If we start to put blame on everyone for killing... then Geralt killed many more people than Sile. Not always justifiably. He's, literally, a serial killer.
Both were more or less plausible developments.
Last edited:
Sorry I do not entirely understand your question, maybe because english is not my first language. As far as I understand, your question was about how authorities control mages? Easy and simple, in the North they work together. as I understood from the books, mages was a minority, people fears them and calls them witches. That's why they can not openly rule the world, it would be a massacre of revolutionizing people, who do not want a witch to be their queen/king/lord, whatever. So they are gray cardinals, rulling from behind the throne. Why they are amendable to the kings or other authorities? Because it is in their interest, to be friendly with "big people", to rule, to control, not to be a crazy dudes and chicks, who is uncontrollable freaks and kills everybody, because they have powers, ha-ha-ha.
In Nilfgaard, there was a culture thing, that sorcerers was treated like a shit, to prevent them from ruling the country. This attitude has it difficulties for the mages, they should be very careful of what they speak or do. I think that was not because they could not blow up Emhyr with his throne, but because they are adequate and smart people, who knew where to cast a spell, and where to bow.
Why not? Yes for me.
I will not start about how I hate how RED's handled it. I will look into the lore. The Witch Hund did not start because of retarded Radovid and silly king assassinations, but because of Ithlinne prophecy - they killed a lot of women, because they wanted to kill the Destroyer ( I presume it is something to do with Ciri, it was not explained by Sapkowski). It is more acceptable reason to raise a crowd against sorceresses than in-games "look, a king-assassins, bad girls/boys, hate them"! How many people would think - "one less, one more, I do not care". Or "Yay, I hated that fat shit and his stupid wars for a piece of land/royal whore, where my dad, uncle and two brothers died"? There should be the reason, and there is a very weak one in games.
Oh, yes. As a fan of Sile, I was horrified what devs did with her. It's a sick way to treat her like that, because at first she was not a bad character in the books. And make her die in a three sickening ways - like torn her to pieces in the W2 or see her tortured and killed without a hope to heal and live? Well, that was awful.
So was Geralt, Letho, Zoltan, Triss, Yen, Radovid, Henselt and so on. Let's torture them too, why not? Why Letho, who was not only murderer of a two kings, but also traitor is given a chance to live and Sile is not? Because he is all white and fluffy inside?
Funnily though, it does jack shit to Imlerith's ability to teleport behind your back.
Geralt notes early in the game that the Wild Hunt's teleportation is different from normal mages and that they are capable of feats beyond human ability. Also, World of the Witcher-book notes that it is possible for a talented mage to develop immunity towards dimeritium with enough time and practice.
True.
On topic of teleportation, isn't Yen able to discern Avallach teleported to Velen during the Mask quest on Skellige (or was it Ciri? don't remember).
---------- Updated at 04:24 PM ----------
Yes I meant that: if mages are as superior in every way and nearly invincible as you guys make them out to be, and their actions would have little repercussions as you seem to suggest, then how is the situation both in the Northen Realms and Nilfgaard one of parity between them , if not inferiority, versus the "civilian" authorities?
Yes thank you and that is entirely my point. They have powers but they have to make compromises with the world.
Add to that they are not invincible unlike you guys want to make 'em out to be.
Even real DEMI-GODS like Superman or Dr. Manhattan have to restrain themselves and abide by rules. The alternative is simply chaos and rejection or if they want to hold power a very bloody tiranny.
Never ever people stop fighting completely just because of their low odds of success.
Or.. they know that their rebellion would have consequences. And no matter how powerful they'd either live in complete exile or die.
So.. you don't see a contradiction with you guy's stance that Mages=uber powerful= Novigrad stupid and very powerful mages in Nilfgaard accepting humiliation and servitude (in more than a way) before openly rebelling? Uh.uh.
Of course it has to be given your premises. The books and previous games themselves are unrealistic and contradictory as fudge.
Or, you know, you might be partially wrong.
