The Rationale of Geralt: How did you make your choices?

[Willowhugger]

I've only read the book series once, but it seems to me Geralt would never abandon his friends in a time of need. Now, the question is would Geralt consider Roche, Ves or the Bloody Baron his friends?

Geralt would never abandon his friends, no.

However, friends don't plot against friends and leave them out of the loop either. Roche had been planning on killing Geralt in the Witcher 2 and he also was manipulating him during the whole Radovid plot. All the while acting as a comrade. Really, the only one he'd consider a friend would be Ves in that situation.

And in the end, I think my Geralt figured Roche and Ves could get out of the situation themselves.

He was wrong.

 

[wright1978]

Yeah i've come done very much on Dijkstra's side of the fence. Radovid had to die because he was a threat to people Geralt holds dear, Emhyr has to be repelled for the same reason, plus he's a threat to the rest of the free North. In the words of Ves, the only good black one is a dead black one. Listening to Roche earlier you can see he's a man who'd abandoned what he stood for, which whilst he made me pity him. The geralt i play doesn't want them to die but he's not going to support their craziness.

I came to same conclusion as OP regarding the tree. It can't be trusted and he really needs the info from the Crones(and helping a crazy tree spirit might get in the way of that), even if he thinks the crones likely aren't a force of good.

 

[Songborn]

In Witcher-verse when in doubt aways assume somebody is going to get stabbed.

 

[Willowhugger]

Yeah i've come done very much on Dijkstra's side of the fence. Radovid had to die because he was a threat to people Geralt holds dear, Emhyr has to be repelled for the same reason, plus he's a threat to the rest of the free North. In the words of Ves, the only good black one is a dead black one. Listening to Roche earlier you can see he's a man who'd abandoned what he stood for, which whilst he made me pity him. The geralt i play doesn't want them to die but he's not going to support their craziness..

I *THINK* Dijkstra is killing Thaler and Roche because he's killing the Peace-Contingent of the Temerian resistance. If they die, then Temeria will be forced to fight on and Nilfgaard can't withdraw their military from occupying Temeria to engage Redania.

Temeria's Resistance is needed to keep the Black Ones busy so Dijkstra can force a direct assault on Vizima and humiliate Emhyr enough his political enemies can strike him.

 

[UndiscoveredAdv]

I really like Dijkstra, even more than Roche, but him and Ves helped me out at Kaer Moren when Dijkstra didn't, I could't turn my back on them. Hated killing my favourite spy though.

 

[Songborn]

While I enjoyed Dijkstra as a character more than I enjoyed Roche, I didn't really regret stabbing him. Again: "He started it!". I also strongly disliked that he tried to backstab Geralt and his friends. Roche withheld information but at least he wasn't planning on getting having Geralt killed. As far as the fate of the North is concerned my Geralt doesn't really care enough to make decisions based on possible political outcomes.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

I never got that trailer, especially the monologue over it (which I believe is in the books, but not in this specific context), unless I'm missing some deeper meaning, Geralt says he'd rather not choose at all, and then proceeds to 'choose'.

The meaning is that Geralt is tired as f-ck of all the cruelty going on in the world. For the longest times he tries to stay out of things, but in that moment, he basically have had enough and decides to choose to act. If she is guilty it is the lesser evil.

If she is guilty its the lesser evil and one that he can not do that much about.

---------- Updated at 09:32 AM ----------

As for my choices:

Reasons of State:
Stood by My friends Roche, Ves and Thaler. Dijkstra confirmed to be crazy when he attacked us with a few men. My Geralt is loyal first and foremost to his friends and his principles.

The Tree.
My Geralt did all the research he could on the tree, read books, listened to stories, even hang out some in the Downwarren to see if any of the workings of the spirit manifested itself in the village. My Geralts conclusion was that while the spirit of the tree might indeed be of the less agreeable kind and probably what remained of a Relict kin to the crones, he took a leap of faith in freeing it because it was the best chance to save the children. My Geralts hope was that the spirit could possible help him against the crones if a confrontation came to pass and that he could hunt down the spirit bound to the horse if needed be.

The Baron.
My Geralt tried to help him as much as possible, although heavily criticizing his alcoholic and domestic behaviour. Dea was given her name and turned into a Lubberkin

 

[Gerald01]

The meaning is that Geralt is tired as f-ck of all the cruelty going on in the world. For the longest times he tries to stay out of things, but in that moment, he basically have had enough and decides to choose to act. If she is guilty it is the lesser evil.

If she is guilty its the lesser evil and one that he can not do that much about.

Uh, no, if she's guilty they are legitimately punishing her. No evil there. And he can do something about it, for instance.. a quick investigation at the very least.

Confront the trailer with the Witcher 2 Flotsam square scene.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

Uh, no, if she's guilty they are legitimately punishing her. No evil there. And he can do something about it, for instance.. a quick investigation at the very least.

Confront the trailer with the Witcher 2 Flotsam square scene.

