Only Human Witchers?

[FoggyFishburne]

Only Human Witchers?

I saw the Female Witchers thread which sparked a question that I've had for quite a long time.

I've played both Witcher games, love them. They're beyond amazing. If they were women, I'd bang them. Since I haven't read the books, I feel like I'm kinda fumbling in the dark when it comes to the lore of the Witcher universe. From the mountain of different questions I have about the Witcher lore, the most prevalent one is:

Can only human be Witchers? Why aren't there any dwarf/elven Witchers? Is there a dwarf/elven monster slaying order equivalent to the Witcher one? Do they even care about monsters? How come it was specifically humans who got up one morning and thought "hey! Wouldn't it be awesome if we had an order dedicated to killing all kinds of different monstrosities and we do so by augmenting humans through mutation and let them do what they do best!"

 

[Blothulfur]

Just off the top of my head:

Spoiler

elves are working on improving themselves in an even more effective manner than the Witchers, the elder blood.

I'd imagine to them that the monster slayers are crude and ill formed creatures in comparison. Dwarves are tough little bastards who have relied on a superior armoury and their natural talent for scrapping, gnomes too busy at work to bother with such nonsense (as they would see it.)

 

[Dona.794]

Elves have a very low reproductive rate (we talked a bit about it here) and take more time to mature than humans do, I doubt it they'd want to have anything to do with rituals that kill heaps of people. And dwarves don't sound like they'd want to bother with such things (although the idea of dwarven Witchers amuses me).

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

This was discussed at length before. The most obvious reason - mutagens can have different effect on different races, and witchers mutagens were originally crated by human mages specifically for humans. Since witchers aren't experimenting anymore on producing new mutagens (like for other races) they only take human students. Those who experiment (like contemporary renegade mages) are usually producing monsters and their intentions are crooked.

 

[grindif]

As far as I remember, witchers were created by renegade human mages and alchemists, who thought that humanity needs someone to take care of curses and monsters too dangerous for ordinary fighters to deal with. Older races usually did not need such warriors before, because they did not expand into unknown and wild areas as much as humans did, and because many monsters are a result of Conjunction of the Spheres - a cataclysm that spanned across universes, and resulted in appearance of magic and humans (according to the elves).

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Even if historically witchers were created for protecting humans, since the conjunction of the spheres monsters became commonplace and affect everyone, so the question is still valid, why wouldn't other races be involved in the witcher schools.

 

[BlearySteve]

I suppose it would also be worth noting that not all humans survive the mutagenic process to become Witchers.

 

[Sirnaq]

Even if historically witchers were created for protecting humans, since the conjunction of the spheres monsters became commonplace and affect everyone, so the question is still valid, why wouldn't other races be involved in the witcher schools.

Because they were not as vulnerable as human peasants. Also it was idea and "technology" of humans and as we all know humans and nonhumans hate each other.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Yes, general hostility can be one of the possible reasons, though witchers as outcasts themselves usually find it easier to communicate with other races.

 

[wichat]

Even if historically witchers were created for protecting humans, since the conjunction of the spheres monsters became commonplace and affect everyone, so the question is still valid, why wouldn't other races be involved in the witcher schools.

Elves scape from the conjuntion effects hiding in another plane (Aen Elle). The Aen Sheide were a little faction that return to the original plane. Meanwhile, humanity keep expanding more and more.....(thanks to the Witcherschools and their witchers who saved humanity from monsters) So, elves and dwarves no enter in original plans of first witchers. And after all... who was interesed to include them?

 

[Olloki]

I think that it's mostly fertility related.

It is said, for example, that in the case of the elves they live more than humans, but only the younger ones are able to reproduce, so the oldest elves don't want to see their child going to war like it happened with Aelirenn, because there won't be any fertile elves this way (plus what Dona has linked). Probably something similar happens with dwarves.

So, I don't think that when it is hard to reproduce, they will send their saplings to an almost sure death.

 

[wichat]

The human species is the one with the lowest fertility of all species. Overall is 25% per cycle before age 35. This means that: of 100 women who have sex the day of ovulation, unprotected by contraception, only 25 were pregnant and 75 will not.
The human being has not been imposed as a race by its fertility but by its insatiable predatory instinct, coupled with a higher development of intelligence.

