Explaining Yennefer's behaviour in the game (with a canon Geralt as partner)

[zanzibar_007]

Well, many people still have a problem with the fact that Geralt is not and will never be, enitrely 'theirs' . He's a predefined character, certain parts of his personality cannot be changed even if it's a RPG game. And this is how I view the "lack" of choice when it comes to Yennefer - he knows and trusts her, after all. He knows what's her goal here (because they share it)- so he accepts her ideas (especially when he doesn't have better ones, duh).
.

Yep, it's only Geralt of Rivia, not the center of the universe, or a GOD.


In their delirium they forgot who or what they were playing, With Ciri There is the same idea, she pushes Geralt to go in BaldMountain for her revenge, she pushes Geralt in Novigrad to say Goodbye, etc...

And i must say something, Geralt can do Morkvarg quest before you meet Yennefer, and Geralt can do Lambert and Eskel Quests before she tells you to do.

Man, Gamers are passive, an intelligent gamer is for me an oxymoron. It's a fact.


So for me a thief is a thief whatever the purpose, and kill an old Tree is the same, Ciri and Geralt killed an old Oak tree, Yennefer killed a tree in the garden of Freya, Ciri and Geralt for Revenge, Her to find a young Woman alive.


They are Hypocrite, it's a fact.

Sometimes a woman needs specially her man to do something, argue it's a waste of time, only an egocentric person can't understand that and don't move his ass. She needs you, she doesn't emasculated you (lol, what a joke), you're not her servant, and you're not her dog.
Even more if you Love Her and she loves you.

 

[Zyvik]

He saved him. Minimum twice. I doubt. And he also betrayed Ves and Thaler...


Still questionable. For example - in Seasons of the Storms he killed Sorel. It was an act of vengeance and protection of the innocents, but it's a just filthy heretic sorcerer, not a king. :radovidsmug:

Another examples:
He could kill Keira. [I never belive in this]
He could not save children from crones. [Geralt allows children to die...unbelievable]

and etc. OOC moments for lore-friendly Geralt.

The situation with Roche can be easily explained.He does it for Ciri.Geralt doesn't want Emhyr anywhere near Ciri,so he let's Dijkstra to become a ruler to win the war with Nilgaard.
Geralt kills Radovid for Yen,Triss,Zoltan and his other mages and non-humans friends.
Keira attacks Geralt first.It was self defense on his part.
He didn't know about the children.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

The situation with Roche can be easily explained.He does it for Ciri.Geralt doesn't want Emhyr anywhere near Ciri,so he let's Dijkstra to become a ruler to win the war with Nilgaard.

All can be explained, but it's not a lore-friendly Geralt, who sacraficed life of the man, who saved him twice. It's another Geralt...

---------- Updated at 06:26 PM ----------

He didn't know about the children.

He knew...

 

[Zyvik]

All can be explained, but it's not a lore-friendly Geralt, who sacraficed life of the man, who saved him twice. It's another Geralt...

When it comes to Ciri's protection Geralt is capable of anything.

 

[Charcharo]

All can be explained, but it's not a lore-friendly Geralt, who sacraficed life of the man, who saved him twice. It's another Geralt...

---------- Updated at 06:26 PM ----------



He knew...

He did not know. He had very strong reasons to suspect something terrible happens to the children. He also had JUST as much of a reason to fear the monster spirit.

50/50 I'd say. I prefer 3 Eldrich Monstrosities to 4... So I would have killed it. In-game, I did so once and the other option I did the second time.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

When it comes to Ciri's protection Geralt is capable of anything.

Heh. You certainly didn't remember his dialogue with Regis...when he said that he didn't want to pay all to save Ciri (Milva's child meant).

 

[Zyvik]

Heh. You certainly didn't remember his dialogue with Regis...when he said that he didn't want to pay all to save Ciri (Milva's child meant).

You're comparing apples with oranges.Milva's situation was completely different from Roche's.And it's not really a betrayal on Geralt's part,it's his famous neutrality.As Dijkstra said this matter doesn't concern Geralt.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

And it's not really a betrayal

Well...it's reminds me about something :rofl:

nvm - as i said above

but it's not a lore-friendly Geralt, who sacraficed life of the man, who saved him twice.

 

[carlos2033]

Isn`t this thread about Yennefer, you have thread about Geralt
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/54691-Geralt-of-Rivia-(-Spoilers-from-books-and-games-)

 

[Zyvik]

Well...it's reminds me about something :rofl:

I hope you're not talking about Triss,because that was also a completely different situation.

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

I hope you're not talking about Triss,because that was also a completely different situation.

Sure :rofl:

 

[Zyvik]

Sure :rofl:

It was.But since this thread is not about Triss or Geralt,we should probably return on topic.

