Is Geralt Really Doing the Wrong Thing?

[Agent_Blue]

(...)

I think you're conflating two issues: To stop the abuse is one thing, but to kill two soldiers, hang the third and set free a cannibal who just might be guilty of something, when other alternatives were plausibly available, now that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Eldanon]

Which means in his eyes, killing off the wounded, looting and cannibalism were not evil but justified. His decision to intervene is de facto sanctioning her actions.

Because in some cases its easy to see how all of those can be justified. Let's say soldiers raid a village, burn it down, rape and plunder and in the process some of them get wounded. If the survivors then finish off the wounding invaders, I have absolutely zero problem with it. Same for looting of the invaders. Really same for cannibalism if they're eating dead invaders because there's simply no food so the choice is starving to death vs. cannibalism.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Because in some cases its easy to see how all of those can be justified. Let's say soldiers raid a village, burn it down, rape and plunder and in the process some of them get wounded. If the survivors then finish off the wounding invaders, I have absolutely zero problem with it. Same for looting of the invaders. Really same for cannibalism if they're eating dead invaders because there's simply no food so the choice is starving to death vs. cannibalism.

I completely agree with you.
That wasn't my point.

 

[wichat]

I think you're conflating two issues: To stop the abuse is one thing, but to kill two soldiers, hang the third and set free a cannibal who just might be guilty of something, when other alternatives were plausibly available, now that's a different matter altogether.

I knew someone will answer that. But the impulse of human being of saving someone in danger isn't one of your argues? Really matters the background if the feelings born from the same heart beat? Just acting by impulse, why? That's what I try to say. In No Man's Land there's no subways, there's the trace of a cruel war, and, therefore, a cruel scene of which CDPR make us witnesses. But human nature is the same. I cannot put images of wars because of forum's rules so I've chosed the most basic.

 

[Mefris]

I think you're conflating two issues: To stop the abuse is one thing, but to kill two soldiers, hang the third and set free a cannibal who just might be guilty of something, when other alternatives were plausibly available, now that's a different matter altogether.

She might be guilty were as the soldiers are guilty.The sole reason a person like her would resort to cannibalism is starvation which is a direct result of the soldiers that try to hang and torture her.

 

[wichat]

You know, Agent? in books, Spakowsk describes a No Man's Land where even birds have flew, no dogs, no rats, no bidrs, destroyed crops, fruit trees burned, poisoned wells ... And this is the picture that CDPR trying to send us. Obviously, no one can summarize five novels as complex in 2:45 minutes of footage.

 

[Agent_Blue]

She might be guilty were as the soldiers are guilty.The sole reason a person like her would resort to cannibalism is starvation which is a direct result of the soldiers that try to hang and torture her.

Again, I know that and I agree with you.
I have said so myself countless times in the past few days. In fact, that point is part of my part of my argumentation that the script is too much of a dichotomy.

There were plausible alternatives prior to the drastic decision to dice those soldiers up, that's my point. Geralt obviously had a business relationship with the commander. Therefore, he was in the position of at least ask a few questions, what exactly was the girl being accused of, thus halting the abuse and gaining the girl some time. He could have worked out an arrangement with the party, traded the reward in exchange for the girl's life or even her swift merciful execution.

You could argue since Geralt went in without his swords he lacked premeditation to kill, just meant to stop the abuse. But then you'd be forgetting the concealed weapon and his command: «Close your eyes».

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I don't think it matters for Geralt's actions whether or not the woman or the men were less culpable; it shouldn't anyways because "less culpable" is a useless measure in certain scenarios. The issue shouldn't be about determining who is more "wrong", but rather understanding why Geralt acted the way he did- he reacted to the implication that those men were going to rape that woman, and he acted against it.

 

[wichat]

his command: «Close your eyes».

It said after the Aard strike, when he see that man wield his blade.... And I remember you that Geralt anticipate the acts of any man before he, any man, reaches think them.

 

[ViZ7]

Geralt has no concealed blade, he takes it from one of the soldiers (that's also why he throws it to the ground at the end).
And it seems obvious to him that these guys are enough of jackasses to attack a witcher, that's probably why he tells her to close her eyes.

 

[Agent_Blue]

It said after the Aard strike, when he see that man wield his blade.... And I remember you that Geralt anticipate the acts of any man before he, any man, reaches think them.

Even more so.

It doesn't take a psychic to foretell what's going to happen if you aard the hell out of a party commander. Other options were available.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Geralt has no concealed blade, he takes it from one of the soldiers (that's also why he throws it to the ground at the end).
And it seems obvious to him that these guys are enough of jackasses to attack a witcher, that's probably why he tells her to close her eyes.

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for the correction.
That might put things under a new light.

Guess I'll have to re-watch the trailer.

 

[wichat]

Geralt has no concealed blade, he takes it from one of the soldiers (that's also why he throws it to the ground at the end).
And it seems obvious to him that these guys are enough of jackasses to attack a witcher, that's probably why he tells her to close her eyes.

