Why couldn't mages just teleport out of Novigrad?

[Maerd]

Yep, that was rationale for letting her die as well. All this talk about common good, better Aedirn and stuff, but when she was exposed, and shit hits a fan, in order to save her own skin and eliminate every witness, she unleashed a dragon to kill EVERYONE in LM, including John Natalis, Anais, etc.

You're not being honest here. I'm on this forum for a long time and I have good memory. You previously said that your rationale was to damage the northern kingdoms as much as possible. You were playing not Geralt but Letho #2.

You're mistaken about Sile's "unleashing a dragon". Philippa controls the dragon, not Sile. Sile says that the dragon will kill everyone but that's just her angry words because it's very far from truth. Saskia is not a dummy on the remote control, she makes her own decisions but values Philippa's opinion the most, she's magically in love with Philippa. Therefore, the spell didn't make her a cold-blooded murderer. Saskia will defend Sile but she wouldn't go on murderous rampage beyond necessity and I don't think Philippa gave her instructions to kill'em all, that would be stupid and out of character. Sile was attacked and defended herself, therefore she has the same right to slaughter some knights of the order and some soldiers as Geralt has a right to slaughter arrogant villagers who decided to attack him in the tavern. They should have known better.

Sile indeed participated in a plot to assassinate Demavend but was accused in the plot to murder all northern kings. She was framed by Nilfgaardian spies. Considering your Geralt killed Henselt, accusing Sile in murder as Geralt character is hypocrisy.

---------- Updated at 09:34 PM ----------

Sorry, but this is unforgivable, and pretty much shows that the sorceresses were out only for themselves.

Sorceresses are no better or worse than kings or the emperor. They have their agenda, they are not saints. The witcher universe doesn't have virtuous knights in the shining armor types of characters.

 

[CTPhipps]

Sile indeed participated in a plot to assassinate Demavend but was accused in the plot to murder all northern kings. She was framed by Nilfgaardian spies. Considering your Geralt killed Henselt, accusing Sile in murder as Geralt character is hypocrisy.

That's a really-really generous reading of the Lodge's actions given what happened during the First Invasion of the Pontar Valley and their Lodge's role in that.

 

[Maerd]

Why are you even asking inquisitorialy about my choices or my moral stance?

Simple. My goal is to reveal if what you say is actually corresponds to your actions and if you have an understanding of what you actually did. If you have decided that it's justifiable to torture a person to death then I'd like to think that you did it consciously, that you understood exactly what you did without hiding behind hypocritical moral high ground that you're somehow holier than the person you decided to torture to death, and that you understand responsibility when passing the judgement whether to let Sile live or put her to death. I'm not too much worried about your moral stance, it means nothing, because all humans justify their atrocities claiming moral high ground, that's a human nature. When committing atrocities people always switch off critical thinking and invent themselves a mental construct for self conviction that what they are doing is actually good.

Plus, not at all out of character for Gerald, who sometimes actively kills other murderers, instead of not saving them.

Geralt in the books and in the game is shown a wise character. He hated hypocrisy. He always avoided to play god and enforce his judgement on people.

 

[Gerald01]

Simple. My goal is to reveal if what you say is actually corresponds to your actions and if you have an understanding of what you actually did. If you have decided that it's justifiable to torture a person to death then I'd like to think that you did it consciously, that you understood exactly what you did without hiding behind hypocritical moral high ground that you're somehow holier than the person you decided to torture to death, and that you understand responsibility when passing the judgement whether to let Sile live or put her to death. I'm not too much worried about your moral stance, it means nothing, because all humans justify their atrocities claiming moral high ground, that's a human nature. When committing atrocities people always switch off critical thinking and invent themselves a mental construct for self conviction that what they are doing is actually good.

And exactly who sets the rules? What set of moral law are we using? Is it feelgood commonsense moral imperative popular in our milieu (liberal fringe of the western world in the 21st century), natural law, Sharia, Talmud, existentialism, absolute relativism, utilitarianism? Or Mr. Maerd's personal guide to right&wrong?
Btw who are you using as a comparison for calling hipocrisy? Geralt or the actual player? And is the comparison between the player's choices via Geralt versus i.e. Sila's?
This could be interesting. Or insane.
I gave you mine. What's the diagnosis doc?

Geralt in the books and in the game is shown a wise character. He hated hypocrisy. He always avoided to play god and enforce his judgement on people.

Oh. So Gerald from lore would NOT let Sila die? Why's that?

 

[Maerd]

I like Sile, Philippa, and Sabrina because they're able to meet all three criteria. They think mages should be in charge so they were manipulating events to try and weaken the monarchs a well as install their own puppets.

