Is Geralt Really Doing the Wrong Thing?

[Lanaya]

Is Geralt Really Doing the Wrong Thing?

A witcher's profession is to kill monsters, and real ones that dont belong in this sphere or dimension. Killing a man, no matter how cruel or deserving is not part of his job, correct? then each act taken towards that path is against the witcher code?

 

[ReptilePZ]

Geralt doesn't kill men for money. That's not a rule from the witchers' code, because there isn't such a thing. Geralt uses a made up set of guidelines of his but he's willing to break them under certain circumstances.

Anyway, in the trailer, he doesn't murder those men for money (so he's not even 'breaking the code'), he does that because he deeply believes they don't deserve to live. Usually, witchers are advised not to intervene in situations like the one in the cgi trailer, but Geralt's a bit... special.

 

[501105]

In theory yes, but a Witcher is a living being with his own morals. It is kind of unfair to expect that a mutated child (a human) should be void of personailty and beliefs. Not to mention that humans are sometimes the worst monsters.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Geralt is not a machine. He is a human being, and sometimes, in certain situations, it is simply a vile thing to stand by and not interfere. Some situations are so clear-cut evil (like murdering children, or bandits killing off travelers in order to rob their property), that not to interfere is a villainy. In other situations he has his own interests, and protects people he cares about. But in situations of uncertainty, or where both parties are equally guilty or evil, he shouldn't interfere. It is not for him to decide who deserves to live, and who deserves to die. At least it is the way I am planning on behaving in TW3.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I think it's telling that he didn't take out his sword against them, to me it seemed like that was an indication that those people could have chosen to escape, and Geralt would not have chased them. The line he speaks during the trailer really nails his perspective, actually.

 

[sidspyker]

There is no real 'witchers code' I think, I remember reading in the books somewhere he mentions it's just something he made up.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Well, don't they have a general code of non-interference? His own code isn't the official code, of course, he does add his own sentiments to it.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Well, don't they have a general code of non-interference?

It's more of an advice than a rule.

 

[Dprelate]

In TW1 Geralt stated that both swords are for monsters. but there are some monsters with non-beast appearance which are even more dangerous than typical ones. we have this kind of monsters in our own real world, just look around.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

In a trailer? Yes, he does. Here is a real life story: once soldiers caught a human monster, so to speak, a young woman who was a merc for the rebels. She was a sharpshooter. She were to die, but guys wanted to rape her first. Squad commander stopped it by shooting her. She deserved to die, but did not deserve to be brutalized. Killing her fast was the only small mercy a situation could afford. Killing the guys and letting her go would not be a good thing to do, because more people will die.

 

[IsengrimR]

In a trailer? Yes, he does. Here is a real life story: once soldiers caught a human monster, so to speak, a woman who was a merc for the rebels. She was a sharpshooter. She were to die, but guys wanted to rape her first. Squad commander stopped it by shooting her. She deserved to die, but did not deserve to be brutalized. Killing her fast was the only small mercy a situation could afford. Killing the guys and letting her go would not be a good thing to do, because more people will die.

Weather one death can be equaled to the deaths of many is a matter of morals. I know for sure that I would do something smiliar to Geralt, though I would get hit with a club and hanged, most likely.

When it comes to people I care about? Yes, I would be able to sacrifice life's of people I do not know for them. It's a matter of what you value more - a person that you care about or some stranger. Sure, it's cold. But that's how I think about it.

Here, I dunno. It's war, it's not about anything else than survival, sure that turns people into monsters, but this soldiers didn't have to do what they did. They turned themselves into monsters for no other reason than sadistic "entertainment" , plus they were doing it on a person weaker than them. They could have just hang her - case closed, deed done, but no...
Better to kill three strong obvious monsters and let one possible monster that just tries to stay alive, in my eyes.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Looters prey on the weak. Wounded soldiers are in the most vulnerable state. That's why it is a war crime to kill them, and people were hanged, and will be hanged for this, even now. You know, somehow no one is sympathetic to hunters in The Last of Us, even though they do exactly the same shit - they prey on the weak. Weak women prey on wounded and old, that's the only difference. This trailer would have made a big impact on me if Geralt chose to kill HER, in order to to spare her unnecessary suffering, like it was in real life. Right now it is simply meaningless - Geralt saw a lot of war zones, and should know better.

 

[ReptilePZ]

 

[sidspyker]

I really don't see the problem with her eating whatever she can find in war time...I probably wouldn't care what I eat if I was in that place either.

 

[IsengrimR]

I really don't see the problem with her eating whatever she can find in war time...I probably wouldn't care what I eat if I was in that place either.

Elf with onion.

 

[goopit]

In a trailer? Yes, he does. Here is a real life story: once soldiers caught a human monster, so to speak, a young woman who was a merc for the rebels. She was a sharpshooter. She were to die, but guys wanted to rape her first. Squad commander stopped it by shooting her. She deserved to die, but did not deserve to be brutalized. Killing her fast was the only small mercy a situation could afford. Killing the guys and letting her go would not be a good thing to do, because more people will die.

She could be a temporary looter but she can be a refugee after. She probably killed the wounded because other soldiers killed her family.

Geralt would have walked away if they did show mercy and killed her quickly but they didn't.

I agree that there could've been a better twist but if she killed the girl people would go "WTF why would I wannt play this game!?"

 

[sidspyker]

Elf with onion.

Nilfgaardians with salt.

 

[EmperorZorn]

Geralt doesn't really have the right to interfere, because he doesn't know the details of this story.

1.) The woman could have been preying on the weak and wounded, cannibalizing their bodies and stealing their valuables.

2.) She could have murdered a soldier trying to rape her in self-defense, after having to eat her dead child she was locked up with to prevent starvation.

Like Geralt said "if he has a choice between two evils, he rather won't choose at all".
So why does he make a choice in the end ?

...it's a bit of a contradiction.

 

[wichat]

Looters prey on the weak. Wounded soldiers are in the most vulnerable state. That's why it is a war crime to kill them, and people were hanged, and will be hanged for this, even now. You know, somehow no one is sympathetic to hunters in The Last of Us, even though they do exactly the same shit - they prey on the weak. Weak women prey on wounded and old, that's the only difference. This trailer would have made a big impact on me if Geralt chose to kill HER, in order to to spare her unnecessary suffering, like it was in real life. Right now it is simply meaningless - Geralt saw a lot of war zones, and should know better.

Yes, but you're talking about you, and in the traile we see Geralt, the Geralt very closer to the books. It seems CDPR really want to get this goal portrayting a man who try to be neutral but his feelings always win him. Vesemir don't stop him. That's explain a lot if you can let aside your own conception of wrong or right because the fact is undersand how Geralt is, not how you want him to be.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Yes, but you're talking about you, and in the traile we see Geralt, the Geralt very closer to the books. It seems CDPR really want to get this goal portrayting a man who try to be neutral but his feelings always win him. Vesemir don't stop him. That's explain a lot if you can let aside your own conception of wrong or right because the fact is undersand how Geralt is, not how you want him to be.

Well, in Flotsam he did not kill Temerian soldiers who wanted to hang Malena. That would be totally crazy. So why does he suddenly change? It is the same damn situation.