Moral choices in The Witcher

[wisielec]

Moral choices in The Witcher

Well, some gamesites tend to call the witcher a skilled assasin, or mercenary and I wonder why is that so?Have they not red about the concept of this profession? I would like to know what do you think about this "job" and witcher cast? Is there any good explanation and description of what the witcher occupation is really all about?You see, I'm polish and what I come across internet vary from somewhat truth, to complete misunderstanding of the idea behind such class and it's origin.I'm asking people who did not read the books:, what do you all think or know about witchers..pliz comment from your point of view, how do you see the witchers, who are they.My english may not be perfect, fell free to ask if you have a question...

 

[kalniel]

Best thing is to play the game - you get a good understanding then

 

[quemaqua]

From what I gather, Witchers are basically used as a tool. They protect people. But people don't like them so much, viewing them as something of a necessary evil. I wouldn't know what exactly to call them if not a mercenary group, though, because they seem to be self-regulating. I'm very curious as to *why* they would willingly subject themselves to the tortures they have to undergo to be reborn as witchers, but it doesn't appear that there's some other person in charge pulling the strings. It would seem more initially logical to me if there was some other entity controlling their organization.So if you wouldn't call them hunters or mercenaries, what would you call them? Is there a better word? I gather they can't really be described so quickly as that in any case.

 

[username_2062039]

From what I gather, Witchers are basically used as a tool. They protect people. But people don't like them so much, viewing them as something of a necessary evil. I wouldn't know what exactly to call them if not a mercenary group, though, because they seem to be self-regulating. I'm very curious as to *why* they would willingly subject themselves to the tortures they have to undergo to be reborn as witchers, but it doesn't appear that there's some other person in charge pulling the strings. It would seem more initially logical to me if there was some other entity controlling their organization.So if you wouldn't call them hunters or mercenaries, what would you call them? Is there a better word? I gather they can't really be described so quickly as that in any case.

hm, not quite sure if I understand you...but. the beginning of the witchers is unclear and lost in the history. according to various sources first mutations were made by same sort of druids or renegade sorcerer. now the origins are lost, such as mutation formulas because only few witchers survived the attack that destroyed Kaer Morhen many years ago. they still can prepare many potions but Vesemir is the last one of the old witchers and he was a sword fighting teacher, not responsible for mutations. future witchers were chosen from little kids - usually orphans /but sometimes witchers asked for a kids as a reward for their help/ and they have undergone the mutation. however, only few of them survived and became real witchers. i think this is one of the reasons people dont like the witchers - they were "kidnapping" kids. but they were always useful, protecting people from various monsters. there is no "entity" controlling the witchers. they were responsible for themselves, i would compare it to a guild mixed with secret brotherhood.

 

[nick1689]

They're monster hunters right? Thats what I always thought. But their skills allow them to do other jobs, much what mercenaries do and other professions. But mainly, they specialise in monster hunting/slaying.

 

[link006]

I believe in the intro trailer, a Witcher is called a professional monster slayer.That's what I'm going with.

 

[wisielec]

Sole purpose of bieng a witcher is to hunt monsters that came to this world after the great cataclysm called conjunction of the planes. Other mentioning of their origin was that they helped with reclaiming of the lands as humans began their advance into the wilderness...(Elves say that humans appeard in this world after the conjunction along with other monsters, it is not their world at all,...so they say They are train (like hell) in combat with supernatural, so they must become more than a swordsman to overcome obstacles...that's why the mutations, changing immunology and other stuff. Witchers even experimented with children that undergone and took the changes really good (like Geralt-he was said to be the only survivor of those experiments-from a certain group that is-thats why he has white hair).Witchers are said to be neutral, they don't mix in politics or factions nor swear alliance(?) to any king. They don't deal with killing people, and refuse to kill intelligent, rational creatures.And yes, witchers take children (rather - took), but never said to kidnap them. It was based on the rule of destiny, for example: saving someone who said "you can ask for anything", a person was asked again if he really means it, if so, the witcher would say something like "you'll give me something that you already have but are not aware of"...and if it was a pregnancy-a child, it was witchers to take by the right of destiny.Or took orphans as was mentioned, from the gutter, children neglected and forgotten.Oh well, you can read about this in Last Wish, it was published in english and so many other languages by now, I highly recommend this and other books by AS.That is why naming witchers mercenaries or assasins or simply swords for hire is iritating me in some small point

 

[username_2062039]

Sole purpose of bieng a witcher is to hunt monsters that came to this world after the great cataclysm called conjunction of the planes. Other mentioning of their origin was that they helped with reclaiming of the lands as humans began their advance into the wilderness...(Elves say that humans appeard in this world after the conjunction along with other monsters, it is not their world at all,...so they say They are train (like hell) in combat with supernatural, so they must become more than a swordsman to overcome obstacles...that's why the mutations, changing immunology and other stuff. Witchers even experimented with children that undergone and took the changes really good (like Geralt-he was said to be the only survivor of those experiments-from a certain group that is-thats why he has white hair).Witchers are said to be neutral, they don't mix in politics or factions nor swear alliance(?) to any king. They don't deal with killing people, and refuse to kill intelligent, rational creatures.And yes, witchers take children (rather - took), but never said to kidnap them. It was based on the rule of destiny, for example: saving someone who said "you can ask for anything", a person was asked again if he really means it, if so, the witcher would say something like "you'll give me something that you already have but are not aware of"...and if it was a pregnancy-a child, it was witchers to take by the right of destiny.Or took orphans as was mentioned, from the gutter, children neglected and forgotten.Oh well, you can read about this in Last Wish, it was published in english and so many other languages by now, I highly recommend this and other books by AS.That is why naming witchers mercenaries or assasins or simply swords for hire is iritating me in some small point

i didnt say the witchers were kidnapping children. what I mean is they were accused of doing so. that didnt raise their popularity.

