(Spoilers) KoTWH

[EliHarel]

(Spoilers) KoTWH

Spoilers below about the end of the first game.




I'm confused about that moment where the KoTWH appears and wants to take Jacques, and you need to decide whether to concede or not. I feel as if the character (KoTWH) wasn't built well enough by that point to make the importance of the decision evident. Maybe there's more fleshed-out lore in the books, but as a player who plunged into the world via the first game (not yet the second, btw, so no spoilers there please), I didn't understand what the heck does it matter. For me, the KoTWH seemed like some creepier version of the grim reaper. As far as I know, he's the ferryman, tasked with collecting the dead for himself.

At that moment in the game I stared at the screen and I told myself: I realize this is meant to be some morally significant decision, but I don't know what's at stake. I didn't see any pros or cons at all. It was like asking me decide between Nike or McDonald's - I didn't even understand the category of the decision.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't summed up by "do you want to enact your revenge yourself, or let a wraith do it". If so, it's kind of anti-climatic. Can anyone explain then what I should have noticed was at stake, with this decision, morally speaking?

 

[GuyNwah]

Well, hindsight is always perfect, so by the time you are well into the second game, the involvement of the Wild Hunt is much better developed. But you are right, it is not yet anything you (whether as Geralt, or as Geralt's audience) have the background information to grasp fully.

What should be clear at this stage is that the King of the Wild Hunt desires Geralt's capital-D Destiny to be the doing of his bidding, to leave chaos and death in his wake. As Leo's wraith puts it in Act I, if Geralt is one edge of the Sword of Destiny, the other is those who die because of him. I think this is the key to understanding the King's role in the game's story.

What isn't clear, and what rightly puzzles you, is how letting Jacques die by the King's hand instead of yours serves the King's purpose. If the King wants his soul, he will get it either way. I think the answer is it matters for a reason that isn't often considered: what does it do to Geralt to kill yet another man who has become a monster; what does it do to him to kill a man who is revealed to be the child he loved as if he were a son? Does acquiescing in the King's request, or taking the death of Jacques upon himself, drive Geralt deeper into the service of the King?

 

[goopit]

At that moment in the game I stared at the screen and I told myself: I realize this is meant to be some morally significant decision, but I don't know what's at stake. I didn't see any pros or cons at all. It was like asking me decide between Nike or McDonald's - I didn't even understand the category of the decision.

There were books about him and journal entries and Geralt is supposed to be confused here. You also meet KoTWH through a side quest in Chapter 1(which should've been a main quest)

People always complain about stuff like this where some things you understand only by reading the books.(which isn't true since you can read the journal and in-game books) Do we the book readers have to suffer by having shit repeated to us, one game is enough.

 

[EliHarel]

Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. This isn't a complaint, nor is it a demand to 'have shit repeated to the bookreaders'. Just a genuine wonder of mine, one that wasn't answered by reading through all the journal entries the game provided. In fact it was more me questioning whether I missed something throughout the game, because I'm hoping to understand the gravity of that situation better.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

You definitely understand some things only after reading the books. It doesn't mean that games are unplayable or can't be enjoyed without reading them, you just don't get the same experience.