Burn the witch!!!... Justified?
- Thread starter RyQ_TMC
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I see your point, but it's not just about lynch mobs. Warhammer and Dragon Age-verse, which I gave as examples, both employ official witch-hunters, who operate within the boundaries of law and don't necessarily stir mobs up.Break said:
Now I see how the horrors of lynch mob mentality might be responsible for creating this trope in the first place, but it extends to any situations pitting a witch against a persecutor, where it's portrayed in a binary way even if it's entirely justified within a setting.
After reading the OP, I thought it might be interesting to point out that your topic seems to be the exact plot of final fantasy XIII, with the L'Cee (probably spelled wrong) being the witches in this case. You have to consider the justification of killing someone for something they haven't done yet, but COULD possibly do in the future. To paraphrase the Cid from the trailer, is one person's life and freedom worth the possibility that they will become overpowered and destroy millions? Granted, from what I've seen in this context, it's less a maybe and more a definitely will, just a matter of when.
As far as Dragon Age: Origins goes, it's a bit different. Mages are quite capable of going their whole lives without even encountering a demon (outside of the fade test anyways), much less becoming an abomination. There is some conflicting accounts of whether or not a Blood Mage will become an abomination or not (most believe all Blood Mages will turn, but some underground groups, and even the existence of the Tivinter [sp] Empire suggest it's not 100%), but if a magic user stays away from Blood Magic, there is little to no risk of them being turned. Nevertheless, because of the disastrous results of a few in the past (aka the whole Darkspawn issue), most non-magic users are reluctant to trust any mage. Is it right? No. Is there a reason for it though? Most definitely.
As far as Dragon Age: Origins goes, it's a bit different. Mages are quite capable of going their whole lives without even encountering a demon (outside of the fade test anyways), much less becoming an abomination. There is some conflicting accounts of whether or not a Blood Mage will become an abomination or not (most believe all Blood Mages will turn, but some underground groups, and even the existence of the Tivinter [sp] Empire suggest it's not 100%), but if a magic user stays away from Blood Magic, there is little to no risk of them being turned. Nevertheless, because of the disastrous results of a few in the past (aka the whole Darkspawn issue), most non-magic users are reluctant to trust any mage. Is it right? No. Is there a reason for it though? Most definitely.
That solution is a lot like the one my friend has in his RPG setting wherein "lega" Mages are locked up in a College/Fortress/Prison so they can study and research. Probably brought out if needs must. Hmmm.RyQ_TMC said:
"But here we go: I think that "justice and rightousness" does not essentially mean "always save the damsel in distress" in those settings. Many of the game/book/film-worlds are settings where death is a daily occurence, and a common penalty for many crimes, even ones considered "petty" nowadays. Whereas it's treated as such in all too many stories."
While I can agree on the settings being dangerous and such, the protagonist is often supposed to be the goodly hero and save everything from evil and corruption etc. I'm not saying that the settings themselves are not bright and shiny themselves.
Ohh, WFRP? Were you going to run a play by post game or just asking around?
I think I had another point but it has slipped my mind.
I remember that you get -2 reputation (which is not the same as alignment) for rescuing Viconia from the Flaming Fist in BG1, and I think it's similar in BG2 - people would see you with a Drow and assume your evil. But even here, as much as it hurts me to say it, there is reason behind that and the common folk aren't acting out of pointless prejudice. Remember that the Drow are - or at least, were back in the happy days of AD&D 2nd ed. - evil by definition, and happy to engage in genocide if they were allowed to. Of course, here you had justifiable prejudice against an innocent person, so well... at least there was a stab at an actual conflict in there.hittite said:
With regards to Joan of Arc, they were just looking for a reason to kill her instead of returning her for ransom, which I believe was customary with captured enemy commanders. It was ugly business. But how does that tie into the topic?
I was looking for opinions on the 3rd edition (I'm still a bit skeptical about it...). I've never tried play by post, although I would be happy to try.FelixFox. said:
I had to watch a movie in social studies, and I can no longer think if that and not laugh.Greyfox105 said:
The "victims" statement is court is rocking back and forth going, "Murrrrderrraahh!" and being possessed makes them slowdance. It was freaking hilarious.
Well, in the fictional universe, I think it depends on the rules of the universe. You have to establish a context. In the aforementioned WH4K and Dragon Age (haven't played the latter), if using magic actually draws from dark powers and has side effects to it that always cause more harm then benefit, then yes, outlawing magic is reasonable. Even burning at the stake is reasonable if said magic has does something like drive the person who uses it incurably insane and causes them to go on a bloodthirsty rampage.
In the aforementioned Witcher example (another game I haven't played), it sounds like her being put to death was justified based on her actions, or at least that's how I read what you were saying.
Personally, I really wish we'd let that whole "Burn the witch" thing die. Sure, it was significant back in the Puritan days, but overuse has boiled it down to boring and trite.
In the aforementioned Witcher example (another game I haven't played), it sounds like her being put to death was justified based on her actions, or at least that's how I read what you were saying.
Personally, I really wish we'd let that whole "Burn the witch" thing die. Sure, it was significant back in the Puritan days, but overuse has boiled it down to boring and trite.
That is a good take on the whole wtch-burning bit, mixed in with a bit of lovely, lovely racism.RyQ_TMC said:
She was burned for the charge wearing men's clothes? What a shame.
I played it once before, not sure if it was 3rd addition but I certaintly remember having fun.
Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you (the original poster) may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.RyQ_TMC said:
I didn't see it as a black-and-white situation actually... the people were trying to burn the witch because she had cast some spells on her, true. But the hero did have reason to save her, as she was had been a nice person to him beforehand and helped him with Alvin and other things.
