Shanimance

+
I never said that Shani went into the wedding thinking that this was going to be a one night stand. She posted a note on one of the bulletin boards near Oxenfurt which said that she was looking for a gentleman to accompany her to a friend's wedding, and that if he behaved himself, she might let that person court her properly. Fortuitously enough Geralt shows up, someone who, depending on player choice, might have had previous romantic dealings with her. So yes, I agree, she was not looking for a one night stand, she is potentially looking for a committed relationship and a man that she can settle down with. What I don't agree with is the assumption that just because she and Geralt might have once been an item, and because they decided to rekindle that romance at the wedding, that it is now incumbent upon Shani to make something permanent out of it. She said "I need to sort this through in my mind," as you yourself pointed out, which is obviously an indication that she has mixed feelings about what just happened. There are a myriad of different reasons why she might not want to marry Geralt, despite their previous romantic entanglements: he's infertile and incapable of having children with Shani, his lifespan is significantly longer than hers, he hasn't proven that he is capable of commitment and subordinating his own interests to that of another person (yes, Geralt eventually does just that with Yennefer or Triss, but Shani has no way of peering into those other potential realities.

You keep mentioning choice, how it is removed from the player despite the developers presenting this as a potential romance. But what about Shani's choice? You're basically saying that relationships in the world of the Witcher break down into two groups, flings and marriages, that all characters must fit neatly into these two categories, and if a character is not a fling then Geralt must have the option of marrying them. That's pretty twisted logic and way oversimplifies how relationships work.

It has everything to do with character development, story, and reading between the lines. Video game romances get a bad rap precisely because realism is relegated to the back-burner in order to accommodate player choice. In some ways this reminds me of the debates over npc sexuality over on the BSN. You would fall into the camp that says, "It only takes a few extra lines of code to make an npc gay or straight. Why not make everyone happy and create exclusively bisexual characters?" I would retort, as I seem to be doing in your case as well, that relationships do not work that way in the real world.

Anyways, I don't think we are going to arrive at a consensus. It's pretty clear that you conceptualize video game romances in a completely different way than I do. You seem to prioritize player agency, whereas I believe that developers should try to mimic the complexities of real life relationships, even at the expense of player choice.

Others understand me, why can't you?

1. Shani romance is presented as a relationship.
2. Shani states clearly that she wants a stable partner in her life, someone she can "come home to".
3. Shani specifically rejects a relationship with Geralt on the basis of him being on the road.
4. This is the inconsistency because in the other two relationships Geralt does settle down and retire.
5. The inconsistency is caused because the dialogue options do not allow Geralt to say he is ready to retire and settle down.

Whatever he does after that is irrelevant. Whether or not she does or does not agree with him, does or does not pursue a relationship with him is up for debate. Had the option been there to have Geralt state he was ready to retire and settle down with Shani and her not believe him or any other reason not to pursue the relationship then it would at least still be consistent with the other romances. Because it doesn't, it isn't.
 
Last edited:
What it comes down to is this. If the decision to have Shani turn down Geralt was a character decision, because they decided Shani had moved on and wasn't interested, then it wasn't a case of bad writing and they are under no obligation to offer the player a "happily ever offer" with Shani. If it was because they simply didn't consider what players might have wanted and didn't use the other relationships as a cue, then it might have been a mistake.

But the writers are under no onus to write the quests using the same script every time. The boss fights needn't play out the same, and neither should the romances; sometimes what you're going to get isn't going to either a one night stand or a life long romance, but something in between - just like in real life and that may have been what the writers were shooting for. It may have been their intention to create something in between just as Shani's personality isn't the same as the other women you've slept with up to this point. For one thing, she has a mortal's life, she isn't taken in as much by Geralt's gruff and dour persona - she wants to live life and have fun and let her hair down. She isn't trying to control the rulers of some nation like a Sorcerous and she doesn't feel shackled to her job every minute like Geralt ... she is her own person and that is what the writing was trying to convey - you don't get to make the choice for her, she gets to make the choice for herself. Or, if it was done on purpose, that is what it conveys. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, I prefer to assume this is what they were trying to tell us; and maybe they were also trying to say something about the liberty of women in video games - where for one rare moment the woman makes the final decision and the guy has to accept it. (as a one time artistic statement in a video game that has merit, too; if it became the practice of love interests always taking away your narrative agency, it would start to feel frustrating - because it *is* still a game and not real life.)

I prefer to think of the way it was done as a feature, not a mistake, not proof of poor writing but proof of careful thought; the rest of the adventure seems to suggest that thought was given to how the player would enjoy themselves, so why would they lack it in this instance?

