New CG Cinematic for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Shows Geralt “Killing Monsters”

[CostinRaz]

But victory at all costs is somehow better.

We are not talking of the war front or of guerrilla warfare here. We are talking of establishing order in a chaotic region that was devastated by the war.

And yes in that case I believe every step should be taken to expedite the restoration of law and order. It stops the widespread famine, reduces crime and greatly reduces the suffering of the whole populous affected by war.

 

[darcler]

Under the martial law, with all extra-regulations and curfews, punishment is immediate and harsh. No time for any peace-time niceties.

Punishment is correlated with the caliber of the crime. It's not about peace-time niceties and war-time harshness. If the punishment is to differ depending on temporary situation, then the very approach to define the punishment is flawed.

Martial law is not so much for preserving stability (although it does that, granted; the level of harshness where the stability is provided is another matter). It is primarily to maintain control.

Although I also understand that war time does reduce the scope of viable means for keeping order. As I said somewhere earlier, army is not about morality or justice, it's about practicality. So punishments under martial law are not about being just (said correlation between punishment and crime), but about practicality (deal with whoever you deem criminal swiftly and decisively, otherwise it might endanger your position).

EDIT:

Let's not use "we" here, all right? I am better than the animal, because I strive to have a moral code, and understanding where my duties lie. To say that all of us, under certain circumstances, will be reduced to hunting humans, murders, and cannibalism, a sort of what the hunters do in The Last of Us is pretty damn insulting. I would prefer to starve to death, or to kill myself if I can't tolerate hunger, than to cut throats of the wounded, does not matter, foes or mates, and eat their flesh. This is life not worth living for anyone who want to keep a status of a human being.

I never understood why people take offense when they are called animals. It's biology. We are not plants, obviously, we are not funghi, nor bacteria... We are, however, mammals, chordates, primates... Animals. I see nothing offensive in the term.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

We are not talking of the war front or of guerrilla warfare here. We are talking of establishing order in a chaotic region that was devastated by the war.

If it's a war that one started and did very little to minimize the damage in the first place, then the very least one can do is show compassion to those who were affected by the misery that they are responsible for, and kill them painlessly if one exhausts other options.

If you want humanity to claim superiority over animals, then they should accept responsibility of their failures.

 

[CostinRaz]

A hanging is not a painless way to die, nor is it fast.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Punishment is correlated with the caliber of the crime. It's not about peace-time niceties and war-time harshness. If the punishment is to differ depending on temporary situation, then the very approach to define the punishment is flawed.

Martial law is not so much for preserving stability (although it does that, granted; the level of harshness where the stability is provided is another matter). It is primarily to maintain control.

Although I also understand that war time does reduce the scope of viable means for keeping order. As I said somewhere earlier, army is not about morality or justice, it's about practicality. So punishments under martial law are not about being just (said correlation between punishment and crime), but about practicality (deal with whoever you deem criminal swiftly and decisively, otherwise it might endanger your position).

Justification for different actions varies under different circumstances. Good and bad are absolute concepts, but sometimes doing a bad thing is justified. So shoot-on-sight orders in a war zone, under martial laws are perfectly justified. There is nothing good about shooting people on sight, so no one is promoting it like people promote good things. But it is perfectly justified. Yes, to maintain control, stability, and preserve lives. That's exactly what justifies it.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

A hanging is not a painless way to die, nor is it fast.

That's why I am not a fan of hanging.

Swift decapitation with a good blade and a steady hand is preferable.

 

[CostinRaz]

Swift decapitation with a good blade and a steady hand is preferable.

Maybe, or one could always use a good large axe, but compassion as I see it should not be extended to carrion swarms who abuse the chaos for their own ends. Personally I'd take such people to be executed in public in front of a crowd. A warning as it were.

During that time period, hanging, stoning, beatings to death and torture were accepted. One may talk about looking at it from a modern lens, but why should characters in a game set in that era conform to modern views?

 

[Agent_Blue]

Awesome! I wake up - and two good guys are championing our cause! While I was explicitly prohibited by the mod to discuss the trailer, I can only say that I am completely with Agent Blue and Costin Moroianu on this one.