So, I assume that fertily continue not been a significative point because we have no information about ratio of elves reproduction, only a little reference about their reproductive age. But, only if elves really exist, of course

 

[Olloki]

Well, it's true that humans fertility, as animals, it's very low. But among intelligent species on Sapkowski world, humans are more fertile than elves:

(Spanish quote) Avallac'h and Geralt, The Tower of the Swallow, Chapter 7:

—¿Sabes, brujo, cuál es la peor desventaja de una larga vida?

—No.

—El sexo.

—¿Cómo?

—Has o

 

[dragonbird]

For dwarves, all I can make are supossitions witohout any base (even female dwarves are a mistery!)

If the comments by the dwarves in the bar at Vergen on human fertility represent lore, dwarves are significantly less fertile than humans. Also, if the game reflects lore accurately on this, dwarves have a very long childhood.

 

[GuyNwah]

If the comments by the dwarves in the bar at Vergen on human fertility represent lore, dwarves are significantly less fertile than humans. Also, if the game reflects lore accurately on this, dwarves have a very long childhood.

Tolkien dwarves are also noted for having very low fertility. Many do not marry, and those who do are slow to bring forth children. I don't think Sapkowski's dwarves are much different in that respect.

Might the name of the notable dwarf clan Vivaldi be an Easter egg for the Ivaldi clan found in the Prose Edda? (The Sons of Ivaldi were remarkable craftsmen who forged Odin's spear Gungnir, built Freyr's great ship Sk

 

[wichat]

Well, it's true that humans fertility, as animals, it's very low. But among intelligent species on Sapkowski world, humans are more fertile than elves:

(Spanish quote) Avallac'h and Geralt, The Tower of the Swallow, Chapter 7:




Somehow it's stated that human reproductive cycle is faster than the elven one. That's their potential for expansion, and I think that they could use that "virtue" for taking risks without fear on their children, something that elves wouldn't think about.


For dwarves, all I can make are supossitions witohout any base (even female dwarves are a mistery!)

Avallach is a racist, jealous spiteful and full of centuries of frustrated lover. His opinion is not worth me, he is a liar. He also has human slaves and only one wish: erasing humans with the fulfillment of prophecy through Ciri .
I have not found in any book of Spakowski an elf of some significance that was fairly good.

 

[Guest 3593423]

Just off the top of my head:

Spoiler

elves are working on improving themselves in an even more effective manner than the Witchers, the elder blood.

I'd imagine to them that the monster slayers are crude and ill formed creatures in comparison. Dwarves are tough little bastards who have relied on a superior armoury and their natural talent for scrapping, gnomes too busy at work to bother with such nonsense (as they would see it.)

This, and the fact that Witchers are generally despised, hated by most. Why would any elves or dwarves submit themselves to the torments of becoming a witcher?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Most often humans aren't interested in that either, and in many cases witchers either pick up orphans, or "surprise children". So it's not impossible that it could happen with other races. I think the main reason is still the fact that witcher mutations are human specific and were not developed for other races.

 

[wichat]

In other way, witchers are orphans, and the human race is the most suceptible to abandone its children, (maybe it's the reason why elves and dwarves has not orphanates, humans do have)...

 

[GuyNwah]

In other way, witchers are orphans, and the human race is the most suceptible to abandone its children, (maybe it's the reason why elves and dwarves has not orphanates, humans do have)...

Because the nonhumans are often the victims of massacres, I don't think they lack for orphans. There are two examples in TW2 alone: Moril's infant, and Skalen Burdon. Moril's infant might well have been abandoned, were it not that Geralt knew of Seherim. I think that Skalen's adoption by a member of his extended family represents the usual nonhuman practice.

IRL, parents of this time would place their children in foster care, when it seemed advantageous or needful to do so. Boys who were not the first-born son were the most likely to be treated this way. But this was not any manner of abandonment; often it was the best way for a child to learn a trade, and parents who did this did not sever ties with their children.

But a master who took in orphans as apprentices and put them in danger, just as witchers would do, would be hated, shunned, and attacked by lawful or unlawful means. An example of this in recent drama is Peter Grimes.