Of course I would have liked the opportunity to end up with Shani. But since she couldn't be with you during the defining moments in the game, couldn't spend the kind of time with you the other women in the game do, maybe that also influenced their decisions; and we don't always get what we want. I was just happy to see her, happy to get the chance to spend a day with her, to have the sweet little romantic encounter with her no the lake. I was happy to spend the time with her that I did. For a game that'd left her out until now, that was a delightful treat and I'm not going to spit in the face of that gift.

---------- Updated at 11:34 PM ----------
 
Whatever he does after that is irrelevant. Whether or not she does or does not agree with him, does or does not pursue a relationship with him is up for debate. Had the option been there to have Geralt state he was ready to retire and settle down with Shani and her not believe him or any other reason not to pursue the relationship then it would at least still be consistent with the other romances. Because it doesn't, it isn't.

It isn't? I think it is... sure, he doesn't state that he is ready to saddle down, but also doesn't explicitly deny it either. Shani's statement on that is also quite a leading one, since she doesn't even consider he could be the man to saddle down with her. Whether she just doesn't know Geralt well enough, or she knows him better then he knows himself is debatable there but she (thinks she) knows that he probably wouldn't want to live a quiet, homey life with a wife... not really, at least. In that regard she might simply be more selfless then, say, Triss who want's Geralt to saddle down with her...

Also, as another subtext: Geralt is not human... he will not be able to sire children with Shani and he will probably outlive her (two problems he doesn't have with one of the Sorceresses). So he might even care more for her then he lets on, but he knows that he probably would not bring it over himself to subject Shani to these circumstances.

All in all, I think the Shani romance is quite well done... it's just that not everything going on between them is spoken out.
 
It isn't? I think it is... sure, he doesn't state that he is ready to saddle down, but also doesn't explicitly deny it either. Shani's statement on that is also quite a leading one, since she doesn't even consider he could be the man to saddle down with her. Whether she just doesn't know Geralt well enough, or she knows him better then he knows himself is debatable there but she (thinks she) knows that he probably wouldn't want to live a quiet, homey life with a wife... not really, at least. In that regard she might simply be more selfless then, say, Triss who want's Geralt to saddle down with her...

Also, as another subtext: Geralt is not human... he will not be able to sire children with Shani and he will probably outlive her (two problems he doesn't have with one of the Sorceresses). So he might even care more for her then he lets on, but he knows that he probably would not bring it over himself to subject Shani to these circumstances.

All in all, I think the Shani romance is quite well done... it's just that not everything going on between them is spoken out.

It isn't in terms of an inconsistency. The inconsistency is in the lack of dialogue, not the lack of an ability to settle down. In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that Geralt would not mention that fact. Whether or not she believes him, whether or not she wants to settle down with him is irrelevant because no inconsistency has occurred.
 
It isn't in terms of an inconsistency. The inconsistency is in the lack of dialogue, not the lack of an ability to settle down. In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that Geralt would not mention that fact. Whether or not she believes him, whether or not she wants to settle down with him is irrelevant because no inconsistency has occurred.

Why? Geralt doesn't always have all dialogue options he logically should have in a given situation... he is his own person, not the player, and if he isn't given a certain dialogue option, then it's because he wouldn't make a certain statement in that situation.
 
Why? Geralt doesn't always have all dialogue options he logically should have in a given situation... he is his own person, not the player, and if he isn't given a certain dialogue option, then it's because he wouldn't make a certain statement in that situation.

Because presumably Geralt can want to settle down with her, he does with the other two options, yet the ability to say otherwise is not giving to the player. CDPR new this would happen but did it anyway, maybe because of time constraints i'm not sure. What got me was she asked me to see here at her place after seeing the blind guy (being vague to avoid spoilers). Then when I turned up before the final mission she just recycled the same old dialogue, when I returned after the main mission she was gone.

True that could happen in real life, but that is essentially a bait and switch on the player that those who wanted to pursue her will likely fell annoyed about as it feels unresolved/unfinished. I hope they have a plan where this ties in with the next expansion perhaps. That'd be great, we shall have to wait and see. But if it isn't, they dun goofed up in my opinion.

If Geralt meant so little to hear why is she packing that sack of stuffed rags that Geralt won for her, also why hasn't she taken her stuff that she was packing instead of just disappearing?

 
Last edited:
If Geralt meant so little to hear why is she packing that sack of stuffed rags that Geralt won for her, also why hasn't she taken her stuff that she was packing instead of just disappearing?

Disappearing just like that wouldn't be nice way to ended the relantionship(she's not like Geralt at that matter).She wanna to tell Geralt that she is leaving and that is over.That pig that he won at the wedding was just nice thing. She doesn't have to throw it away becouse they split up.
 
Disappearing just like that wouldn't be nice way to ended the relantionship(she's not like Geralt at that matter).She wanna to tell Geralt that she is leaving and that is over.That pig that he won at the wedding was just nice thing. She doesn't have to throw it away becouse they split up.