Also, her side of the story is that she didn't do all the things she was being accused of, but the villagers themselves were responsible. I really didn't like the villagers after the part where it was implied that the priest's daughter was raped and got pregnant, but then got thrown out by her father for doing it. I believe you could see her suicided corpse in the crypt afterwards.
Although saving her is clearly not the white situation, because it is implied that she likes to play pranks on the villagers (she herself admitted to having put a spell on some random guy for the lulz). Also, I felt bad for having to murder all the villagers, even the innocent ones.
Also, her side of the story is that she didn't do all the things she was being accused of, but the villagers themselves were responsible. I really didn't like the villagers after the part where it was implied that the priest's daughter was raped and got pregnant, but then got thrown out by her father for doing it. I believe you could see her suicided corpse in the crypt afterwards.
Although saving her is clearly not the white situation, because it is implied that she likes to play pranks on the villagers (she herself admitted to having put a spell on some random guy for the lulz). Also, I felt bad for having to murder all the villagers, even the innocent ones.
In conclusion, I think a burn the witch scenario can be done well by a skilled writer.
In The Witcher it was basically that a priest, backed by a few influential people, wanted to put her to death at stake for summoning a demon who kills villagers, trading in poisons and using voodoo equivalent on someone. While she was claiming that the demon came because of the villagers' evil deeds and claimed that many ugly crimes had been commited. It was basically the villagers' word against hers. Arguments could be made for both sides. For me, it was the unequivocal evidence that she had summoned the demon that made it. But later, the game arbitrarily stated that being on her side was "good" and on the villagers' side was "evil".RJ Dalton said:
In Dragon Age, mages aren't outright put to death, but they are killed if possessed by a demon or if they don't submit to the control of the local Church equivalent.
I've yet to play DA:O, but I was under the impression that mages in that universe were portrayed as legitimately dangerous, and that neither side was given any particular moral high ground by the writers. And I have very little experience with Warhammer, but it seemed to me that all the sides were fairly evil in their own way.RyQ_TMC said:
Really, for any universe where mages and witches are persecuted, you can name one that sets them as mysterious and respected. As far as unimaginative writing goes, well... I don't know if one particular trope can be such a problem. Crappy writers will be crappy writers, regardless of what badly thought-out cliches they use.
Tzekelkan said:
Now I admit that I was kinda looking hard for arguments against her after saving her was arbitrarily declared the "good" choice in chapter 4... But as far as I remember, she was the only one who claimed that the girl had been raped... And she was also the one who sold her the poison.
My main point was that she was the one who summoned the Beast. She was the only one in the village capable of such magic and it was implied that the Beast was originally her dog, who was killed by one of the villagers.
Oh, and she was also a member of a murderous cult, but there is no information on that before the attempted execution.
My main point was that she was the one who summoned the Beast. She was the only one in the village capable of such magic and it was implied that the Beast was originally her dog, who was killed by one of the villagers.
Oh, and she was also a member of a murderous cult, but there is no information on that before the attempted execution.
The Witcher the biggest offender? I always let her burn, part of the Witcher code not to get involved, engaging the entire village in combat is not seen as a good thing as it goes directly against the code, the best way to play is to stay neutral throughout which is difficult but rewarding. As for making you feel guilty for it as if you had done something evil, well... i did just sleep with her then leave her to get burnt at the stakes so yeah it is an "evil" outcome, just part of the beauty of the game. The game doesn't say it's strictly a evil outcome more just letting you know that your actions have concequences and is tapping into the guilt you should feel or choose to ignore in the version of Geralt you decide to create. Every time you had to make a decision there would always be a good and a bad outcome, - letting her burn to avoid bloodshed = good - the guilt over letting someone who turns out is innocent = bad, sorry to go on for a bit off topic but this game was special, still none that beat it in its field in my no doubt outnumbered opinion.
RyQ_TMC said:
I checked it up on the [a href=http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Abigail]Witcher Wiki[/a] to see where it was that you say the game decided to label the situation as good/evil and realized for me it hadn't, as I had saved her.
Anyway, I think it wasn't her that summoned the Beast. The journal entries in the beastiary state that it can appear wherever dishonest people live, and I saw a lot of corruption in that village and I understood Abigail is innocent. However, the whole thing is only made out from vague notes and stuff people implied and visual clues you find yourself (like the body in the crypt or the armor of the dead brother in the fat guy's house which Geralt mentions as being suspicious).
That's why I loved the story in that game: it wasn't at all black-and-white morality as all moral choice games have and you were never sure of your actions. I think I did what was best and you did what you liked, and we're both convinced we were right. I don't see this as a sign of a lazy writer at all, I see it as beautiful.
Anyway, I think it wasn't her that summoned the Beast. The journal entries in the beastiary state that it can appear wherever dishonest people live, and I saw a lot of corruption in that village and I understood Abigail is innocent. However, the whole thing is only made out from vague notes and stuff people implied and visual clues you find yourself (like the body in the crypt or the armor of the dead brother in the fat guy's house which Geralt mentions as being suspicious).
That's why I loved the story in that game: it wasn't at all black-and-white morality as all moral choice games have and you were never sure of your actions. I think I did what was best and you did what you liked, and we're both convinced we were right. I don't see this as a sign of a lazy writer at all, I see it as beautiful.
King Henry VIII (Mary's father) started the reformation. He made Lutheranism the main religion of England, and hundreds, if not thousands of people died for wanting to stay catholic. King Henry was much worse than Mary.Jaranja said:
