It's the same basic premise, which also made Geralt befriend a vampire. These creatures are sapient and so can choose not to harm innocents.
witchers come from humans I don't ever recall seeing an elf or ork witcher. And from what the books say it's not the witchers job to hunt that type of monster that's why the Rose and basically the police are there they hunt the human monsters like serial killers and witchers hunt the beast created by the mind.
They say most monsters like the nekkers are made from the negativity of humans where there is large amounts of misery there are large amounts of monsters the witchers were made to hunt the unhuntable the creatures no human can or dare to face sometimes even the sorceresses won't want to deal with them either. The world has other ways of hunting down the human version of monsters. Geralt does at least in the show come against this concept often and questions it why isn't it their job to do so. There was one exwitcher who decided to do just that he wasn't like Geralt this one seemed very human and in the end Geralt did kill him as a regicide. Witchers who kill humans w/o the human showing intent or trying to kill said witcher are regicides and must be killed if the body count is high enough or if its low other punishment will be made.
It seems to me Lethos also wanted to be this new age witcher destroying the man monsters in the world and not caring about whom they hurt. The code doesn't want witchers hunting humans because they're suppose to be protecting them its a big contradiction to hunt the thing you protect don't you think OP?
They say most monsters like the nekkers are made from the negativity of humans where there is large amounts of misery there are large amounts of monsters the witchers were made to hunt the unhuntable the creatures no human can or dare to face sometimes even the sorceresses won't want to deal with them either. The world has other ways of hunting down the human version of monsters. Geralt does at least in the show come against this concept often and questions it why isn't it their job to do so. There was one exwitcher who decided to do just that he wasn't like Geralt this one seemed very human and in the end Geralt did kill him as a regicide. Witchers who kill humans w/o the human showing intent or trying to kill said witcher are regicides and must be killed if the body count is high enough or if its low other punishment will be made.
It seems to me Lethos also wanted to be this new age witcher destroying the man monsters in the world and not caring about whom they hurt. The code doesn't want witchers hunting humans because they're suppose to be protecting them its a big contradiction to hunt the thing you protect don't you think OP?
This is true, and I am sure all of the witchers were schooled extensively in it and know it well. But the important question is whether it is still relevant. There are two reasons I can think of why it does not matter so much as one might think it does.pariah47 said:hi everyone, i've been ghosting witcher forums for a long time but never felt the need to post before.
now as for op's question, if i remember my witcher lore correctly, witchers are humans who are mutated specifically by wizards to protect other humans from monsters that arrived during comjunction of spheres.
my point here is that the word "monster" already has specific definition and is not per se very open to interpretation, of course, geralt being geralt has his own unique version of the witcher's path and improvises its meaning according to the situation, but the fact remains if witchers went around grouping humans with "monsters" and killing them all the same, this would be directly in conflict with the very purpose for which they were created, wouldn't it?/>
First, witchers are free agents. While this allows them to live by whatever code they find suitable, one key element of every free tradesman's code is "thou shalt not starve thyself by refusing honest work".
Second, the games make much of the realization, which Geralt and others have arrived at, that the nature of truly dangerous monsters has changed. The real monster may be the human whose actions summon a monster, or sells children into slavery or his sister into a marriage for money. A Geralt who cannot abide evils he has been trained to combat may well decide that the elimination of monstrous humans is the lesser of evils.
I think you got some of the lore mixed up - hope you dont mind me pointing some out.Destroyraiden said:
First off, ocrs?? I dont think there are orcs in Witcher Universe.
and by Rose you mean the order of the flaming rose? and by police you mean the city guards?
Regarding Witcher coming from humans, I will use the same concept of vampires coming from humans and they hunt humans in the first game. Witcher has the opportunity to save the vampires in the first game and kill the knights, which I believe was more accurate since they were truly the monsters there, not the vampires and that is what I am trying to get at in this thread.
Regarding the nekkers - i think you mixed it up with Echinopse - here is a text from the first withcer lore:
Echinopsae are monstrous plants born of curses which grow in places where terrible crimes have been committed if the crime in question was never atoned for. The beasts try to take their vengeance on criminals, but they do not spare the lives of innocents who haplessly enter their territory.
But all and all, I understand what you are trying to say - however at the same time I believe that Witcher is all about choice and neutrality. They were created by mages to combat the consequences of the conjunction, if they by default are part of the porblem then they too should be eliminated.