No my point is that she is packing it take with her, but then she just vanishes and doesn't even take her stuff. Seems like a thread that may be resolved in the next expansion, if not it is just plan bad/lazy writing.
 
I liked this romance option with Shani. it was well made and good handled :like:
Don't have any problem with their split up again. It was for me reasonable after HoS.
 
Eh, Bioware has spoiled a lot of people.

In real-life, people often go after romantic partners and find they're uninterested, moved on, or just aren't going to be with you because of circumstance.

Shani doesn't see Geralt as a long-term partner.

And that's the way it is sometimes, even with people you love.

Remember the Meatloaf song. "I want you, I need you, but I ain't gonna love you. Don't be sad, two out of three ain't bad."
 
Speaking of Shani, in my second playthrough in DM NG+, she disappears after I complete HoS. Her bags and luggage are still there, but she's not in her clinic (tried fast traveling a few places, meditating, still nothing)
:geraltsad:
She was there in my first playthrough in NG post-HoS. I saved Olgierd in both, only difference in NG+ was that I decided to be an extra dick with Olgierd. Is there some sort of prerequisite for her to appear post-HoS?

P.S -
In my NG, sided with Roche in Reason of State, Empress ending, Dandelion and Zoltan can't be found at the Chameleon, Roche can be found at the Temerian hideout, Thaler at one of those Inns, and Shani in her clinic

In my NG+, sided with Djikstra, Witcheress ending, Dandelion and Zoltan can be found at the Chameleon, Roche and Thaler are obviously dead, Shani gone.

Makes me wonder if there's some sort of quota on the number of NPCs you can have post-game. Playing on PS4
 
Ah man. Why do you do this to me Witcher 3?!

I love Shani. Adore her. Her character, for me, just completely outshines both Triss and Yen. She's grounded while still being capable of having fun; she's intelligent, without the need for acting all high and mighty, or mysterious (or arrogant for that matter). Everything about her just appeals to me, appeals to the Geralt that I play.

Which makes it all the more sad that I can completely understand why Shani and Geralt can't be together. I wish it wasn't so, and I plan to, in my NG+ make Geralt stay single out of reverence for the lost love between him and Shani (first playthrough I had him with Triss).

It is my sincere hope, though, that Shani makes her way into the next expansion. Not as a major character, as I get that her time in the spotlight was probably only suppose to be for HoS, but perhaps as someone who can come up in some dialogue. At The bare minimum, I would like to see (an unromanced) Geralt to maybe be questioned by some quest giver about if he has ever loved someone, and for an option to say that Shani was the one that got away. Seriously, that little tidbit would be enough to sate me.

If I'm allowed to be somewhat hopeful, though, it would be fantastic if, after saying something akin to what I put above, that Shani would actually APPEAR in the next expansion. Whether as herself, or as an illusion of her, doesn't matter. That would be absolutely amazing for me (and I'm sure for a lot of Shani fans as well).

Realistically, I don't expect the second part to happen, though I am allowing myself to dream a little that maybe the first part may crop up somewhere in the next expansion. Anyone think that likely? Or would we need some type of huge petition for CDPR to even consider that happening?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, my only problem is I think Blood and Wine is probably going to be set "during" the events of the rest of the game.
 
Even if we can't stay with her is it possible to stop her from going to kaedwen? The journal seem to indicate that is possible but I couldn't find a way. It is something like " it gave Geralt an idea to save Shani" but I got no opportunity to save her from the front. I thought we could deal with the man of glass but no...
 
" it gave Geralt an idea to save Shani"

This is a line they should have deleted, it's from deleted content. It's about saving her from master mirror, supposedly. Instead this idea he gets is for saving olgierd now (challenging master mirror).
 
I have already posted this in another thread but I will re-post it here as well since this is about Shani romance:

SHANI SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LEGIT ROMANCE OPTION WITH A 3RD ROMANCE ENDING!!!

And don' t tell me it couldnt be done because it would not fit within the main game, because it totally would! Here' s how:

if you are playing the expansion before you finished your main game (not after or via the main menu), and you romance Shani, convince her not to leave for Kaedwen, you then have a conversation about how you are going to fight the Wild Hunt and she volunteers to go to Skellige with everyone else to help heal the injured from the battle.

So Geralt sends her to Dandelion' s inn where if you already romanced Yeneffer or Triss or both, Shani finds out by talking to them and Geralt then ends up being alone. Shani leaves for Kaedwen not going to Skellige and Yeneffer and Triss are very angry. This should make the player feel guilty!
No 4-some scene here : D

If not, you see Shani before the battle begins in the tent where you talk about your future with her, just like Triss and Yen' s romance.

You both decide you want to stay on the road, traveling the world, Geralt killing monsters and Shani helping the locals with medical problems.

When compared to Triss and Yeneffer, she is an angel. Didn't lie, didn't betrayed anyone. Doesn' t treat Geralt like shit.
 
Top Bottom