You have missed an important point my friend. Ilsa was raped by a group of soldiers and not Salamandra. Mikul was a member of the group of soldiers that raped her. The rest of the soldiers told Mikul "plow her, show her you are the man", and he did. The Reverend had dealings with Salamandra, he purposely gave the children to them as the little girl in the cave tells you if you talk to her. If you notice Odo's dog keeps barking and leads you to s.th in Odo's yard, which is probably the hiding place of what he used to kill his brother.vivaxardas said:
And lastly Geralt doesn't exterminate everyone in the village !!!! He actually saves them by killing the hound and ridding them of the Salamandra and the corrupt reverend. The poeple who died are killed by Salamandra and the hound and they get killed regardless of saving Abigail or not, I think.
Shawn_kh: Good point. I always understood the story with the rape as referring to Mikul and soldiers, not to Salamandra.
guipit said:
I know it. The point was that if Geralt is attacked, he wouldn't shy away from killing any number of attackers, of any gender. The butcher of Blaviken is a reputation, an indication not to mess with the guy does not matter who you are, humans of elves, peasants or knights, men or women. Geralt would have every right to kill in self-defense, by the way, even if he has to massacre the entire village, which is what, as I see, happens when he sides with Abigail.
guipit said:
Ilsa raped by soldiers - and you know it how??? Salamandra guys tell that they raped Ilsa. Alvin recalls a gang-rape. Abigail tell that it was Mikul.
Reverend sure purposefully gave them children (not by accident, or absent-mindedly, or being drunk or unconscious), but he was coerced. The salamandra guys expected the tribute, they made peasants provide children under a threat of killing them.
ALL PEOPLE in the village are dead, as it is very clearly stated with his dialog with Shani. It makes much more sense that if the mob attacked, Geralt killed them all than it was the Beast. Peasants would not be outside at night if not for something very serious, and the Beast simply did not have time. Everyone being dead (which they are) when Geralt sides with the villages, does not make any sense, and I simply disregard that dialogue with Shani as a bug form Abigail path.
He didn't massacre entire village, only those who attacked him with the Reverend (and there weren't many of them). Most in the village were killed by the Beast probably, and there was no way to prevent that, no matter what you chose. That part was left somewhat unexplained, but it's clear that it wasn't Geralt who did it.
vivaxardas said:
That was a threat, not something Geralt wold actually follow through on,
slimgrin said:
It is the only rational explanation I have for all these female corpses laying around the place where in the game the Reverend and his goons attacked. I really can't fathom why all of them would be there at midnight other then a mob outburst. Even in this case it makes sense only when siding with Abigail.
Those are some very good points, but the game does not allow for a proper investigation by Geralt nor do I think that he is the type for such stuff. I sided with Abigail in my playthrough and I'm not worried about it. Did I make the right decision? I don't know, but I'm okay siding with her. I don't hate the villagers/peasants in the outskirts, just the Reverend and his bunch of goons. Maybe Abigail is also partly guilty or equally guilty as much as the Reverend and the others, but if I sided with them, then she would be made a scapegoat and these guys would walk free, so I thought siding with her was a less evil deed than with the Reverend and his bunch.
P.S: I did sleep with Abigail in the cave
P.S: I did sleep with Abigail in the cave
vivaxardas said:
It never makes sense to me. That part was always not explained, and Geralt for sure didn't do it, since you are playing Geralt there. Or on top of amesia you are supposed to have sporadic blackouts? That didn't look like it. Someone killed the villagers and Geralt didn't see who. The Beast could kill them all, since the Beast already could summon other unnatural creatures, and nothing prevented it from going berserk for some reason.
vivaxardas said:
Not so; they lynch her the moment he turns his back, even before he encounters the Beast. Trusting maggots like the Reverend is just what Geralt knows better than to do. He must threaten them to the point they do not interfere with him and Abigail leaving. And the Reverend, Haren, Odo, and their goons will try to kill Geralt even if he gives them Abigail.
GuyN said:
When? I played it yesterday. I had a cut-scene where Abigail curses Geralt, then it cuts to the fire starting to burn and the beast appearing inside the burning circle. Couple of men fight the beast alongside Geralt, and when the Beast is killed, Geralt has a conversation with the Reverend about salamandra death threats and a second chance. Reverend gives him a pass to Vizima, and that was it. The village is empty, and no one alive except Shani in the tavern. On my way to the gates I did not see anyone alive. Then I had a conversation with Shani about the entire village dead (by some reason), and Geralt is arrested at the gates (does not make much sense because his pass is legit).
I think CDPR worked on siding with Abigail more and made it more plausible. May be the hounds killed the mob while they were waiting for Geralt and Abigail outside the circle, and Geralt was attacked by the ones who survived. It would make sense, and the villagers had only themselves to blame. Were they stayed home, nothing bad would have happened.
But siding with the village choice is really not the best example of quest design because a lot of things do not make sense.
Last time I did that, I was again attacked by the Reverend and his mob even after handing Abigail over to them. Maybe it turns on a dialog option.
But the very idea that the villagers can be trusted to execute justice any more than the Stranger can trust the citizens of Lago is to me an absurdity. There is no justice to be found there, and Geralt already knows it.
But the very idea that the villagers can be trusted to execute justice any more than the Stranger can trust the citizens of Lago is to me an absurdity. There is no justice to be found there, and Geralt already knows it.
GuyN said:
I actually agree with this. It does not really matter whether there is some sort of a trial or not. In the books we have a similar situation and we needed Regis' involvement to get the girl acquitted. Abigail will be burned regardless, and she is guilty.
