I think that HE believes that what he is doing is "right" or for the best of the people.
I personally think he is a crazy god-complexed fool
I personally think he is a crazy god-complexed fool
Vokshev said:
Personally, I haven't seen a more spot-on "videogame metaphore" for nazism than this one... From all the talk about the "chosen people", to the burning of Vizima (the Reichstag's burning?), to the mutations (hinting at eugenics and social-engineering)...
I think it's clear he's at least a megalomaniac... Though it's debatable if magic had any role in messing with his head...
Jaques saw ice age by his own eyes because Jaques is in fact Alvin that traveled through space/time several hundreds/thousands years into future. Ice age in witcher world is actually canon, it will happen only in quite some time, it's explained in witcher books also ithlina prophecy
He's insane.
He's also right. The white frost will come, that's a fact, and humanity will need a savior. Jacques thought he could be that savior, but he was wrong. He doesn't talk about chosen people, he wants to save all humans from it. He does feel they will need protection, protection only his greater brothers can offer.
He's also right. The white frost will come, that's a fact, and humanity will need a savior. Jacques thought he could be that savior, but he was wrong. He doesn't talk about chosen people, he wants to save all humans from it. He does feel they will need protection, protection only his greater brothers can offer.
Jacques isn't the only one who thinks the ice age is coming; Ithlinne's prophecy foresees an ice age.
So something DOES need to be done to prepare for that future time, but deciding that only humans should survive it and that elves and dwarves should be exterminated is evil. Plus, it isn't clear just how far in the future this ice age will be. And taking everyone south has problems, because the south is already occupied, by Nilfgaard.
So, yeah, Jacques was both bad and crazy, but he wasn't 100% wrong.
So something DOES need to be done to prepare for that future time, but deciding that only humans should survive it and that elves and dwarves should be exterminated is evil. Plus, it isn't clear just how far in the future this ice age will be. And taking everyone south has problems, because the south is already occupied, by Nilfgaard.
So, yeah, Jacques was both bad and crazy, but he wasn't 100% wrong.
But Jacques never says that elves and dwarves should be exterminated. He doesn't talk about saving them and he mentions how the non-humans have become terrorists fighting humans, but nowhere does he mention exterminating them.
Sure he provoked the uprising, but the goal was for him to cause chaos so he could topple Foltest eventually.
Also the definition "evil" has no place in TW universe. Branding someone evil means there is no redeemable factor to that person, but as you mention he wasn't completely wrong.
Sure he provoked the uprising, but the goal was for him to cause chaos so he could topple Foltest eventually.
Also the definition "evil" has no place in TW universe. Branding someone evil means there is no redeemable factor to that person, but as you mention he wasn't completely wrong.
CostinMoroianu said:
No, I think he does mention that his efforts and plans about the ice age are directed only towards humans.
CostinMoroianu said:
It's completely wrong that there is no evil in TW universe. Oh, there is. And lot's of it. Redeemable factors can be present (i.e. someone can repent the evil path, or can be misguided and etc). But evil is evil. Read the books with more attention.
There's a difference between looking to save only humans and directly exterminating them himself, big difference.
I strongly disagree with branding anyone in TW series as "evil". To me it's too simplistic ( besides what I said above ) when we are dealing with complex characters. Loredo could be classified as evil for instance but I disagree with branding him as such he is a rather complex character.
I'm not talking about branding. I'm talking about that there is true evil in the witcher world. Even in the games, Geralt talks about evil changing from being chaotic to becoming organized and disguised at the same time. Zoltan even comments, that moral relativity (i.e. an attempt to disguise evil as good) is one of the worst real evils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5QqFARmHk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5QqFARmHk0
Well, it's up to you. I agree with them Evil and good are present in the world manifesting in personal choices. Conceptual evil becomes actual through individuals and their choices. Since good and evil are mixed together - separating them can be a very hard task.
But what Zoltan was trying to say, that when evil is disguised as good (convincingly so) - it's especially bad, since one doesn't even realize that it's evil, and thus can be a vehicle of it out of good intentions.
Evil and good are present in the world manifesting in personal choices. Conceptual evil becomes actual through individuals and their choices. Since good and evil are mixed together - separating them can be a very hard task.But what Zoltan was trying to say, that when evil is disguised as good (convincingly so) - it's especially bad, since one doesn't even realize that it's evil, and thus can be a vehicle of it out of good intentions.
Talking of choices CDPR has always made a strong point of saying that the choices in their games aren't good or bad but grey and it's up to each person to determine what to pick, what is essentially good or bad. The game however refrains from branding what is good and what is bad.
Yes, they made the point that choices are hard. But it doesn't mean that because of that there is no good or evil anymore at all.
