I just let Abigail die, and so should you

[vivaxardas2015]

I just let Abigail die, and so should you

Hello everybody, on this beautiful morning/day/evening!

Yesterday I tried to find on youtube a video where Geralt let Abigail die, and I couldn't. It seems that there is a unanimous agreement about this matter, and to be honest, I fail to see why. Let's go through "bad villagers and their crimes", one by one.

First one, most obvious: why Geralt and everyone assumed that Mikul raped Ilsa??? We know that she poisoned herself, and that Abigail sold her the poison. When Mikul learned about it he was, it seems, sincerely upset. Salamandra guys openly told Geralt they gang-raped Ilsa outside the village. Alvin in trance also talked about gang-rape ("plow her well, show her that you are a man!") It seems that she killed herself after that, and instead of helping her to cope Abigail sold her a poison. So why exactly Geralt told the Reverend it was Mikul??? Just because Abigail told him so?

Odo killed his brother, but Abigail did have a doll of him, and, I wouldn't put past her that, as Odo told Geralt, she wanted to enthrall his brother, and when it failed, she bewitched him using his greed and hate to do the deed. So here it seems they both are equally guilty. At least there is not enough evidence to judge otherwise.

Haren traded with squirrels. So what? Geralt claims he sold one to city guards. How a hell did he learn it? There is nothing about it at all, except Haren telling him it was possible to do. And why does it even matter to Geralt who may be just offed four squirrels himself?

About salamandra: they terrorized the village, and it is pretty obvious they made the villagers to do what they ordered. They themselves told that children (and probably goods from Haren as well) were a tribute, and Reverend had to do it. Why could anyone blame peasants for not standing up to the armed gang (and be massacred in the process), given that salamandra demonstrated they were not joking around?

As I see it peasants were fu*ed. They were terrorized by the bandits who stole their children and raped their women, and they couldn't get rid of the witch who used this disaster, and people's dark desires to harm them. What really turned me against Abigail is that she cursed Geralt if he refuses to save her. Nobody appointed him a judge, and he does not have any obligation to her. As I see it, the Beast haunts Abigail for a good reason. So yesterday I just said - screw it, I am out of here!

I know, peasants are really ugly and not exactly lovable, while Abigail is good looking. They all are guilty, but is it really worth it to save her and have the entire village, including every man, woman, and child, exterminated?

 

[Nekrypt]

Abigail has one of the best cards of the game.

 

[m4x1u]

You made very solid points. Still I sided with her more often than not, having come to pretty much same conclusion you did.

 

[eskiMoe]

I save Abigail every time!

 

[tommy5761]

I saved her most every time except once . I dunno maybe it has something to do with being burned at the stake that makes me side with her , at least the men die as honorable as they can I suppose . No I don`t have sex with her all the time either . I think it boils down to what extent each of us thinks or believes to be the lesser evil . As far as I can remember there is no irrefutable proof one way or the other .

 

[GuyNwah]

Hindsight is 20/20, and that goes for this quest above all others. It is easy to find evidence before and at the trial condemning Abigail as an accessory; she enabled those crimes, and not caring what your customer does with dangerous things you sell them is no excuse.

All this would speak for condemning Abigail, were it not for the equally plain fact that the trial is no trial at all but a lynching. Geralt will not acquiesce in a lynching, no matter the guilt of the victim, because to do so would debase himself to the level of the Reverend and his mob. It would be a fundamental violation of the principle of the Chandlerian hero, "down these mean streets must go a man who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid". [Raymond Chandler, "The Simple Art of Murder"]

In light of subsequent events, which of course are not known to Geralt at the time, the evidence that Geralt made the right decision by sparing Abigail is overwhelming.

* The Reverend's speech while Geralt is bringing Abigail out to face the mob is a condemnation, not of Abigail, but of the unnatural appetites of all women. He would condemn any woman who defied his power over the settlement in the same way; the so-called trial is not even about Abigail's crimes.

* The villagers are killed by the Beast no matter what decision you make. Thus Abigail had no power over the Beast.

* The Reverend is already clearly a monster who had villagers sacrificed and sold children for slaves. The full extent of his depravity is not revealed until the Epilogue, when we learn that he expelled his daughter (Carmen, formerly known as Hela) to become a whore in Vizima. Thus Ilsa knew full well what fate awaited her as a rape victim, no matter who raped her, and chose a way out that we cannot condemn without becoming monsters ourselves.

* The writers side with Abigail. In Act IV, you cannot lift the curse from Alina; the Healer explains "you have innocent blood on your hands", and she can only mean Abigail's.

Thus the most honorable action for Geralt is to refuse Abigail's advances, spare her at the trial, and tell her when she asks that he "chose the lesser evil". She is not happy with this, but a lynching under pretense of law is a far greater evil, one Geralt cannot acquiesce in without sacrificing his own integrity.