Their legitimacy is arbitrary. Some foreign power has invaded a country and is dishing out punishments to people for acts they might or might not have committed. Geralt is tired as fuck of the world and has had enough. Its wartime, people do monstrous things for survival, entertainment and control.

 

[Gerald01]

Their legitimacy is arbitrary. Some foreign power has invaded a country and is dishing out punishments to people for acts they might or might not have committed. Geralt is tired as fuck of the world and has had enough. Its wartime, people do monstrous things for survival, entertainment and control.

What is your argument? That Geralt cares about the juridical problems regarding international relations customs about administering justice during wartime in a occupied territory?
That only because they're Nilfgaardians he's right in killing them without bothering to even inquire about their reasons?
If they were Temerians he'd be cool with it?

That's not Geralt.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

What is your argument? That Geralt cares about the juridical problems regarding international relations customs about administering justice during wartime in a occupied territory?
That only because they're Nilfgaardians he's right in killing them without bothering to even inquire about their reasons?
If they were Temerians he'd be cool with it?

That's not Geralt.

No, he has a problem with soldiers torturing and killing a defenceless woman. He knows nothing of her deeds, but he knows of their deeds, so he acts on what he sees. In that situation he would do the same regardless of what banner or lack of banner the invaders are caring.

 

[Gerald01]

No, he has a problem with soldiers torturing and killing a defenceless woman. He knows nothing of her deeds, but he knows of their deeds, so he acts on what he sees. In that situation he would do the same regardless of what banner or lack of banner the invaders are caring.

That's not what you said before though. A potential guilty woman about to be punished. So.. Geralt kills the law enforcers and frees her no question asked?
He of all people should know appearances can be deceiving. plus interfering that way is un witchery. Don't understand how this is not out of character.

 

[Willowhugger]

That's not what you said before though. A potential guilty woman about to be punished. So.. Geralt kills the law enforcers and frees her no question asked?
He of all people should know appearances can be deceiving. plus interfering that way is un witchery. Don't understand how this is not out of character.

That's why Geralt is hesitant.

However, he's forced to choose to act to turn a blind eye or go with his instinct she's innocent.

I suspect it's the fact they're sadistically beating her to death that convinces him.

 

[Gerald01]

That's why Geralt is hesitant.

However, he's forced to choose to act to turn a blind eye or go with his instinct she's innocent.

I suspect it's the fact they're sadistically beating her to death that convinces him.

No, the reason he does it is simply they needed a cool scene for a trailer, and some sort of antagonist in addition to the Wild Hunt for promo.
Nilfgaard was huge in W2 ening cinematic, maybe they did this trailer with that in mind before the actual game went a different direction.
Yesterday you were saying it WAS out of character. What changed?

 

[Willowhugger]

No, the reason he does it is simply they needed a cool scene for a trailer, and some sort of antagonist in addition to the Wild Hunt for promo.
Nilfgaard was huge in W2 ening cinematic, maybe they did this trailer with that in mind before the actual game went a different direction.
Yesterday you were saying it WAS out of character. What changed?

I'm saying it's out of character but SLIGHTLY.

You seem to be thinking Geralt would just walk away.

Which I think would be out of character too.

In-game Geralt is more likely to chat first and then Axxii the hell out of them, which is less cinematic.

 

[Gerald01]

I'm saying it's out of character but SLIGHTLY.

You seem to be thinking Geralt would just walk away.

Which I think would be out of character too.

In-game Geralt is more likely to chat first and then Axxii the hell out of them, which is less cinematic.

I never said he's out of char simply because he helps her. The weird part is little to no inquiry, investigation or restraint. As the other poster says it's as if he's "tired" of cruelty. But that doesn't work in this case. It would if they were two fanatics lynching an elf maybe. Or bandits. But two law enforcers (of sorts) possibly trying to administer justice?

 

[Innamoramento]

In a middle of nowhere two dudes wants to administer justice by hanging a girl on the tree. Well, aren't they an archangels of goodness and justice?

 

[Willowhugger]

In a middle of nowhere two dudes wants to administer justice by hanging a girl on the tree. Well, aren't they an archangels of goodness and justice?

It's not the hanging as that's just normal and women are entirely as capable of evil as men. It's the obvious relish they take in torturing her.

 

[Innamoramento]

As far as I know Geralt he would not just go away from it. If she is evil, so what? Who will measure the level of evilness in her? Where is the court and judges? Where is official prosecution? If there is none, that it's simple sick murdering. Innocent or not - it not some dirty dudes to decide in a middle of nowhere.

 

[Willowhugger]

As far as I know Geralt he would not just go away from it. If she is evil, so what? Who will measure the level of evilness in her? Where is the court and judges? Where is official prosecution? If there is none, that it's simple sick murdering. Innocent or not - it not some dirty dudes to decide in a middle of nowhere.

I think Geralt WOULD intervene but I think that's a strange argument because Geralt kills people ALL THE TIME without due process. In fact, he makes it very clear he judges people worthy of death on his own standards and judgement as the highest authority.