BTW, that weapon to end suffering, and a coup de gras had nothing to do with peasants cutting throats of the wounded (while they could be saved with medical help) and looting bodies. It was a noble way to stop suffering of a mortally wounded opponent or a friend.

Which cause exactly am I supposed to be championing?

Not saying you did it on purpose, but I really frown upon the sectarian misuse of the 'we' and 'our' pronouns suffer from around here. I post on an individual basis. I consult with no group beforehand, represent no one but myself. As far as I'm concern there's no such thing as 'our cause'.

Here's my take:

1. The trailer sells TW3 short. It presents no real moral dilemma. It's a clean cut scenario where a girl is being brutalized and that needs to stop. On the whole, Nilfgaard's armies are guilty on three accounts: invading, engendering widespread famine and cruelly punishing a girl presumably pushed into a life of crime by the invasion and its dire aftermath. On the other hand, the girl had indeed faced a gut-wrenching dilemma: eat human flesh or starve to death. Nevertheless, as we and Geralt are not told everything, some of her undisclosed actions might still be reproachable and therefore merit punishment. They would never legitimate the kind of cruelty she's being subjected to though.


2. From Geralt's point-of-view there is no moral conundrum in the situation per se. He hesitates on whether or not to intervene because of his perceived role in the world at large. When he eventually acts, he oversteps the mandate to end the girl's abuse. He takes on the role of accusation, judge and executioner. It could be argued him going in without his swords implies lack of homicidal intent, that he just meant to stop the torture. But we mustn't forget the concealed weapon nor his command: «close your eyes».

He had several alternatives at his disposal. Since the recent contract to kill the beast, he was in the position to ask the officer some questions. He could have inquired what the girl was accused of, let the soldiers explain themselves, halting the abuse and gaining her some time. He could have worked out an agreement, suggested alternative punishment. He could have traded his reward for the girl's life, or exchange the money back for her swift merciful death.
No.
He killed two men and left a third hanging.

3. The takeaway? Hopefully, the trailer is not indicative of the moral dilemmas Geralt will be facing off.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maybe, but compassion as I see it should not be extended to carrion swarms who abuse the chaos for their own ends.

I endeavor to not be selective when it comes to compassion. As hard as it is.

But it is certainly not hard at all to be compassionate with those whose lives were destroyed through no fault of their own and who do whatever it takes to survive.

EDIT: compassion is not a modern concept, nor is leniency or clean deaths. If these soldiers do not realize the situation as it is, it's their own failing, both rational and emotional. If they think it's ok to torture people whose misery they are responsible for, it's their failing.

 

[darcler]

A hanging is not a painless way to die, nor is it fast.

In fact, if the length of the rope is adequately chosen to the weight of the person, then it is quick and painless, as the hanged man's weight breaks his neck (in extreme cases rips his head off...). If the rope is too short, though, the person suffocates - that is rather slow and painful.

Justification for different actions varies under different circumstances. Good and bad are absolute concepts, but sometimes doing a bad thing is justified. So shoot-on-sight orders in a war zone, under martial laws are perfectly justified. There is nothing good about shooting people on sight, so no one is promoting it like people promote good things. But it is perfectly justified. Yes, to maintain control, stability, and preserve lives. That's exactly what justifies it.

Before we continue, let's synchronize our terminology. Is 'justified' the same as 'just'?

 

[CostinRaz]

I've edited my post but to reply:

But it is certainly not hard at all to be compassionate with those whose lives were destroyed through no fault of their own and who do whatever it takes to survive.

Certainly, but that is no justification for such people to engage in acts of "barbarism", if one were to forgive my wording here, even by the standards of that day and age.

I lose compassion rather quickly for such people.

compassion is not a modern concept, nor is leniency or clean deaths. If these soldiers do not realize the situation as it is, it's their own failing, both rational and emotional. If they think it's ok to torture people whose misery they are responsible for, it's their failing.

The method of execution is not unusual for their time, they are not doing anything out of the norm as executioners of that time.

Furthermore they are not themselves responsible for her suffering. The Empire they fight for is certainly, but that's a different can of worms since given the armies of the time they are conscripts, brought to fight in a foreign land with no say in it.

