Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with summoning the Beast is, as you say, that the game seems to imply that it could arise all by itself. Whereas one of the fundamental laws of the Witcherverse - in fact, a major plot point in the very first Witcher story written years ago - is that spells do not cast themselves. While most of the "mook" monsters you encounter are actually part of the ecosystem, so to speak, the Beast must have been summoned by someone, if you follow the rules set by the books. I considered the game 'verse to be the same as the one I read about before, and following the same rules. The creators might have dropped some of those rules for sake of story and gameplay. If they did drop the "spells don't cast themselves" rule, then I agree that the Beast may have arisen out of wickedness, and then the odds are a bit in Abigail's favor, although I still regard her as being as bad as the villagers, morality-wise.
I thought most people were hanged for been suspected for witchcraft and not burned. Still during the middle ages people tend to be jumpy about anything they didnt understand and they didnt understand a lot of things back then
yes, the mob is "good" for killing somebody who is different. A group of people always knows what they are doing because they are a group right? And even if the witch was indeed a witch, we wouldn't want to use their potentially usefull and unique powers to benifit society or heaven forbid teach us how to do it ourselves. Better to blindly kill this person innocent or not in the most painful way possible and remain blissfully ignorant in our stupidity. Better a murderer then a hero or becomeing enlightend of the situation or the reasons why this person is being put to death. I completly understand your logic and agree.....well ok not really.
OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.
Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.
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.
Simply spitting on a crucifix was enough to condemn you for witchcraft in the dark ages, where any unusual act was viewed as quite clearly satanic. I'd like to see all who believe there's a devil deep down, actively working to dethrone some heavenly king, burned at the stake. Someone should avenge the countless innocents they slaughtered.
Going past the stupidity of witch-hunts back in the stupid ages, which was more about murdering free-thinking women and pagan beliefs more than stopping heresy or "witchcraft".
In a fictional world where magic exist, yes, the story needs to explain why the culture would want to "burn the witch" and why someone would want to save them. Dragon Age did do a great job in explaining the dangers of magic in their world and the prejudices of the Church that demonized Mages. There was pros and cons to both sides, and playing as a Mage, I obviously believe the Templars are jackasses.
yes, the mob is "good" for killing somebody who is different. A group of people always knows what they are doing because they are a group right? And even if the witch was indeed a witch, we wouldn't want to use their potentially usefull and unique powers to benifit society or heaven forbid teach us how to do it ourselves. Better to blindly kill this person innocent or not in the most painful way possible and remain blissfully ignorant in our stupidity. Better a murderer then a hero or becomeing enlightend of the situation or the reasons why this person is being put to death. I completly understand your logic and agree.....well ok not really.
Read the first post again. There is no argument that "it's good because a group does it" or that "the witch is inherently evil" or whatever you are implying. All I'm saying is that in a fictional setting where magic is real and dangerous, a spellcaster might be put to death for a justifiable reason, like you know, unleashing a demon who went on a rampage and killed 50 innocent people? I'm expecting the author to show WHY we are supposed to sympathize with the spellcaster, instead of just saying "well y'see, she's a witch and she's been sentenced to death, so she's OBVIOUSLY a victim of society here." I'm completely happy with rescuing said witch if it is indeed a right thing to do.
Also, while this is not clear from the first post, I'm not talking about a lynch mob burning a witch specifically. I am speaking of many situations which crop up in fiction where a spellcaster is being put to death - by whatever means - and it is by default understood as an innocent person being murdered by bloodthirsty fanatics.
Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with summoning the Beast is, as you say, that the game seems to imply that it could arise all by itself. Whereas one of the fundamental laws of the Witcherverse - in fact, a major plot point in the very first Witcher story written years ago - is that spells do not cast themselves. While most of the "mook" monsters you encounter are actually part of the ecosystem, so to speak, the Beast must have been summoned by someone, if you follow the rules set by the books. I considered the game 'verse to be the same as the one I read about before, and following the same rules. The creators might have dropped some of those rules for sake of story and gameplay. If they did drop the "spells don't cast themselves" rule, then I agree that the Beast may have arisen out of wickedness, and then the odds are a bit in Abigail's favor, although I still regard her as being as bad as the villagers, morality-wise.
Hmm, yes, now I see what you mean. I read The Last Wish just recently, but seeing as I played the game quite a while ago, I didn't make the connection. You've given me quite something to think about there. What you're saying makes sense, as in the book the King was worried that the Striga curse was caused by his inbreeding but Geralt assured him it was a spell. Nice.
Still, doesn't mean some of the villagers didn't deserve it. Although you could assume the old lady healer from Act IV didn't know Abigail wasn't innocent. Not all NPCs are all-knowing, though I admit it's a stretch.
Anyway, I plan on buying the Sword of Destiny and the other books as well when I get the chance.