 

[sidspyker]

Gotta love the grey morality in Witcher.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

First of all, I consider all peasants die when Geralt sides with them simply a bad writing. The Beast did not kill them all before because they were in their houses. So, why would they be out now, and when the beast even have time to kill them? As soon as it appears it fights Geralt. If Geralt sides with Abigail, the massacre makes sense because the Reverend leads a mob to lynch them both. In this case Geralt kills the attackers in self-defense. I would say the proper second outcome would be Abigail burned, but the village spared. Otherwise Geralt's words to the Reverend "You all got a second chance" do not make any sense. As well as when he said to Mikul "apologize to Ilsa" when it is pretty obvious that what Mikul is guilty is only in not protecting Ilsa, or preventing her suicide.

Second, even when Geralt sides with the Reverend, he tells him to shut up and insists on a proper trial. I would take this scene at a face value even if Abigail is burned as a result. That was an accepted punishment to witches.

Third, the entire village was a hostage to the gang who could do whatever they wanted. The Reverend did not sell children for profit but because he was coerced. If someone put a gun to your heard and tells he will kill your and your family unless you give them some children you may refuse, die and be a hero. But being coerced into giving the children does not make such person a monster. None of the villages had any real choice concerning salamanders, and their unwillingness to die is understandable.

The Reverend expelled his daughter and she chose a life as a whore in Vizima. He is obviously not a nice and forgiving man, but a monster? Hardly. Disowning a daughter does not make a man a monster, given that she came of age and can strike on her own. Monsters are people who choose to behave a certain way, not who were coerced. Were he to sell children for profit, it would have been a different matter.

Geralt is not a judge, and nobody appointed him a moral and legal authority. He was not qualified to serve as a judge just because he has a sword and is not afraid to use it. On a siding-with-villagers path he explicitly prohibits lynching, and demands a fair trial, though result would be the same, and Abigail would burn.

I doubt "you have innocent blood" refers to Abigail because she is so far from being innocent it is not even funny.

 

[Thothistox]

Whether or not to have sex with her is, I think, almost as important a moral question as how she is judged by her lynch mob. It's been a while since I played the game, but I remember feeling as if I'd exploited her if I had sex with her, simply because it felt like a forced quid pro quo.

 

[GuyNwah]

First of all, I consider all peasants die when Geralt sides with them simply a bad writing. The Beast did not kill them all before because they were in their houses. So, why would they be out now, and when the beast even have time to kill them? As soon as it appears it fights Geralt. If Geralt sides with Abigail, the massacre makes sense because the Reverend leads a mob to lynch them both. In this case Geral kills the attackers in self-defense. I would say the proper second outcome would be Abigail burned, but the village spared. Otherwise Geralt's words to the Reverend "You all got a second chance" do not make any sense. As well as when he said to Mikul "apologize to Ilsa" when it is pretty obvious that what Mikul is guilty is only in not protecting Ilsa, or preventing her suicide.

Second, even when Geralt sides with the Reverend, he tells him to shut up and insists on a proper trial. I would take this scene at a face value even if Abigail is burned as a result. That was an accepted punishment to witches.

Third, the entire village was a hostage to the gang who could do whatever they wanted. The Reverend did not sell children for profit but because he was coerced. If someone put a gun to your heard and tells he will kill your and your family unless you give them some children you may refuse, die and be a hero. But being coerced into giving the children does not make such person a monster. None of the villages had any real choice concerning salamanders, and their unwillingness to die is understandable.

The Reverend expelled his daughter and she chose a life as a whore in Vizima. He is obviously not a nice and forgiving man, but a monster? Hardly. Disowning a daughter does not make a man a monster, given that she came of age and can strike on her own. Monsters are people who choose to behave a certain way, not who were coerced. Were he to sell children for profit, it would have been a different matter.

Geralt is not a judge, and nobody appointed him a moral and legal authority. He was not qualified to serve as a judge just because he has a sword and is not afraid to use it. On a siding-with-villagers path he explicitly prohibits lynching, and demands a fair trial, though result would be the same, and Abigail would burn.

I doubt "you have innocent blood" refers to Abigail because she is so far from being innocent it is not even funny.

I don't follow logic that requires the outcome of a quest to be a developer mistake. The villagers died because the Beast had the power to kill them despite and even after Abigail's death.

And the "innocent blood" quote obtains exactly in case you have allowed Abigail to perish, not in any other. So no argument that the developers believed Abigail should have died holds water.

It is not passing judgment to prevent a lynching. A lynching is never an act of law, but always a perversion of law. Ordering a mob to disperse under threat of deadly force is exactly the response of an honorable man in this situation.

The fact that such diametrically opposed points of view can obtain from a single quest illustrates the great success of this game in making an exposition of moral conundrums.

 

[Garrison72]

I wonder if the devs see us still hashing out TW1's moral dilemmas 6 yrs later and are like...

I'm about to reach that point in my current playthrough. So far I've only let her die once, and three things stuck with me afterward: she got no fair trial, but mob justice. Cruel and unusual punishment, something I am adamantly against. She was less pro-active in her deeds than the villagers and especially that nasty reverend.