Ok but we are talking about the games specifically. Sorry, I mean, I was referring specifically to the situation with Radovid in Witcher 3, where there doesn't seem to be any of that.
Well your first sentence makes it clear why you'd think that. But objectively there's nothing wrong with it.
But that happens not because of some sort of unfair treatment by the devs or the moral/law code of the universe.
Simply due to accidental narrative choices.
If you're asking if those you mentioned would not deserve a similar fate just the same as her, then yes, they would too, provided their crimes were similar if not identical to hers. Being a main character, being liked by fans, or being friends with the protagonist should not reflect on that.
Last edited:
Sorry, do not fully understand again. Do I see contradictions between North mages and Nilfgaard's ones? No, I do not.
Yes, of course. And I am talking about big plot holes and how devs handled it, even when they had the references in the books. The politics and witch hunts are horribly simplified in W3, and it's killing me.
Oh, no, there is a lot of wrongs in it.
Aha, that's why they planned to do her a main character in 2013 (leaked files), and then - puff, she's dead.
As about their crimes - for example, Geralt could kill Henselt in W2. Is this crime less serious? No. If Sile killed Demavend because he was weak as a king and so on, and that humanity will win if there will be another ruler, so Geralt kills Henselt because he is upset looking at raped Ves and executed Blue stripes (spies). Sile had global matter vs. Geralt with personal matter. Well I do not see wrong in killing both bastards (Demavend or Henselt, both are equally useless in the W2), but from the point of view of justice-lovers who was the worst sinner? The one who wants to bring an order to the world, or the one who just make a revenge?
No, I mean an alleged contradiction between how mages are actually treated (esp. in Nilfgaard) and your depiction of them as SUPER POWERFUL NEARLY INVINCIBLE entities who can do whatever they want (you guys were suggesting they attack Radovid and/or all the witchhunters in Novigrad for instance).
I think there's enough differences from the books, this angle is quite pointless. For instance the prophecy seem to be very different and Ciri is the destined one not her offspring also.
Such as? Apart for you liking the character?
Ok i'll try to be brief:
1) SHe would have made NO SENSE as a main character since she could have died in Witcher 2 (in my playthrough she did), so it'd be quite a waste of resources
2)Geralt killing Henselt would still be murder, but at least Geralt had some sort of personal justification (revenge for the Blue Stripes). Sila had what? Illegal political attempts at meddling in the internal politics of a sovereign state?
Saying that according to her thinking it'd been best for the State or whatever is not a justification.
Are you really trying to say that anyone is allowed to kill whoever he likes "for the greater good of the state"?
And mind you, not even the State itself (which is abhorrent already), but random private citizens?
3)Your attempt at making the two things the same is pointless. Who cares? Let's say they both were and Geralt is a murderer too 100%.
So how does that reflect on the subject of Sila being tortured to death being wrong?
Are you saying it's not wrong because Geralt could face the same hypothetically? That's not logical.
Geralt could be a genocidal maniac (or a impeccable Saint), and Sila's death would still be proportionate to her crimes. Both judging by the moral code of their universe but especially given the law of the Northern Realms.
Last edited:
Erm, how it is inconsistent, that mages can cast a deadly spells, create a powerful illusions and defend themselves and are lawful and loyal to their country? There was cultural differences between North and Nilfgaard, not only mages was treated bad, but their nobility also feared to say too much. The North was liberal, Nilfgaard was totalitarian. Cultural differences, that no way correlates with a power of their mages. I can cast a huge and deadly spell, but I am poor and loyal to the Emperor. Nothing wrong, nothing to wonder about.
Aha, so personal affairs are more just for you, than the fate and benefit of the people. I see. I will not continue.
Because no one should be tortured to death or ripped to pieces, it is not okay, normal or proportionate to the any crime. It is just sick, disgusting and perverted.
So now all Nilfgaard mages accept their subservient status because.. they are patriotic?
So.. according to you.. Nilfgaardian mages coul easily kill Emhyr and exterminate everyone no problemo, with no repercussions but what's stopping them is patriotism and love for their country.