But, if to imagine (and it may be true) that Abigail is the lionhead spider priestess, her meddlings are actually blood sacrifices, and she uses salamandra situation for this, she is a monster who preys on the villagers, and so getting rid of her is as important as to get rid of salamandra. In such case the Beast actively hunting for her makes a whole lot more sense than in a case she is just an enabler.
The only human sacrifices conducted in the Outskirts were those conducted by the Reverend, when he demanded the village be "purified". There is no evidence that Abigail conducted any human sacrifice, even if it is the case that she is a member of the Lionhead Spider cult.
There is solid evidence to condemn Abigail as an accessory. There is likewise solid evidence that the Reverend is a murderer and child slaver. He gets no pass from me for conniving at Salamandra's predation; he does not confront them because he is a coward, just as the people of Lago and Hadleyville were.
The Reverend is the greater predator, and stopping him is the lesser evil.
There is solid evidence to condemn Abigail as an accessory. There is likewise solid evidence that the Reverend is a murderer and child slaver. He gets no pass from me for conniving at Salamandra's predation; he does not confront them because he is a coward, just as the people of Lago and Hadleyville were.
The Reverend is the greater predator, and stopping him is the lesser evil.
Salamandra were free to do a lot of things even in Vizima. Nobody would have come to their aid outside the city walls. Peasants are no match to an armored gang. Blaming the Reverend who was coerced is blaming the victim. If someone is coerced into surrendering his money, or paying ransom to terrorists, would we blame him for financing them? No. The old man confronting them amounts to suicide, and we can't demand such a sacrifice from any person. I see him only as a victim in this arrangement.
Watch High Plains Drifter and High Noon again. When one is responsible for the safety of others, failure to stand up to criminals is itself a criminal act of cowardice, no matter how stacked against you the deck may be. This is the foundation for the proper punishment of collaborators. And the Reverend's Order is conspiring with Salamandra, just as the townspeople of Lago are conspiring with the Carlin gang; it is more likely, given the Reverend's position, that he is a conspirator and no victim at all. Though of course you do not find this out until much later.
The Reverend is responsible for the lives of the people of his town. What should he have done? There is a thought experiment we present in ethics classes. You are a town sheriff. Members of the gang were killed in your town, and the gang wants revenge. They offer you to surrender the murderers or they come and massacre everyone. Nobody knows who the murderers are, and it can't be discovered. You have two options: find some people in town, local undesirables, or people without families, or whatever, and give them up to be killed, or to refuse, and then the entire town will be massacred. It is a nature of this experiment that there are no other options. What is a right thing to do? Most students pick the first option. Sure, it suck, and really bad, but having everyone killed is even worse. It is better to sacrifice few lives, and preserve the rest.
The reverend was exactly in such situation. If he were to refuse, people would have been killed, and children taken anyway. Cooperation with the locals just made things simpler for salamandra, and they could have processed children gradually. Children would have been taken does not matter what the Reverend did. If morally more acceptable action is the one that created less pain, suffering, and loss of life (utilitarianism), the Revered did the right thing. If more morally acceptable is to do the right thing independent of the consequences, even if they are quite foreseeable and bring much greater harm (deontology), he should have refused, had people massacred and children taken anyway. Pick what you believe is a right thing to do. Nobody could prove which one is morally better, and I doubt ever will.
The reverend was exactly in such situation. If he were to refuse, people would have been killed, and children taken anyway. Cooperation with the locals just made things simpler for salamandra, and they could have processed children gradually. Children would have been taken does not matter what the Reverend did. If morally more acceptable action is the one that created less pain, suffering, and loss of life (utilitarianism), the Revered did the right thing. If more morally acceptable is to do the right thing independent of the consequences, even if they are quite foreseeable and bring much greater harm (deontology), he should have refused, had people massacred and children taken anyway. Pick what you believe is a right thing to do. Nobody could prove which one is morally better, and I doubt ever will.
There were armored soldiers around. Mikul and the rest of the retards blocking the gate to Vizima and there were also soldiers when the hounds chase Alvin and the girl at the start of the chapter. Plus why didn't any of them cooperate with Geralt. He told them from the start that he's after the Salamandra. The Reverend was either getting paid with money or fistech. The reverend even sent Alvin to the Salamandra hideout, while Abigail took care of him and did not send him to the Salamandra hideout.vivaxardas said:
Alvin tells Geralt that the reverend sent him to the Salamandra hideout. Skip to 35:55
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzERNXoC04Q[/media]
Who said Salamandra raped Ilsa ? Alvin only says "plow her well, show her you are *A* man. He does not specify Salamandra or a group of soldiers. He points out that it happened from drink and desire, and if you recall Mikul seems to be drunk all the time. Salamandra are into getting high on fistech and not getting drunk. Mikul is always hanging out with those two other soldiers not the Salamandra. Probably his two other soldier buddies told him plow her well, and he raped Ilsa.
here's the proof. skip to 06:39
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fugh8RSaXxI&list=SPD59876DB5D6FF8A3[/media]
Shawnkh said:
It came up when Geralt talked with salamandra bandits. They told Ilsa was a screamer, and such. Sure the Reverend knew about the hideout. He sent children because salamandra expected the tribute again, as they tell Geralt. The question is not what the Reverend knew, but whether he was coerced, or sold children voluntarily. It is obvious for me he was coerced.
Salamandra had patrons in high places, and nobody would have bothered what they were doing on the outskirts. Those peasants were on their own, which is pretty bad. Waht to blame somebody? Blame those who financed and used salamandra, and not a local priest bullied into submission.
Shawnkh said:
Actually, the Reverend was always cranky and unhappy in general. Does not look like he was content with a situation in his village. That villagers found an easier target and projected their rage is not surprising, given how much they were victimized and lived in constant fear. And Abigail was a right target after all. They did not come after some girl just passing through.