I would agree to your argument about showing compassion were it not for the fact we are talking of a cannibal here.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Since this debate has been mostly all about assumptions outside of the trailer itself, ie. sweetalking Geralts choice of impulse to be morally sound by speculating the girls possible innocence and justifying the actions she's accused of by demonising the soldiers as invading brutes, did anyone ever speculate or assume that she might be Nilfgaardian herself? A healers aid mentally crushed under the pressure of the vision of squalor and carnage rather than just a random peasant girl (she never even pleads for her innocense, just asks for help)?

Not that I think it matters, it's just more makebelieve that has no other basis than imagination and the urge to explain things to look more the way we want (in general terms), but it's a thought I had reading how people are so dead set on the girl having done what she did in order to survive, and the debate about how war is waged.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Err, which cause exactly am I supposed to be championing?

The cause would be not to see it as an obvious, as majority of the forum sees it. Either way you cut it, there are many problems with it. By my lights it was unwarranted to say - yeah, Geralt did it right, trailer presents it well... There may be several takes on this, what is wrong with the narrative, and the dilemma present (or absent), but sure as hell it shouldn't be united acceptance. I don't really like when people see something very controversial and problematic as clear-cut and obvious. You pointing out flaws in a good consistent way is exactly what I like.

I never understood why people take offense when they are called animals. It's biology. We are not plants, obviously, we are not funghi, nor bacteria... We are, however, mammals, chordates, primates... Animals. I see nothing offensive in the term.

Well, when people discuss pure biology, it is fine. When we discuss such behavior as looting, and preying on the weak, saying that humans are animals amounts to saying that humans are mere animals, and nothing more. But, contrary to any animals, humans have capacity for moral reasoning, ethical values, and are able to overcome the self-preservation instincts, if they require something contrary to a person's convictions. Mere animals would be reduced to looting and preying on the weak, human animals would behave according not just their instincts, but their moral code as well.

Before we continue, let's synchronize our terminology. Is 'justified' the same as 'just'?

Yep. An action or situation is just if it is justified by something, under the circumstances. Unjust situations are the ones unjustified. Bad situations and actions can be justified, or not. Good actions are always justified. There is another category - morally permissible. Bad actions are morally permissive if they are justified. But moral permissibility does not turn a bad action into a good one. Killing in self-defense is morally permissible, but not good, and best to be avoided, for example, if it is at all possible.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Certainly, but that is no justification for such people to engage in acts of "barbarism", if one were to forgive my wording here, even by the standards of that day and age.

I find it justified. She killed enemy soldiers, looted from them, and ate them to avoid starvation.

If she was preying on civilians, I'd have another thing to say and even then I would prefer not to have her killed unless it's the most expedient solution.

 

[CostinRaz]

What would you do then? Throw her in prison thus wasting the much needed resources of the state? Let her go?

As for her killing enemy soldiers. She is even stated to have killed soldiers, the nilgaardian convicts her of praying on the "war wounded". Broad term, but it can mean many things. If one is that desperate I don't see why she would limit herself to only Nilfgaardians.

 

[wichat]

(while they could be saved with medical help)

Sorry? Inlight me please 'cause it seems I'm a lot confused now... these wounded were near Oxenford... or Vizima... or Novigrad or any hospital camp? Saved by medical help? (right now Shani is coming to my mind besides Iola and the Dr. surgering 24h by day one soldier after another and they hardly saved a 10% being all them professionals of medicine) I always though theses scene take place in the middle of the No Man's Land... Or maybe No Man's Land is a civilized place?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The method of execution is not unusual for their time, they are not doing anything out of the norm as executioners of that time.

Doesn't excuse it. Not when they could have hanged her which is a lot less painful then what they were doing.

They didn't pick this punishment because a trial determined it. They did so because they are sadistic. Pure and simple.

And yes they are responsible to a degree. "I am just following orders" has a limit (and noe one ordered them to torture her). And seeing how they behave, I dread to think what they've done to others.

 

[CostinRaz]

The sentence was death by hanging or torment by the order of the Emperor of Nilfgaard.

 

[wichat]

What would you do then? Throw her in prison thus wasting the much needed resources of the state?

Why not? the State is taking the source and riches from those peasants before.... It's not a bad deal...

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

What would you do then? Throw her in prison thus wasting the much needed resources of the state? Let her go?

Employ her if she has a trade that can be useful.

If there are no other options, then execute her painlessly.