So instead they accept a lifetime of servitude. Have I got that right?
I thought you said: "II think that was not because they could not blow up Emhyr with his throne, but because they are adequate and smart people, who knew where to cast a spell, and where to bow."
Again, that's completely besides the point. But the key difference is a personal motive IS something concrete, a reaction to something that the King DID do in reality.
"the benefit of the people" is just HER personal vague notion of something impossible to quantify. Little more than an opinion.
It was customary in the Northern Kingdoms it would seem and socially acceptable. Same as as our world until recent times.
But if you condemning torture as inhumane, ergo applying your modern day moral notions to the witcher world, and being fine with politically motivated murders, does that mean you condone them in reality too?
Last edited:
Aaand? Yes, I say it, and how it is contradicts with what I said? Nilfgaardian mages is powerful enough to blow one human being with one fireball. But as this human being is the emperor, and mages are an adequate people, they will not do it. I do not understand what is your point? That Nilfgaardians serves the emperor? Yes, they do. How it combines with their magical powers? Simple, they just has their powers and serves the emperor. Because it is their country and they did not see other life. If they will rebel, no one will support them, because they are not nobility, they are mages.
And I still do not understand, why killing king for personal revenge is more justified than killing king for the sake of people or other political causes (well, Sile's motives was poorly explained anyways, so it's another plot hole). They both killed kings, they are both killers and why Geralt is not burned at stake? Should be, if we speak about justice.
Tortures was never an acceptable thing. It always was ugly deed of the mentally sick people. Last time in our world it was performed by Nazis. is it normal or acceptable? Well, for the morally ugly people maybe. But it was never an act of justice.
If I accept something in pixel/fictional world, it does not mean that I am killer myself somewhere IRL. I separate games from real life. Judging from this logic I can question - does all the gamers kill people IRL? How much? Do they decide who will live and who will die IRL like they do in a games?
And I still do not understand, why killing king for personal revenge is more justified than killing king for the sake of people or other political causes (well, Sile's motives was poorly explained anyways, so it's another plot hole). They both killed kings, they are both killers and why Geralt is not burned at stake? Should be, if we speak about justice.
Tortures was never an acceptable thing. It always was ugly deed of the mentally sick people. Last time in our world it was performed by Nazis. is it normal or acceptable? Well, for the morally ugly people maybe. But it was never an act of justice.
If I accept something in pixel/fictional world, it does not mean that I am killer myself somewhere IRL. I separate games from real life. Judging from this logic I can question - does all the gamers kill people IRL? How much? Do they decide who will live and who will die IRL like they do in a games?
It's not "blame". It's simply justification. Someone is a murderer= the punishment is imprisonement, death.
About Geralt, did he MURDER anyone though?
Not in self defense or in war or as a punishment?
Sila killed someone because it would further her crazy agenda and for no other reason.
But again, besides the damn point anyway.
Hey you're the one arguing mages are unstoppable and literally able to kill on sight without risk of being captured or harmed.
So how they plausible again...?
---------- Updated at 07:03 PM ----------
I feel there are language barriers making us unable to fully understand each other unfortunately.
Interesting. You enjoy watching a person die in agony and you're fine with deaths of thousands of people as long as your personal revenge is satisfied...
Out of curiosity, did you side with Dijsktra or with Vernon Roche (if you killed Radovid, of course)? What do you think the right way of dealing with Keira?
Hear, hear. I'm also disgusted with what CDPR did to her. I also like Sile a lot, more than Yen and Triss. I would have understood (wouldn't have liked that but understood) if there was some complex plot leading to her death. But putting her in the dungeon just for the sake of just sadistically killing her without any leading plot is just lazy and disgusting. I agree with people who say that she shouldn't be in the dungeon in the first place because there's no reason for her to be not in Kovir, she could have easily avoid capture by being one of the most powerful sorceress in the world. But even if she is Philippa, Triss, Yen and Margarita with combined effort could have revived her by magic, or Philippa could have sustained her like she did with Saskia till Geralt get the capable surgeon (hello Shani) to help her. Plot-murdering Sile felt similar to the scenario where CDPR would have decided to plot-murder Triss by burning her at the stake upon entry into Novigrad and then CDPR would have told us: "Hey, she was arrested and burned. What do you want? Deal with it. Go fuck Yennefer, you know, because we had limited resources and didn't want to write a plot for Triss".