See it like this, Terminator - where the robots uprise realising that the masters that they are serving are ineeficient and are the source of the many problems they are trying to solve. Logically they will try and fix by killing and capturing them all. That is the perspective I am talking about.
Its clear that Witchers do not hunt or kill other sapient creatures unless there is no other choice.
Otherwise they would just be "supernatural" mercenaries and as such they would be highly disruptive to the order of society (just look at the plot in W1 and W2 which in one way or another touches upon these issues).
Otherwise they would just be "supernatural" mercenaries and as such they would be highly disruptive to the order of society (just look at the plot in W1 and W2 which in one way or another touches upon these issues).
Actually, the witchers are "supernatural" mercenaries. Mercenaries (in broad terms) are not disruptive, but necessary for a healthy society, because they are those guys who do often unsavory, but necessary work. Ordinary people, who are both incapable and unwilling to do it due psychological make-up or a gated-community-type morality, have no problems with enjoying the benefits of such actions. Similar to garbage collectors.
The same with the witchers. People pay them to make their world a safer place, while shun them, disrespect them, and see them as abominations.
The same with the witchers. People pay them to make their world a safer place, while shun them, disrespect them, and see them as abominations.
Its true in the sense that witcher work for coin and taking care of dangerous beasts and monsters, but they are not some group that is hired to kill other people.vivaxardas said:
Their neutrality in such matters is one of the very things that allows them to operate "freely".
I'm not really convinced that all witchers have the same attitude as Geralt. There is only this unwritten rule of not killing sapient creatures, apart from that they are free roamer and can do whatever they want actually, who should stop them anyway? There are not so many Bonharts.
And even this one rule is even unknown to most people in that world, even after centuries. Pretty much everybody is surprised by Geralt's attitude regarding this even Three Jackdaws is surprised, so is it a lack of knowledge or is he just the exception?
We see everything in Geralt's point of view and of course other witchers from his school, but what about other witchers from other schools? The books say pretty much nothing about them, but seeing Letho in TW2 is a really good example of how quick someone changes his attitude, if you give him enough incentive.
The witcher world is changing and so must the witchers, for better or worse.
Also i would even bet that Geralt killed more humans and elves than actual monster (not counting the games).
And even this one rule is even unknown to most people in that world, even after centuries. Pretty much everybody is surprised by Geralt's attitude regarding this even Three Jackdaws is surprised, so is it a lack of knowledge or is he just the exception?
We see everything in Geralt's point of view and of course other witchers from his school, but what about other witchers from other schools? The books say pretty much nothing about them, but seeing Letho in TW2 is a really good example of how quick someone changes his attitude, if you give him enough incentive.
The witcher world is changing and so must the witchers, for better or worse.
Also i would even bet that Geralt killed more humans and elves than actual monster (not counting the games).
Thanks I'm still learning everything this series has many monsters and like I said that's what I get from going over all the large amounts of things this series has to offer cramming it all in and keeping it all straight is a bit tough at times.Mvc9 said:
From what the cover of the regicides I took it to mean if you kill lots of humans or kill them w/o them first trying to harm you you then run the risk of getting known as a regicide then hunted down by your fellow witchers. Garalt in the show ends up running into a misunderstanding just like this some witchers find him say he's a regicide for killing humans and they take him up to the school to be tried. But other times there is no trial they just kill the regicide.
You see, "regicide" comes from "regis", in latin is the word for "ruler" "king" "monarch" and "cidium" (caedis) meaning "killing" "assissination". So "regicide" means "killing a king" or a ruler. What Letho did.Destroyraiden said:
When you kill a human is called "homocide" or murder. If you kill humans you're a killer or assassin, and a witcher is either. In fact, in "The Lesser Evil" short story included in "The Last Wish" book, Geralt gained the title of "Butcher of Blaviken", after he killed a criminal group lead by a woman, Renfri, in Blaviken.
Geralt isn't called "regicide" for killing humans. He is believed a regicide because he was found on Foltest body after Letho escaped, so they thought Geralt killed the king.
I think the problem people are having with your use of "regicide" is that to the rest of us, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.Destroyraiden said:
"Regicide" means the killer or the killing of a monarch (rex), an "assassin of kings". Not any number of ordinary people, even a huge number. What you're describing is "homicide", or when it is done with malicious intent, "murder".