That's too. Paraphrasing Simarq: they have no brain facing the witcher who themselves hired some minutes before to kill a monster.

 

[Nerevar.220]

Even more so.

It doesn't take a psychic to foretell what's going to happen if you aard the hell out of a party commander. Other options were available.

Note that they are heavily outmatched and try to talk out of it?

Geralt does go for lethal despite being able to reduce them as easily, but that´s also a trait of the character since the very first tale, no patience for cruel jerks. Then again, this isn´t D&D Legal Good or superhero ethics (back when they had them).

 

[Mefris]

Again, I know that and I agree with you.
I have said so myself countless times in the past few days. In fact, that point is part of my part of my argumentation that the script is too much of a dichotomy.

There were plausible alternatives prior to the drastic decision to dice those soldiers up, that's my point. Geralt obviously had a business relationship with the commander. Therefore, he was in the position of at least ask a few questions, what exactly was the girl being accused of, thus halting the abuse and gaining the girl some time. He could have worked out an arrangement with the party, traded the reward in exchange for the girl's life or even her swift merciful execution.

You could argue since Geralt went in without his swords he lacked premeditation to kill, just meant to stop the abuse. But then you'd be forgetting the concealed weapon and his command: «Close your eyes».

"Sir,could you please stop crushing the girls liver for a second.I want to ask you something."
I think we watched diffrent trailers because in the one I watched there wasn't any room for talk.They were behaving like animals torturing and brutaly beating a defensless girl.Geralt reacted on what he saw and went (unarmed) to stop them.The morons attacked and they got killed.Simple as that.He could have come with his sword and choped them to bits from the get go.Instead of Aard he could have used Igni.He gave them every chance to back away but they didn't.

 

[Agent_Blue]

"Sir,could you please stop crushing the girls liver for a second.I want to ask you something."
I think we watched diffrent trailers because in the one I watched there wasn't any room for talk.They were behaving like animals torturing and brutaly beating a defensless girl.Geralt reacted on what he saw and went (unarmed) to stop them.The morons attacked and they got killed.Simple as that.He could have come with his sword and choped them to bits from the get go.Instead of Aard he could have used Igni.He gave them every chance to back away but they didn't.

Yes. You're right.

After some reconsideration, this is my take:

1. The girl had been sighted killing several wounded soldiers, looting them and cannibalizing, probably repeatedly over a period of a day or two, but had managed to escape. The accusation states «for the murder of the wounded», which implies more than one victim, but there's no trace of blood on her clothes, hands or face. This means she hasn't been caught red-handed but rather afterwards, probably on her way to another incursion into the battlefield.

2. The commander then recites an impromptu formal conviction, before starting to brutalize her. Now, it’s important to realize the party’s initial aim clearly isn't to rape her. This is evident by the fact the scene is quickly set up for a hanging, the rope promptly looped on the tree branch and tightly squeezed around her neck. In fact, the soldiers are already hoisting her when she bites one of them and everything seems to take a turn for the worse. Truth is only then do some veiled allusions to rape surface, namely 1:11 onward.

3. If the party’s original aim wasn't sexual but punitive that at least suggests her guilt. Moreover, if the girl were indeed innocent and the mock conviction simply staged to further entice their appetites for sadistic violence, why would have they hastened the hanging? Why not indulge in tormenting her extensively first? Additionally, the actions she’s accused of are perfectly consistent with wide-spread famine in a war-ridden area. So there’s every reason to believe she did commit them but the point can be equally made she’s been driven into it by the Nilfgaardian occupation.

4. Geralt eventually decides to act. He’s about to grab a sword when he changes his mind and decides to go in unarmed. This is probably an indication of his restraint. He’s merely seeking to scare the soldiers off and stop the abuse. This is also what’s implied by the fact he just shakes off the first soldier instead of incinerating him on the spot, merely shoves away the second and then casts Aard to blast away and stun the one seizing the girl. He does so in the hopes of it being enough to get his point across, that the party will get the message and just flee the scene.

 

[wichat]

And had you not seen that before on the first sight? Mmmmm /> I bet once you start to play TW3 you'll find yourself in the urgent need to play TW2 and / or TW1 or even read the books because you will have the sensation of losing something very important. And it will be an avid sensation, I can assure you />

 

[Agent_Blue]

And had you not seen that before on the first sight? Mmmmm />/>/> I bet once you start to play TW3 you'll find yourself in the urgent need to play TW2 and / or TW1 or even read the books because you will have the sensation of losing something very important. And it will be an avid sensation, I can assure you />/>/>

I honestly had not.

At the time it felt a bit odd Geralt would carry a concealed blade around, but what the heck, until it was brought to my attention that he didn't but had just snatched it from one of the buffoons. Everything suddenly clicked into place.

I actually now have gone through the trailer in slow-motion.
Thanks but I'm passing on the books and past games.

 

[GamaH]

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.

Couple that with the fact that he merely pushes the leader out of the way, tosses the other guy aside and Aards the guy holding her down -- then stands there.

If they had left, no one would've died.