How is the sorcerocracy worse than the monarchy? You don't seriously believe in the divine right concept for kings, do you?

That's a really-really generous reading of the Lodge's actions given what happened during the First Invasion of the Pontar Valley and their Lodge's role in that.

This is really going off-topic. This belongs to a political thread. I'd just say that you're not quite well versed in the witcher world politics. You can post your concerns and discuss them there.

 

[CTPhipps]

Simple. My goal is to reveal if what you say is actually corresponds to your actions and if you have an understanding of what you actually did. If you have decided that it's justifiable to torture a person to death then I'd like to think that you did it consciously, that you understood exactly what you did without hiding behind hypocritical moral high ground that you're somehow holier than the person you decided to torture to death, and that you understand responsibility when passing the judgement whether to let Sile live or put her to death. I'm not too much worried about your moral stance, it means nothing, because all humans justify their atrocities claiming moral high ground, that's a human nature. When committing atrocities people always switch off critical thinking and invent themselves a mental construct for self conviction that what they are doing is actually good.

The act of torture is an always evil sadistic one I don't believe in real-life. However, the act of killing a murderer who would murder others is one I feel very differently about as is one done for retributive purposes.

Geralt stood by and let Sile die in my playthrough because he wanted to stop the Lodge.

Because he believed they were monsters.

And he kills monsters.

Which made for a VERY interesting playthrough where he was forced to work with them to save Ciri. Sadly, Geralt's dialogue didn't leave options of just HOW Teeth-Clenched the teamwork was.

How is the sorcerocracy worse than the monarchy? You don't seriously believe in the divine right concept for kings, do you?

No, Kings are scum in the Witcherverse. One has to look at Henselt and realize he's actually one of the BETTER KINGS to realize that. At least Henselt actually DOES HIS JOB for example and cares about making his land well-protected and more prosperous.

He's STILL SCUM.

and the Lodge MADE THEMSELVES SCUM by trying to be like the monarchs around them. When Kings fight the Game of Thrones, it's the peasants who suffer.

They're who Geralt's sympathies are for. Who cares about Aedirn's King other than, say, Stennis? No one. Who cares about the thousands who died in the Pontar Valley as killed by Sabrina?

GERALT DOES.

This is really going off-topic. This belongs to a political thread. I'd just say that you're not quite well versed in the witcher world politics. You can post your concerns and discuss them there.

No need.

Started at 7:08.

The Sorceresses part starts at 12:46

---------- Updated at 11:06 PM ----------

Sile, Philippa, Sabrina, and some Sorceresses I don't recognize were all there for the plan to drop a Spell of Mass Destruction on both sides to weaken Henselt.

It's a Terrorist AttackTM.

They're guilty.

No way around that.

 

[Arch-Master]

the Lodge MADE THEMSELVES CUM

WoW! I would like to see that.

 

[Gerald01]

Monarchy is a political system with some sort of universality and appears to be the natural state for Man.
There's also succession, Landsmeets/Councils/Diets for election of successors in case it is either non hereditary or the dynastic line is broken or election contested.
People/parties/nobles/religious movements can oppose rulers and chose open rebellion in case of tiranny.


Sorcerocracy would basically be a tiranny on purely genetic basis of a superior, essentially immortal, breed.
Ruling over the wretched normal humans through deterrence deriving from, according to you guys, unstoppable power, rendering any and all attempts at rebelling futile.

 

[CTPhipps]

Well, that ruined a perfectly good post.

Alright, I'm down, and out.

I surrender.

*bows in defeat*

 

[OutgoingHermit]

Sorceresses are no better or worse than kings or the emperor. They have their agenda, they are not saints. The witcher universe doesn't have virtuous knights in the shining armor types of characters.

Uh. Geralt.

 

[CTPhipps]

Uh. Geralt.

"Close enough."

 

[Maerd]

And exactly who sets the rules? What set of moral law are we using? Is it feelgood commonsense moral imperative popular in our milieu (liberal fringe of the western world in the 21st century), natural law, Sharia, Talmud, existentialism, absolute relativism, utilitarianism? Or Mr. Maerd's personal guide to right&wrong?

If you're an adult then you pick the rules you like with accordance to the rules of a society you live in, if you set of rules don't match your society you'll have problems with a law. The issue appears when you apply one set of rules for yourself and a different, more restrictive, set of rules for others while claiming that you treat other people fairly. Otherwise you can become a person like priests who preach virtues to people and rape children in their spare time.

Btw who are you using as a comparison for calling hipocrisy? Geralt or the actual player? And is the comparison between the player's choices via Geralt versus i.e. Sila's?

