You Neutral?

+

You Neutral?


  • Total voters
    42
I figure staying neutral is like staying your hand. You don't take up arms either for one or the other, but by no means are you indifferent.

First I reacted to what you wrote about gold. Staying neutral...for gold? I see now, or in my interpretation, that it would be like taking steps back from a conflict, until there is a winning side, and then offer your services. Those who win wars, also write the history or something like that. They are also the ones who will pay for future witcher jobs. For power? What, that's pure war strategy, letting two adversaries exhaust themselves and their resources before finishing them off. I don't feel 'power' fits into the witcher role. Of course, there was Letho and why he did what he did, but then again he wasn't neutral was he? Seems many witchers forget to stay neutral and not meddle.

Either for gold or power, that's scheming behaviour indeed, but that's the thing, everyone has an opinion and feelings of what is right or wrong, and what's neutral or not. There is a degree to everything.
Me, I'm opinionated as hell. I hate to meddle, but love to intervene. ;) If there's an aggressor coming down hard on the 'good', 'weak' and 'innocent' I can't help myself but to defend them. That is, if I perceive the aggressors as bad, and the victims as good, weak and innocent.

That is why Sapkowski was spot on with the lesser evil conundrum, and witchers staying neutral. It's all about the situation and circumstance, and it's so easy becoming a hypocrite in this world. Well it is for me anyway when playing the Witcher games. I might feel high and mighty in one situation, walking the moral high ground only to realise I'm meddling and suddenly I'm neck deep in the shit I once figured I was above.

I met my old teacher the other day, and I'm always reminded of what I was taught: Don't straddle the fence, take a stand. Either jump down in the minefield and risk it or face the bayonets on the other side, but pick a side.
I guess that lesson stayed with me. :happy:

There's no staying neutral for me. I know neutral is not indifference, but I would feel uncaring if not helping when I could have. Looking forward to be a hypocrite in Witcher 3 as well, and take all kinds of moral high grounds while I choose 'the lesser evil' or what have you.

If you're wondering, I sided with Yaevinn in Witcher 1 and Roche in Witcher 2. I felt that my choices were the most 'good' regarding both games. I stayed my hand when I could, even when I shouldn't, but not always when I reckoned I faced monsters that just had to be put down. Just like my vision of Geralt. I'm sure everyone has their own and that is why I'm grateful to the devs for making such great games! So thank you devs! :laughing:
 
Last edited:
From what I can gather, you play through the game based on your personal beliefs @Bellator Pius Gratus . I guess that is what we all do, more or less. :p

I however try to approach the games differently. What I think or believe is irrelevant. I try to play through the games as the character would, in our case "Geralt". Now I am not one to claim that I fully understand him, which is why I take my time when I'm forced to decide on a matter. I've sat on a decision for some good 20 minutes. :p

So yeah, I'm trying to decide on something, based on how I think Geralt would feel and react to a situation. I'm getting fully immersed to the character.

I'd say remaining Neutral, is a tough choice for Geralt, especially after his discussion with Triss in the books, and his visit to Sodden Hill. He is torn on whether to help the Northern Kingdoms win the war, because all of his beloved ones live in the North, and he would not like to see their world crumble, or simply wait out on the conflict.

I am really not sure on what he would do, if he didn't have to look for Ciri. I don't think he knows either.

Regarding the choices we had to make in the games, well.. I've tried to remain Neutral, because I think that is what Geralt would do. I mean, I helped Yaevinn by killing the Kikimore's in Vizima's sewers but that's as far as I went. I did not kill anyone, not an Elf nor a Human. At least not people that were blocking Geralt's personal "Quests".

During the second game, I don't think there was much ground for Neutrality anyway. You had to make decisions, in order to be able to clear Geralt's name, and help Geralt's friends in need (Triss). I'd say siding with Roche or Iorveth, was not really a breach of "neutrality", it was simply a means of finding Triss. To this day, I can't tell what Geralt would do. I tend to follow Iorveth, most of the time. :p

The third game I believe will be much more like the second one. Even more exaggerated that is. Geralt has his personal goals, and nothing else really matters to him. That being said, we can still play the game and make political decisions, it would seem. That's the cool part. Maybe when I've played through the game a few times, I'll explore the political decisions and all that. I'm going to have a hard time though. I'll have to play Geralt as an embodiment of my own self.
 
I can definitely appreciate the option on being neutral. It reminds me of my role-playing experience in KOTOR 2 where I was neither a sith nor jedi, but a force sensitive. However, in the Witcher, I do find myself taking a stance or siding with a faction. To me, it gives my Geralt a sense of pseudo belonging since he's plagued with amnesia & loneliness.
 