Geralt was mistakenly accused of regicide: "unfortunately for you, you're the only suspect." Since Geralt has a reputation as a killer of men (the Butcher of Blaviken), even though "justifiable" or "excusable" homicide is not murder, the accusation that he is the regicide is not easily dismissed.
I don't know whether this counts as an Easter egg or not, but Saint Roche is a patron saint of the falsely accused.
Who says that? They hunt humans, perfectly fine! But only those that give them extremely good reasons to. Reasons the likes of which will uphold their moral structure and profession code. I remember perfectly well that the Professor and Azar Javed were on Geralt's open season list. Or those bandits at Blaviken; he even butchered down a girl, the very same girl who offered herself to him at earlier travels (watch the tv series or read the books to understand).
Also, in the game, despite Geralt denying it pretty often, human enemies with or without choice to cut them down, are about 30% of the total enemy casualties. Plus, he even told Abigail in 1 that both swords he carries are for monsters, but he currently lacks the silver one... Get it together people.
Also, in the game, despite Geralt denying it pretty often, human enemies with or without choice to cut them down, are about 30% of the total enemy casualties. Plus, he even told Abigail in 1 that both swords he carries are for monsters, but he currently lacks the silver one... Get it together people.
While I can't speak for every Witcher, Geralt from what I've seen has a set of rules that defines a monster, or at least in my interpretation of what constitutes a monster.Mvc9 said:This cant really be a spoiler since its like back ground lore but for those that dont know:
Although humans may disagree - there is some evidence that the elder races inhabited teh land long bfore human even existed. There also seems to be no evidence or mention of cave men or primitive humans. Of course I know that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence but still is someting to consider.
Anyway, what im trying to get at is that humans are abominations of this dimension and are equally monsters that do more damage to the land than the actual monsters. So why the witchers wont kill and hunt the humans equally? after all, their job is to kill the monsters that "don't belong in this realm". It would solve many of the problems. I always stood against the humans for that reason.
Now there is also the fact that Witchers are humans transformed, but after the transformation they are no longer human and thus their priorities change - similar concept to how vampires are, when someone is turned, humans are considered blood bags. right?
im confused. can someone clarify that for me.
Thanks in advance.
P.S. By hunt I mean to kill and massacre all of them
1) Not of this world: The monster must have appeared during The Conjunction of Spheres; and therefor outside of the natural ecosystem of the world.
2) Silver Antithesis: The monster must have either an unusual weakness to the element(Periodic element) silver, a strong resilience to any weapon not made of silver, or both.
3) Malicious intent: The monster must be a predator that has humans or non-humans as its prey. or present a sentient desire to harm humans or non-humans.
This is my interpretation of what makes a monster a monster.
I'm pretty sure Destroyraiden got "regicide" confused with "renegade". There was a renegade witcher in the TV series, but that series is not considered canon to Sapkowski's world, in fact it is mostly shunned by the books' fans.
Oh, and hello international community. Until now, I've only been posting in the Polish section.
Oh, and hello international community. Until now, I've only been posting in the Polish section.
1stly - vampires do not stem from humans. Its an "alien race" that got trapped after Conjunction of Spheres
2ndly - one ex-witcher did what op is suggesting in a manner of his own. His name was Codringher. You have a problem? You go to Codringher and Fenn, they can solve any problem, if the price is right.
Codringher calls Geralt anachronic witcher
[disclaimer - its never said presisely if Codringher is a witcher but in the description his yellow-green (same colour as his cat's) eyes are emphasized. Yellow tint is not a human colour if you ask me]
2ndly - one ex-witcher did what op is suggesting in a manner of his own. His name was Codringher. You have a problem? You go to Codringher and Fenn, they can solve any problem, if the price is right.
Codringher calls Geralt anachronic witcher
[disclaimer - its never said presisely if Codringher is a witcher but in the description his yellow-green (same colour as his cat's) eyes are emphasized. Yellow tint is not a human colour if you ask me]
Ehehe, no, Codringher wasn't an actual witcher. He refers to himself as one to mock Geralt, arguing that while anachronic (actual) witchers deal with people's problems using anachronic methods (these being swords, signs, potions and basically the direct approach), he's using "modern" ones instead (those would be blackmail, threats, kidnapping, etc.).
As for his actual trade, Codringher was something between a mob boss and a private detective. As for his biology, he was quite obviously human.
As for his actual trade, Codringher was something between a mob boss and a private detective. As for his biology, he was quite obviously human.