 

[Devils4dvocate]

I don't understand why there is a problem with their theft. The Druid Masks.

As a player (trying to roleplay book Geralt), I have two main concerns against Yennefer's behaviour during the Mask quest. First one is the lack of respect with Skellige customs, in this case, the Mask is not only a magic object, but a Relic with a religious meaning for the islanders. In this regard, the tw3-Yenn behaves remarkly different from Yenn-from-the-books in a similar situation, when she "humillates" herself with a ritual/ceremony in which she doesnt belive in order to get a similar object (something very useful for her to find Ciri but with religiuos meaning for the skelligers). The second one it's the risk that Yenn assumes when she uses the mask, not only for her but for the habitants of the archipelago. The fact that she isn't sure of the side-effects of the activation is noteworthy here,but in this case I can find a similar behaviour in the books; I'm talking about her reckless assault of Vilgefortz hideout: when reading the books I always cry aloud in this momment "For Melitele's tits, could you find Geralt and do this together!". Which incidentaly is exactly what she does in TW3, But in that situation, it's true the risks are personal, while in the Mask affaire are not.

Said that, I am not arguing that Yenn behaviour in TW3 is OOC, just trying to establish some parallelisms with books. When playing TW3 for first time, I got from Yenn a strong vibre of "strong-willed, determinated mother, ready to take risks and assume the consecuences" which I understand is something completely in character

 

[xxgwxx]

As a player (trying to roleplay book Geralt), I have two main concerns against Yennefer's behaviour during the Mask quest. First one is the lack of respect with Skellige customs, in this case, the Mask is not only a magic object, but a Relic with a religious meaning for the islanders. In this regard, the tw3-Yenn behaves remarkly different from Yenn-from-the-books in a similar situation, when she "humillates" herself with a ritual/ceremony in which she doesnt belive in order to get a similar object (something very useful for her to find Ciri but with religiuos meaning for the skelligers). The second one it's the risk that Yenn assumes when she uses the mask, not only for her but for the habitants of the archipelago. The fact that she isn't sure of the side-effects of the activation is noteworthy here,but in this case I can find a similar behaviour in the books; I'm talking about her reckless assault of Vilgefortz hideout: when reading the books I always cry aloud in this momment "For Melitele's tits, could you find Geralt and do this together!". Which incidentaly is exactly what she does in TW3, But in that situation, it's true the risks are personal, while in the Mask affaire are not.

Said that, I am not arguing that Yenn behaviour in TW3 is OOC, just trying to establish some parallelisms with books. When playing TW3 for first time, I got from Yenn a strong vibre of "strong-willed, determinated mother, ready to take risks and assume the consecuences" which I understand is something completely in character

Doesn't she also say something about necromancy? (in the books) That you need to respect the death or something like that?

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

Doesn't she also say something about necromancy? (in the books) That you need to respect the death or something like that?

Two times mentioned by her (Blood of elves and Time of Contempt):

1. "And doesn't rumour also have it that necromancy is forbidden, by edict of the Chapter? Let it go, Dandilion. Those thugs probably didn't know much anyway. The one who escaped . . ."

2. ‘And to think,’ muttered Yennefer, ‘that we were forbidden from practicing necromancy on account of respect for the majesty of death and remains deserving reverence, peace, ceremonial burial…’

 

[Devils4dvocate]

Both passages don't negate the possibility she can or would do it, do they?

 

[xxRENEGADExx]

Both passages don't negate the possibility she can or would do it, do they?

According that second is "indignation" - I think she could. Destroying the grove - is not her biggest destroying. :lol:

 

[xxgwxx]

Both passages don't negate the possibility she can or would do it, do they?

Well, yeah. But I guess it's much easier to speak of it purely theoretically..but when faced with a possibility (or a necessity) to save someone close to you...then it's a different story altogether.

 

[dmcaldw]

I think one point about the destruction of the grove should be made . Geralt was ready to take the lumps associated with it but Yen stood up and took full responsibility for it . The other twist here is we don't know exactly how much of her forging ahead all be damned i attitude is hers alone . We forget the fact that she is under the emperor's thumb . We see this on the return to Vizima she is meek compared to Geralt . I don't think she is completely doing this from her own free will sort a speak .

 

[Devils4dvocate]

Geralt was ready to take the lumps associated with it but Yen stood up and took full responsibility for it .

I understood that as a practical and smart move: assuming full responsability let Geralt's honour free of charges, which is gonna be useful for him during his travels through Skellige interacting with people, and ultimately helping him in his search for Ciri.

I don't think she is completely doing this from her own free will sort a speak .

I have to disagree in this one. Yenn's main concern is finding Ciri: and Emhyr is just a convenient companion: she will play the submissive sorceress in the court just as long as Emhyr help will be important and she feels that role will be the most efficient way to get her objetives.