I do not seek conflict. I attempt to remain neutral for the sake of balance. I will have an opinion. If you devalue my opinion, the value of yours will be unequivocally neutralized. I ignore (and mock) people who deny others an opinion, and then tout their own as fact. I understand that the world is not black and white, but has many shades of gray in between. I understand that 2 points need not always be mutually exclusive. And I am one of the very rare people who understand that just because someone's opinion does not agree with mine, it does not mean they are judging me, not should it be taken as some personal attack. People can have different view points and still be civil and friendly. It's about mutual respect.

Oh, and I ♥ me some Futurama. (Shut up baby, I know it!)
 
I figure staying neutral is like staying your hand. You don't take up arms either for one or the other, but by no means are you indifferent.

First I reacted to what you wrote about gold. Staying neutral...for gold? I see now, or in my interpretation, that it would be like taking steps back from a conflict, until there is a winning side, and then offer your services. Those who win wars, also write the history or something like that. They are also the ones who will pay for future witcher jobs. For power? What, that's pure war strategy, letting two adversaries exhaust themselves and their resources before finishing them off. I don't feel 'power' fits into the witcher role. Of course, there was Letho and why he did what he did, but then again he wasn't neutral was he? Seems many witchers forget to stay neutral and not meddle.

Either for gold or power, that's scheming behaviour indeed, but that's the thing, everyone has an opinion and feelings of what is right or wrong, and what's neutral or not. There is a degree to everything.
Me, I'm opinionated as hell. I hate to meddle, but love to intervene. ;) If there's an aggressor coming down hard on the 'good', 'weak' and 'innocent' I can't help myself but to defend them. That is, if I perceive the aggressors as bad, and the victims as good, weak and innocent.

That is why Sapkowski was spot on with the lesser evil conundrum, and witchers staying neutral. It's all about the situation and circumstance, and it's so easy becoming a hypocrite in this world. Well it is for me anyway when playing the Witcher games. I might feel high and mighty in one situation, walking the moral high ground only to realise I'm meddling and suddenly I'm neck deep in the shit I once figured I was above.

I met my old teacher the other day, and I'm always reminded of what I was taught: Don't straddle the fence, take a stand. Either jump down in the minefield and risk it or face the bayonets on the other side, but pick a side.
I guess that lesson stayed with me. :happy:

There's no staying neutral for me. I know neutral is not indifference, but I would feel uncaring if not helping when I could have. Looking forward to be a hypocrite in Witcher 3 as well, and take all kinds of moral high grounds while I choose 'the lesser evil' or what have you.

If you're wondering, I sided with Yaevinn in Witcher 1 and Roche in Witcher 2. I felt that my choices were the most 'good' regarding both games. I stayed my hand when I could, even when I shouldn't, but not always when I reckoned I faced monsters that just had to be put down. Just like my vision of Geralt. I'm sure everyone has their own and that is why I'm grateful to the devs for making such great games! So thank you devs! :laughing:

You my friend receive a thanks, and a red point for seriously pondering the meaning of a Zapp Brannigan quote.
 

wazaa

Forum veteran
be neutral is not take a side. Even when someone asign to you a side, it is indiferent to you. You do what seems correct to you, and sometimes it will be in benefit of one side, in benefit of the other side, or with no benefit.

The hability of choosing not to choose, cause no option seems ok to you.

I missed this option in the end of Deus Ex: human revolution. No end was my choice: not to choice.
 
I've always seen "staying neutral" as meaning "help your friends rather than supporting a cause" for Geralt. I don't think he'll make decisions based on any kind of preference for the North or for Nilfgaard, but will simply help those he considers to be under his protection. If there's a conflict of interest, Ciri will always come first, and if none of his friends are affected, he'll be a witcher and kill monsters, no matter who rules the location where the monsters are found.

And that's how I'll be doing my first playthrough.
 
I see neutrality as tackling the conflict in a level headed way. i don't have to keep helping one faction because i should be faithful to them, i need to try and do the right thing according to the situation, some aspects of neutrality ware hard for me. I staid neutral in the witcher 1 and didn't helped Yaevinn at all because i see the elves as terrorists, yes they have legitimate goals but they execute them in a very cruel way. something that i can never agree with.
 
Neutrality doesn't opposed or support any sides
Neutrality doesn't always mean you ignored it or no action towards the subject
Neutrality is an "opinion for me" cause' you have reason to be neutral
Neutrality is distinct from apathy, ignorance, indifference, doublethink, equality, agreement, and objectivity
Neutrality is not about whose right or wrong but it could be what's right or wrong

But then again being neutral is more difficult than you think caused every actions are being judged from every sides, just like Geralt portrayed in the novels with his own moral code and ideology
 
Top Bottom