Gilrond said:
I agree, although "evil" is a word that can refer to different concepts, some closely related others less.
That's what I thought, too.JackintheGreen said:
Joining the good and evil discussion, here's my two cents:
If I got Sapkowski and CDPR right, and I'll second that opinion, there is no elemental or pure evil in the world of the Witcher, it's more like Einstein once said: "Evil is the absence of God". Or, if you don't believe in the concept of God, evil may be the absence of good, love, compassion and so on.
In my opinion, in the real world this absence is immeasurable, highly variable dependent on time and situation and can never reach 100%. Maybe some of you have heard of the Standford Prison Experiment, there's a very interesting book by the man who did this experiment about "how good people turn evil". It's called "The Lucifer Effect".
Oh, and as a sidenote: I think it's quite funny Sapkowski called the end of the Witcher world and everyone in it "the time of the white frost" whilst scientists are speculating about the heat death of the universe, even though the time of white frost is not to be seen as permanent as the Witcher world "will die amidst frost and be reborn with the new sun."
Actually, Jacques DOES intend genocide of the non-humans. Here's an excerpt from his dialogue, screenshot taken in Djinni. Black lines are things Jacques says; blue lines are Geralt's responses:
Notice that last line. He intends the "extinction" of elves and dwarves but justifies this by saying that the extinction of non-humans is a means of saving humanity.
As for the discussion about evil, it reminds me of this old joke:
Question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Refusing to call evil by its name doesn't make it cease to be evil. It does make it easier for evil to blind the foolish or to seduce followers to its side, though.
Notice that last line. He intends the "extinction" of elves and dwarves but justifies this by saying that the extinction of non-humans is a means of saving humanity.
As for the discussion about evil, it reminds me of this old joke:
Question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Refusing to call evil by its name doesn't make it cease to be evil. It does make it easier for evil to blind the foolish or to seduce followers to its side, though.
That very much sounds as if you are calling me foolish or evil or both. I'll just add it to the pile of insults you threw at me.
To call something "evil" is to place a judgement on them that no person is qualified to actually make, and it undermines the complexity that exists in situations and in people.
If I call Yaevinn evil for personally working to commit genocide upon humans would that give his character justice? No it wouldn't because he is a lot more then just a genocidal maniac. It's similar to Jacques if he is working to commit genocide on the non-humans, which he isn't ... necessarily.
As for Jacques. I never saw him say that, in fact I checked my walkthrough of the game. While he CAN say it( I checked other let's plays ), he doesn't necessarily do so. His viewpoints do alter depending on your choices with Alvin after all, so yes I was wrong about that when I posted earlier.
He can for instance view his powers as something that he needs to use to protect others or he can view it as something to try and control others since that's his right ( or something similar to that ).
Granted however, and I never denied this, he does really hate the nonhumans, but considering his experience with them as a child...well you can't expect anything else from him. It doesn't make it fine however, no more then Yaevin''s hatred of humans.
This is why Jacques is the best antagonist in any game for me btw, because he is shaped by YOU, the player.
CostinMoroianu said:
It is NOT the case that everything's about YOU, Costin. I was thinking about the political situation in my country when I wrote about evil's propensity to blind the foolish or to seduce followers to its side, not about you.
In fact, when I post here on the Witcher Forum, I'm almost never talking about you. We don't see eye to eye on most things, and while it can be stimulating to exchange ideas with someone who has very different opinions, your attitude is not one I want to engage with. Hence, I find it easier and more pleasant to ignore you than to insult you. I rarely read your posts, and even when I do, I rarely respond to you directly. I have never insulted you, partly because I'm not rude enough for that and partly because I'm not usually talking to you.
Unless I use your name, just assume that I'm not talking about you.
I'm always left wondering whether there's a part of Alvin/Jacques that is simply envious of his erstwhile father? Here is this hero known throughout the northern kingdoms who saves child Alvin time after time, who faces down the monstrous and the mad every day, but who when the child most needs him is gone. Alone and hungry in the wrong time and place Alvin calls out to his saviour, perhaps even sees a younger White Wolf passing by, but the Witcher doesn't even recognise the child and simply presses on in ignorance.
And so the seed of idolisation rots and turns to blackest hate, he was not so great, he has done nothing to change the world or aid its people. I will best him. I know the future and I shall make his legend a mere footnote in my own glorious mythology, him and the bastard non humans who made me flee to this time, who took away my father.
And so the seed of idolisation rots and turns to blackest hate, he was not so great, he has done nothing to change the world or aid its people. I will best him. I know the future and I shall make his legend a mere footnote in my own glorious mythology, him and the bastard non humans who made me flee to this time, who took away my father.