 

[FoggyFishburne]

Oh MAAAAAAN the writing is beast. Beastmode engaged! Launch the beastmissile. Prepare the beasthowitzer. Get into beast formation men and charge that fort! Beast, beast, BEAST!

Really interesting to read how people perceived Abigail's quest and also getting into detail of what happened and happens depending on what you do.

PS. The title is a bit spoilery though. I hope nobody who hasn't played TW1 stumbles upon this thread.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

The outcome of all the villagers dying does not make sense in a light of what Geralt told the Reverend (people who are dead do not have second chances), the beast not having time to run around and kill every peasant (Geralt fights it as soon as it appears), and because peasants would be in their houses after dark.

I don't really know what the devs intended concerning this quest. It can go either way, with good reasons on both sides. What I object is to a seemingly unanimous agreement (judging by a scarcity of youtube videos illustrating this choice) that to save Abigail is a right thing to do.

I actually liked siding-with-the-villagers. Geralt makes the Reverend shut up and demands a trial (so there is no lynching), tells Abigail that he is tired of this crap, and they should sort it out without his help. She curses him by a lionhead spider, which shows who she really is.
http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Coram_Agh_Tera

"The Cult of the Lionheaded Spider or Coram Agh Tera is one of the religions of the Continent. The cult makes bloody sacrifices for its cruel god and the priestesses are known for their powerful curses." Just this affiliation merits a stake for her by my lights.

He kills the beast with the help of the villagers (alive and well, by the way), and when he tells the Reverend it was a vile thing to give up the children, the Reverend told he did not have a choice. He (and it is not a stretch to say everyone else who resisted salamandra demands) would be killed otherwise. I would say if to pretend that the villagers are alive, and free from salamandra and a lionheadspider witch, it is a pretty good outcome.

 

[HeelPower]

So the villagers ALL die when you side with Abigail ?

From what I recall you are forced to fight the reverend and his goons should you side with her.I can't recall that all the villagers in the outskirts die.

Anyway, the reason I sided with Abigail is I found the reverend's gang to be more consistently evil just by comparison.She provided them with their tools ,sure but she didn't design or commit the crimes per se.

However, her offering herself to geralt in the cave is absolutely silly and is something I would NEVER do.The sex in the cave makes zero sense to be honest.Idk how that element is to be taken seriously.

 

[CostinRaz]

They all are guilty, but is it really worth it to save her and have the entire village, including every man, woman, and child, exterminated?

Except that's not what happens. I saved her every time and only killed the Reverend and his most trusted goons.

I don't much care who is right or wrong in this case, to allow a mob lynching is just a dumb idea. ( Which is why I allow Stennis to live every time, and don't care if he poisoned Saskia or not ).

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Geralt makes sure she is not lynched even if he chooses the peasants. And yes, all people die (besides corpses all over, including women's, we have a dialog with Shani about all villagers being dead, does not matter what we choose), which I found extremely weird. I can understand if Geralt had to face a mob (not just the Reverend and his lackeys) and killed them all in self-defense (he is a butcher of Blaviken after all), but not if he chose to help them.

 

[goopit]

So the villagers ALL die when you side with Abigail ?

From what I recall you are forced to fight the reverend and his goons should you side with her.I can't recall that all the villagers in the outskirts die.

Anyway, the reason I sided with Abigail is I found the reverend's gang to be more consistently evil just by comparison.She provided them with their tools ,sure but she didn't design or commit the crimes per se.

However, her offering herself to geralt in the cave is absolutely silly and is something I would NEVER do.The sex in the cave makes zero sense to be honest.Idk how that element is to be taken seriously.

Not to mention there were a group of children in the cave with them at the time haha.

Some villagers die but I remember the rich part of the village didn't have any corpses.

 

[goopit]

I can understand if Geralt had to face a mob (not just the Reverend and his lackeys) and killed them all in self-defense (he is a butcher of Blaviken after all), but not if he chose to help them.

Butcher of Blaviken wasn't a self-defense story.

Spoiler

Geralt killed Renfri's band who were just getting together and they didn't have their weapons out and they looked completely innocent. He decided to do this once he figured out their intention to massacre the village but he looked like he just murdered completely innocent group and people hated him for it hence the nickname.

I recommend reading "The Lesser Evil" it's one of the better short stories.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Disagreed. Abigail cursing Geralt out of desperation in case when he doesn't help her is natural and expected from her. Geralt not helping her is a pretty cowardly and wrong choice. Abigail herself is ambiguous character, and the story is designed on purpose in way that many things can be interpreted in several ways, and it's up to the player to judge for the good or for the bad (until you know more details as Guy N'wah explained above). But really, her involvement was indirect and in the worst case built on bad intentions which others already had. She didn't deserve to be burnt for it.

The story of Abigail is one of the best in the Witcher 1 by the way, with a lot of mystery and thought put into it.

 

[SystemShock7]

Well... I rest my case