them all? No, of course no. He doesn't kill just for having a stupid opinion about other races or because somebody plans to do something. Geralt only wants to stop him from hunting down Ciri. HE doesn't hate Eredin on a personal level beyond that if you ask me. If the player does, well that's up on him. We do know way to llttle about Eredin and maybe there is more to it that just plain racial hatred. If I got that right the Aen Elle fear the White Frost as well in th games at least. So stopping the Frost must be at least one of their agendas as well (if not that one speculation is really true that the Hunt is the manifestation of the Frost itself...)I hope any expansion on Eredin would be better.
A guy who plans to exterminate non-elves everywhere in the universe and does so because he finds their existence disgusting. Who plans to torture and kill Ciri after he gets what he wants because she's a pollution to his worldview.
A guy who HAS TO GO.able
But yeah, of course Eredin needs more context, especially since the Aen Elle and the Hunt differ from how they were shown in the books and most people don't even know the books...
---------- Updated at 02:39 AM ----------
Well, in the books Geralt's violence is far from being socially excepted. He is called "The Butcher of Blaviken" for a reason. On the opposite, even in most cases when Geralt tries to defend other people his actions are seen as evil by society. That is also displayed in the game, like in the tavern scene in White Orchard.That is the contradiction of socially accept violence as individuals like Geralt tend to use violence against those society perceives as evil whereas the evil tend to think they're doing the same.
I don't mind more evil characters neither. I just don't like all evil clichés like Whoreson.I don't mind moral ambiguity: Roche and Dijkstra is a story with no good guy or bad guy. Just two people trying to do the right thing by each other. However, that doesn't mean there can't be more clear cut examples of evil.
They just are part of a mixture of situations.
And Eredin is an all evil cliché in the game as well. Without the context of the books we wouldn't even know anything about his racism or possible plans to invade other worlds. TW3 surely doesn't tell us anything about it.