Well, it's your call really if you want to roleplay "hypocrite Geralt". Why not? As I said, you can choose anything. I just don't like reading hypocritical explanations to those actions. You can say: "I play Geralt who kills anyone who mess with him". Sure, there's nothing wrong with it, even if it doesn't fit Geralt's character. If you'll play that style but claiming that your character is a saint that killed everyone because they were sinners and deserved to die... well, I'll definitely form a certain opinion about you.

 

[CTPhipps]

I wonder what the most OOC thing Geralt has ever potentially done in the games would be.

I think probably sleeping with Abigail then leaving her for the lynch mob.

 

[Paprikamann]

I think noone mentioned the fact that mages can't teleport a lot of people at the same time. Yennefer said she isn't able to teleport Geralt and Uma to Kaer Morhen.

So it would have been a lot of work to do for Triss. ^^

 

[Gerald01]

If you're an adult then you pick the rules you like with accordance to the rules of a society you live in, if you set of rules don't match your society you'll have problems with a law. The issue appears when you apply one set of rules for yourself and a different, more restrictive, set of rules for others while claiming that you treat other people fairly. Otherwise you can become a person like priests who preach virtues to people and rape children in their spare time.

So in Maerd's little world morality is entirely subjective. Hypocrisy is the one and only deadly Sin.

Why is that Maerd? Is there a reason? Can you justify your stance on that using something that is not your own picked "set of rules" or the ones from "the society you live in"?

If a priest preaches good moral values, but is also a paedo, does that make those moral values any less valuable or valid?

Well, it's your call really if you want to roleplay "hypocrite Geralt". Why not? As I said, you can choose anything. I just don't like reading hypocritical explanations to those actions. You can say: "I play Geralt who kills anyone who mess with him". Sure, there's nothing wrong with it, even if it doesn't fit Geralt's character. If you'll play that style but claiming that your character is a saint that killed everyone because they were sinners and deserved to die... well, I'll definitely form a certain opinion about you.

Can you explain us what, according to you, would non-hypocrite Gerald even choose? And maybe explain us what you think his character is?
What's Geralt morality?

 

[OutgoingHermit]

I wonder what the most OOC thing Geralt has ever potentially done in the games would be.

I think probably sleeping with Abigail then leaving her for the lynch mob.

Yeah that's a good one. I'd say off the top of my head the choices that strike me as being totally out of character are:

- Leaving Thaler, Roche, and Ves to die at the end of Reason of State. Roche and Ves in particular have stuck their necks out for Geralt several times at this point. The idea that he would just walk away and let them be slaughtered, especially by Dijkstra, seems completely at odds with his character.

- Choosing to leave Triss to die in TW2 in order to go help people who weren't in immediate danger. He obviously had no knowledge that Letho would appear out of nowhere to help her, and Dandelion rightly blasts him for this decision in the quest log.

- Killing Letho after Geralt gets his memory back and then hears Letho's side of things. "Witchers on the path should help one another."

 

[Maerd]

So in Maerd's little world morality is entirely subjective. Hypocrisy is the one and only deadly Sin.

It is indeed subjective. Morality changed and developed throughout history. Hypocrisy is not a sin but it aggravates "sins".

Why is that Maerd? Is there a reason? Can you justify your stance on that using something that is not your own picked "set of rules" or the ones from "the society you live in"?

I don't think this is a place for a lecture on philosophy or a place for religious debates.

If a priest preaches good moral values, but is also a paedo, does that make those moral values any less valuable or valid?

Of course it devalues those values in the eyes of people because people whom he preaches suddenly realize that the priest doesn't believe in what he's preaching himself and doesn't care about those values. If a priest lied on one account, he may have lied about everything else.

Can you explain us what, according to you, would non-hypocrite Gerald even choose? And maybe explain us what you think his character is? What's Geralt morality?

That would be very long explanation if going in-depth and this is not the right thread for it but in short: Geralt cares for his friends and does everything to help them, Geralt is also altruistic to bystanders and cannot ignore people's suffering, Geralt tries not kills without necessity even bandits and thugs, Geralt hates to be involved in politics, Geralt is a stoic and a mild cynic, he definitely despises hypocrites (there is a quite direct discussion of that in the books and in TW1, which was copypasted from the books). Geralt character as described in the books would definitely spare Sile.

---------- Updated at 01:05 AM ----------

I think noone mentioned the fact that mages can't teleport a lot of people at the same time. Yennefer said she isn't able to teleport Geralt and Uma to Kaer Morhen.