Last edited:
Many, many times.
Geralt is not authorized to administer punishment. Punishing people with death without a trial is a murder. Any person who behave himself as a judge, jury, and executioner is a murderer. In TW1 Geralt takes money from Foltest to kill Jacques de Aldersberg. This is a contract assassination, which is a first degree murder no matter how you look at it, even if Jacques is not a nice guy.
Sabrina exhausted herself by just wiping 2 armies. I still think that it's a bit of a stretch but as I said, plausible explanation.
Magic in Loc Muinne was hampered, Philippa clearly didn't expect the arrest and was genuinely surprised by such development, the guards could have put dimeritium shackles on her before she could understand what's going on, i.e. grabbed her hands from behind, Philippa is not physically strong.
Hmm... it's definitely not a language because I have no problem understanding him.... your age, may be?
Interesting. I didn't know that "proper reading" nowadays means "vehemently defend Gerald01's opinion". By the way, you haven't answer my questions.
Yes, completely true. Never said otherwise.
Oh, a bit like the hypothetical situation(s) I was describing in my posts you and the other guy dismissed as nonsense then? I mean Glessivig's.
Btw in Loc Muinne magic wasn't completely blocked, because the one mage was using it.
Oh, zing. It went completely over your head. But good for you.
---------- Updated at 11:51 PM ----------
Proper reading entails a degree of effort sufficient to understand I never said what Gerald did (could do in one of the choices) is considered fine or okay in the slightest. (In my late posts I was just comparing it to what Sila did)
Otherwise one risks to rush to conclusions and build a whole j'accuse on it.
I will answer your question, even though they have nothing to do with my position.
1)You enjoy watching a person die in agony and you're fine with deaths of thousands of people as long as your personal revenge is satisfied... No I don't. No I don't. No I don't.
2)did you side with Dijsktra or with Vernon Roche (if you killed Radovid, of course)? My Geralt did not participate in the assassination plot, because it'd be murder.
3)What do you think the right way of dealing with Keira? My Geralt sent her to KM, and let her keep the papers. Correct... with hindsight or from his pov on the spot?
In hindsight, obviously the outcome above, on the spot I believe sending her to Radovid is the worst one and unacceptable due to the risks involved.
About the other two, KM is probably the most sensible one, but can't fault Geralt for the other either, given it is she attacking as a result.
Last edited:
OK, so we agreed then that Geralt committed quite a few murders, mostly manslaughter type, but some first degree murders too, trusting his perception of justice justifies them. Sile's crimes in comparison are miniscule.
Indeed, that's why I said plausible instead of "it was like that" according to the provided information in the plot. I, personally, think the scenario with Sabrina should have been written better.
A mage using lots of spells in Loc Muinne is an obvious plot hole, no questions about that. Slaughter of mages at Loc Muinne would have been impossible if they could cast spells like that.
Yeah, Geralt is a murderer and it's not a bad thing because the authorities have no right to administer justice because they're King, Queen, and Emperor because they have armies.
It's kind of like the Wild West.
Justice belongs to the ones who can administer it themselves.
She conspired to help start a war. Sile deserved to die as does Philippa and probably every other member of the Lodge.
She didn't deserve to be tortured but, thankfully, in my playthrough she didn't have to.
Now whether you agree the AOK characterization of them was wrong.
Last edited:
I have no problem with that. My response was on the statement that Sile somehow deserved to die horribly because she's a murderer while Geralt was argued to be holier than her. I would argue that actually Geralt has more traits in common with Sile than with any other character. They would have been a perfect match.