 

[rhian]

To me a Witcher is someone who kills monsters and beasts in return for payment.He states in the game himself often enough that he is a Monster Hunter ... a "beasty baiter" as the major called him in the village.And Witchers usually live in a community of other Witcher, where they train and prepare the newcomer - like some sort of school.I wouldn't compare a Witcher to an Assasin... more a Mercenary with a Codex and some kinky gear.

 

[ausir]

Witchers undergo mutations as children and only the strongest of them survive them (actually, that's how it *was* done, since no witcher mutations are done anymore after the massacre of Kaer Morhen). Many of the children were chosen to be witchers through the Law of Surprise - a person, instead of money, would pay a witcher with what he has and does not expect to have - which often turned out to be a newborn child (or a child not yet born of a wife he finds pregnant after returning home) - then the witcher would come back years later and take the child to be a witcher.

 

[aggravaar]

There's one more thing that I've always liked about the witchers: they're professionals. Your typical witcher knows everything about monsters, where they dwell, their strengths and weaknesses, and which wobbling squishy part to stab (hence the name: a witch is a woman who knows stuff about evil, infernal matters, and can deal with them). The witcher swords, the elixirs and the medallion are regarded as tools.In the books the medallion is a symbol of witcherdom (witcherhood? witchercraft?), in the game the swords bear the symbol instead (or at least that's how I feel about it).Now about the code: if I remember right the witcher code is bollocks, Geralt made a code for himself, true, but I don't think there's an 'official' witcher code. Read it in one of the short stories, I think. I might be wrong, though. But I'm certain there is a strong ideology (though somewhat unspoken) behind the witchers (at least that's how Geralt feels about it when his Full Melancholic Mode is on).Also, the notion of melancholy of witcherdom is relevant, especially in the books. In the game we can see it in some of Geralt's and Vesemir's lines. The crumbling, ruined Kaer Morhen, with its cavernous empty halls and old murals, expresses it most fully, though, it's like glory in decay. In other words the witchers we know now are, I think, a shadow of what they once were. They go all: this is what we used to be. Look at us now. Meh, what do you know, anyway? Pass the booze. A witcher's like Philip Marlowe mixed with Conan the Barbarian and Dirty Harry with a pinch of samurai and a grain of chivalry.There might have been a code in the past when the witchers roamed free on the plains, and in the forest, and in brothels. Now, since there's so few of them left alive, there is no need for codes or oaths or anything like that. Why would witchers need codes anyway? They have their cynicism, right?

 

[ausir]

You're right, there is no actual witcher code, Geralt made it for himself. It's in the short story "A Voice of Reason" in "The Last Wish".

 

[quemaqua]

This has turned out to be an interesting thread. Thanks to those who've been contributing.

 

[kot_ru]

Епть, я по английски не шарю... А русские здесь есть? бля я напыхался что-то в какаху... ;d ;d ;d

 

[redscare]

I have not read any books. So here's my take: Witcher's are monsters hunters by principles (to fight against Evil), not just mercs. But they realize that if they don't charge for their services, soon they'll have no money to get all those potions and expensive equipment to keep on fighting. The fact that Geralt usually charges few or no money at all to poor people and tries to get all the money he can from the rich seems to back up this idea. Also, at some point in the game, when Geralt faces a knight that tells him that knights kill monsters for free, he just answers something along the line of "yes, and I'm sure fairies fund your castles and equipment"

 

[Haplok]

To fight against Evil? No. Just, no.Are monsters evil? Just because they kill people? Aren't people frequently more evil?Was Regis, Gerat's vampire friend, evil? Or that knight with the 3 Daws crest - actually a dragon in human skin?I'd say Witchers slay monsters to protect people - but even that, not always. Problem appears when the humans are worse then the monsters...

 

[darkelve]

Already a couple of times, this game made me think about current events and my stance in the world... as well as putting me in a situation where I am torn between different choices... as when I had to choose between certain women or who to save in a certain location...To me, this kind of emotional conflict is just as intense as sword-fighting (more so perhaps)? And the first game that pulled this off...Do you also feel at certain events that you're head is about to explode thinking, or your heart is about to break?

 

[rhian]

I did.I liked Siegfried, and wanted to befriend him... and worried when he asked me to help him with the squirrles.And then again - I also liked that arrogant snot Yaevinn, and he also asked me to help - but against the order.So I worried, what to do? Helping one side, staying neutral. What happens when I help the elves? Will Siegfried be pissed at me? and many more thoughts.Same was with the brothel in the Trade Quarter,when you search for the Blue Eyed girl. I did that quest once... and somehow I was rather shocked about the consequences (roleplay wise).There were plenty of such parts

 

[mindscape]

Countless times i've sat highlighting options to say thinking about the outcome of the choice, in the end its usually down to personal preference for me rather than considering how good/bad this could affect me in the game.Once i've finished my first run through i'll undoubtedly play through the game again, this time choosing the opposites on the larger choices and see what happens.

 

[Seeker.217]

Yes as well I have been torn a few time in which way I would go As Myself I did like Siegfried as well as Yaevinn in spite of him being bit of a snot as well When I helped the squirrles. well as most of you know what happened with Siegfried there been other times in the game that has to pick one path or the other which it part of them game I also enjoy because I can see a lot of reply out of this just to see what other out come I would get