So it would have been a lot of work to do for Triss. ^^

This is quite inconsistent. Yen totally can teleport Geralt and Uma to Kaer Morhen. If she can teleport one person, she can do two too. Triss in TW1 teleported Geralt from Vizima to Murky Waters remotely without even present on the spot.

 

[CTPhipps]

That would be very long explanation if going in-depth and this is not the right thread for it but in short: Geralt cares for his friends and does everything to help them, Geralt is also altruistic to bystanders and cannot ignore people's suffering, Geralt tries not kills without necessity even bandits and thugs, Geralt hates to be involved in politics, Geralt is a stoic and a mild cynic, he definitely despises hypocrites (there is a quite direct discussion of that in the books and in TW1, which was copypasted from the books). Geralt character as described in the books would definitely spare Sile.

I appreciate you taking your time to discuss this issue and I applaud you for your handling of the issue.

Be that as it may, I would like to forward a rebuttal.

Geralt is a character who does not abide those who victimize the innocent, the weak, the poor, or the helpless. Geralt does not believe in "The Ends Justify the Means." Geralt is NOT the Punisher. Geralt does not seek out evildoers to execute them. He is the kind of man who considers the world a naturally crappy place and does not think that killing is going to fix it. He does, however, never turn his back on the innocent or the suffering when there is a evil-doer (or "monster") to say. He is not persuaded by money, soft words, offers of power, or justifications. He sees things in a remarkably black and white terms where those who cause suffering for the innocent are guilty--even in the name of the greater good.

Vigelfortz and Geralt have a conversation on the very same subject.

‘Put away your sword. Let’s go up into Tor Lara together. We’ll reassure the Child of the Elder Blood, who is sure to be dying of fright up there somewhere. And then let’s leave. Together. You’ll be by her side. You will see her destiny fulfilled. And Emperor Emhyr? Emperor Emhyr will get what he wanted. Because I forgot to tell you that although Codringher and Fenn are dead, their work and ideas are still alive and doing very well, thank you.’

‘You are lying. Leave this place before I spit on you.’

‘I really have no desire to kill you. I kill with reluctance.’

‘Indeed? What about Lydia van Bredevoort?’

The sorcerer sneered. ‘Speak not that name, Witcher.’

Geralt gripped the hilt of his sword tightly and smiled scornfully. ‘Why did Lydia have to die, Vilgefortz? Why did you order her death? She was meant to distract attention from you, wasn’t she? She was meant to give you time to become resistant to dimeritium, to send a telepathic signal to Rience, wasn’t she? Poor Lydia, the artist with the damaged face. Everyone knew she was expendable. Everyone knew that except her.’

‘Be silent.’

‘You murdered Lydia, wizard. You used her. And now you want to use Ciri? With my help? No. You will not enter Tor Lara.’

Geralt might spare Sile.

But he also might remember the screaming dead of the Pontar Valley, sacrificed in the name of "The greater good." Geralt didn't kill Sile.

Letho did.

One less complication for Nilfgaard.

But it's a shame he didn't get to say, "This is for all the nameless little nobodies people like you, Henselt, Radovid, Philippa, and yes, even Foltest, crushed under your boot."

If you want Justice, Hire a Witcher.
-Blood of Elves.

Equally possible? Geralt removes the Gemstone and saves her life. Why? Because Geralt sometimes chooses mercy over death.

And Sile isn't completely evil.

That's why it's a choice.

 

[Maerd]

and the Lodge MADE THEMSELVES SCUM by trying to be like the monarchs around them. When Kings fight the Game of Thrones, it's the peasants who suffer.

They're who Geralt's sympathies are for. Who cares about Aedirn's King other than, say, Stennis? No one. Who cares about the thousands who died in the Pontar Valley as killed by Sabrina?

GERALT DOES.

The Sorceresses part starts at 12:46

Well, let's stop talking about politics. Geralt would be, probably, disgusted by political maneuvers of kings and the Lodge but he won't put on himself a role of a judge, jury and executioner because of that. He doesn't meddle in the politics if he's not forced to. Otherwise, he would have executed both Triss and Yen long time ago for being the Lodge members.

 

[CTPhipps]

Well, let's stop talking about politics. Geralt would be, probably, disgusted by political maneuvers of kings and the Lodge but he won't put on himself a role of a judge, jury and executioner because of that. He doesn't meddle in the politics if he's not forced to. Otherwise, he would have executed both Triss and Yen long time ago for being the Lodge members.

Point taken.

Besides, I was leaning to, "Geralt wouldn't leave her to die simply because that's not his balliwick. He might kill someone but leaving them to die isn't very Geralt."