saltyB
Sure, it can be 'just a game', but then let's not pretend like what is going on here is an actual discussion on the narrative decisions of the game (part of which, as a writer, is to get who the hell are you writing about in what way and why ('that psychology way') and how that would work within the larger scheme of things) - which, I think, is what this board is for (and not only for squeeing over our favourite video game characters)?
If people can do 400 pages on Yen, some of which is rather productive discussion-wise, then why would Avallac'h (or Eredin, or Emhyr, or ...) be any different? Because his story in respect to Ciri happens to be inherently morally repulsive to many because twisted beyond absurdity? So hence everyone who tries to see things from the controversial end of the stick that is implied via some weird narrative-construction decisions in the game is 'just wrong, lol'?
Well... Lol, then.
So, in short, I don't think it worth it to boo and ridicule the question of this thread, nor the impressions of people who have expressed their, at places rather elaborate and 'varied' opinions about this particularly messy and grand re-interpretation of Ciri's story background (beyond the one she has with Yennefer and Geralt) and arc. It just isn't discussion, but shouting at each other and rewarding those who shout out the same message as you do.
No offence intended.