Killed or Spared - Conscience or because killing is cool? (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
Only three questions - killed or not? And why did you do it?1 - Remember you freed the soldier you left to be eaten by the ghouls? Next time you meet him, did you take his money or kill him?
2 - Did you kill Towler?
3 - Did you spare Doppler who was pretending to be a brownie?
Let's not be shy! I know it sucks, but I'm wondering if there are people with a conscience?
In the game, there are so many memorable choices to kill, you can't pardon, but you just chose some muddy ones
1-I killed him, but not for moral reasons, but because of the payment of a measly 50 crowns
2-I don’t remember who it is, I’ll take some kind of devil from the cave, it seems that I left it alive, because I didn’t really know who it was
3- It seems that I also left him alive, I remember that I won him with elixirs like grease, deciding that he was unlikely to overcome resistance to intoxication, oddly enough it helped
1) Kill
2) sparing
3) spared
spoiler forget about succubus Novigrad and Skelege
Priest sadist
alanrose
The author probably wanted to write "Towler". This is a Persian from Lambert's quest, "untangling the ball"
1) Spas. Then he killed. Everything is obvious here, the soldier turned out to be an ordinary bandit. And they are no better than the no-name ones that guard the loot.
2) Spared. I didn't want to leave his wife and children alone.
3) Spared. In principle, he did not kill intelligent harmless creatures.
alanrose
And the one from the Kota school who slaughtered the whole village because of the underpayment for the contract?
alanrose
“But I have always stuck to the principles. No, not a code. Sometimes he just covered himself with the code. People love it. Those who have codes and are guided by them are honored and respected "
1) Killed
2) Spared (in general, he did not kill a single witcher, except for the one whom the sorcerer tortured to death near Novigrad).
3) Spared. As well as other similar "monsters".
SpoilerThere is an answer to this dilemma in the game itself, which Geralt himself gives. In the additional quest "The Most Dangerous Criminal Skellige".
Witchers know both that and that world. And they both keep them. They kill those who prevent others from living in peace.
alanrose
Which way? He became a sadist of his own free will.
SpoilerCoroner only directed Geralt to this sadist.
alanrose
SpoilerI know that. There is not a word in the game that the coroner somehow pushed the priest to sadism. He (the priest) was an executioner. And the girls were tortured even before the coroner got into religion.
I went through several times, so the solutions were different. But if it was my own personal choice, how would I actually act.
1 - He killed, because he turned out to be a simple bandit, just like other bandits from the forest.
2 - He killed, because the witcher who turned out of the way is not a witcher, which means that the code does not apply to him (and this is the only witcher who really wanted to kill), and he is hiding behind the "family", and this is not my revenge, but Lambert, then it’s up to him, but he decided to kill.
3 - In one playthrough yes, in another no, somehow indifferent to such a choice (maybe I have no conscience?). On the one hand, these monsters kill and steal, openly using their advantage over people, on the other hand, they do it for the sake of survival, but then why are the robber dithers or cattle worse than them?
Wild rider
Due to underpayment? They wanted to deceive him 2 times, first with money (and the headman clearly does not live in poverty), and then put him on a pitchfork in the barn and slaughter him like a pig. Anyone would have flared up a little and this is at least, but the fact that he and the rest of the inhabitants of the village chopped, then, if he had not chopped, he and other witchers would have problems.
Wulfdor
Wulfdor wrote:
and the fact that he also chopped the rest of the villagers, then, if he had not chopped, he and other witchers would have problems.
Cool excuse. Those. people who were not involved in the assassination attempt, who were sitting in the houses, also had to be killed? For me, it does not look like a lesser evil, even if the reputation of the witchers suffers (although when it was good ?.) Geralt, at most, would finish off the headman with the attackers. And this would, on the contrary, serve as a lesson to all residents of Dobrov.
Then, he wanted to deceive Geralt before the fight.
To the question: "This is not the first time?", The cat evades the answer. And if you remember the Season of Thunderstorms, then Geralt basically kills such witchers if he learns about not the first such massacre.
Wild Rider
I don't make excuses for him. I write as it is. And what to do would be wiser on his part. But in fact, he just freaked out and killed everyone, as is usually the case with cats.
He wanted to deceive Geralt when he intended to kill him, the witcher is not a noble knight, he has to survive at any cost.
A small detail: Geralt asked, "Is not the first time?", After he had said: "psihanul little, who does not happen" (something like this)
I have not read the 7th book, finished after 3, I did not like the direction plot.
Wulfdor
Again, freaked out - no excuse.
Wulfdor wrote:
A small detail: Geralt asked, "Is not the first time?", After he had said: "psihanul a bit, does not happen to anyone" (something like this)
No, after that question, it already offers Geralt to remove the sword.
Season of Thunderstorms - the eighth, stands apart from the entire saga. Most of the plot takes place before the meeting with the stryga, and some after the "death" in Rivia.
Wild Rider
Again, I am not claiming that this is an excuse, but in this case it is a problem of all cats, some kind of mutation defect (like, again, I'm not sure, but I seem to have heard or read it somewhere in a book).
Gaetan (or whatever it is) said: "..." I freaked out a little, with whom it does not happen "(something like that), to which Geralt replied:" This is not the first time? ", And then the Gaetan asks:" kill Do you want me or have you decided to read morality? "(I don't remember exactly how the phrases sound, I did it about 3-4 months ago.)
I always thought that there were 6 books, and 7 is a new book, the season of thunderstorms, published by Sapkovsky because of the popularity series of games about the witcher, which is probably why they say that it is not as good as the first books.
Wulfdor
Wulfdor wrote:
I don't remember exactly how the phrases sound,
I went through it about 3-4 months ago) I watched the video)
The saga ended on the 7th book in 1999, and The Season of Thunderstorms was released in 2013. SZ is written in the spirit of the first two books, without an epic with Ciri, only there are not several small stories, but one big one.
killed the doppler - there is only one in the game, and a unique ingredient drops from it for crafting
- I didn’t help, the drowned people ate it, tk. he will then kill the traders and in the traders' note will be that he has a family and a dog.
- Spared.
- Spared.
1) I did not release this soldier, he was very suspicious. And apparently he did the right thing.
2) Spared, the story is too confusing to just cut from the shoulder. And Lambert has always been a hot head.
3) Spared, I don't think it's worth killing for petty theft.
4) He also spared the witcher from the school of the cat who carved the village. First they heated it up with payment, and then the pitchfork was stuck in the side. Naturally, he got mad and killed everyone. I would like to see someone who, with a pitchfork in his side, will peacefully resolve issues. I won't say that the whole village deserved it, but it was the headman's choice and the whole village paid for it. And as Geralt correctly said: "I know how it happens, sometimes heads just fly."