I've never liked the "burn the Witch" scenario since most books classify all witches into one catagory the "evil ones/black witch craft" yet witch craft has many different catagories which authors let slide like: spirituality/original witch craft where you use the energy and environment around you to heal and accomplish goals, homeopathic medicine or alchemy (it evolved from witch craft) they just pile them all into the black witch craft toads and warts catagory and sometimes they introduce white witches (homeopathic healers that use their knowledge/magic to heal and help) and what most people don't know is that witch actually means knowledge. so i like the fact that the protagonist just rushes to help the "witch" because in most cases she/he is being burned for knowing more but i don't like the classification they use. My ancestors were witches and alchemysts so it always pisses me off when they do the white/black witch classification.
I guess they thought wizards was a load of old tosh then?
Also the burn the witch thing can be annoying I guess, when they do it they should at least make the person being burned innocent/framed/tricked by someone to get revenge.
OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.
Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.
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.
Well, at least she had a decent motive. Her father abandonned her at a very young age because... she wasn't a boy. In fact, King Henry killed all those catholics so that he could divorce Mary's mother, Queen Cathrine of Arogon. i think she might have been a bit bitter knowning that she had been hated her entire life for no better reason than the fact that she wasn't born with a penis. Thats just me though.
OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.
Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.
Now - historical accuracy of modern portrayals of those events aside - we have it hardwired into our brains that whenever there is a "burn the witch" situation in fiction, it is pretty much always an innocent female being put to death by a fanatical, bloodthirsty mob. And don't the creators LOVE to use that preconception! Any protagonist, being faced with such a situation, will give it no thought and jump into the flames to rescue the damsel in distress, possibly maiming a few members of the mob. As far as storytelling goes, this is quite lazy - the author doesn't even have to give the hero any actual reason to save the convicted, the moment we hear the words "burn the witch", we have an immediate black-and-white conflict.
Of course, in the real world, punishing anyone in any way for "practicing witchcraft" is morally wrong - for the simple reason that we don't have working magic here. And while it seems that some of the witch-burnings of the past were for things like poisoning (the effects of which could often be qualified as magic being afoot), in general we can all agree that from the point of view of a modern audience, putting someone to death for casting spells - or being a bit off the rocker and believing to be able to cast spells - is just plain wrong.
However, we aren't talking about the real world here. We are talking about fictional settings, many of which have at least one working form of magic. Now what annoys me here is that surprisingly often in those settings, you could argue that the fanatical priest who wants to put the witch to death is in fact doing a sensible thing. And yet, the creators still use the lazy excuse of "it's a witch-burning, OF COURSE she is innocent!" and don't bother to create a genuine sense of conflict there.
A few examples spring to mind. To me, the worst offender is The Witcher, where
a convincing argument can be put forward that Abigail actually deserves her punishment, yet the game arbitrarily declares rescuing her - and massacring an entire village - to be "good", and letting her die to be "evil", after a chapter full of run-of-the-mill sterotypes which set up a clear "burn the witch."
Then we have Dragon Age: Origins and the Warhammer universe, where all magic users present a danger to people by drawing their power from the world of demons (yes, I know it's not strictly the "world of demons", but let's simplify it for the sake of argument). While in WH the witch hunters and templars of Sigmar aren't portrayed as evil, they are still bloodthirsty fanatics. In DA:O, while the game goes to some lengths to show that not all Templars are trigger-happy mage-haters, their profession of hunting down rogue mages and keeping the legal ones in check is portrayed as morally wrong.
I might have lost you with all that textwalling, so let me reiterate my point: the "burn the witch" set-up, which is often used by creators of fiction to present a clear black-and-white moral conflict, has no place in fictional universes where magic is real and dangerous. If you're presenting the protagonist with a situation where a magic-user is about to be executed, give him/her an actual solid reason to defend the witch/wizard in question.
Erm... Discuss?
PS I know this topic is verging on off-top, but since I only put examples from games here (there are some from non-game works of fiction, but I guess three is enough)...
Wow. I think you are almost totally right. In Warhammer, EVERY faction is evil, but aside from that, totally right. Authors often try to put metaphors for real world problems in their fake worlds, but they often forget that the fake world operates with different physics that cause the metaphor to lose a substantital part of it's meaning. Thtat is* an excellent example of writer laziness. Never even occured to me before, but good work.
OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.
Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.
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.
Well, at least she had a decent motive. Her father abandonned her at a very young age because... she wasn't a boy. In fact, King Henry killed all those catholics so that he could divorce Mary's mother, Queen Cathrine of Arogon. i think she might have been a bit bitter knowning that she had been hated her entire life for no better reason than the fact that she wasn't born with a penis. Thats just me though.
OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.
Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.
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.
Well, at least she had a decent motive. Her father abandonned her at a very young age because... she wasn't a boy. In fact, King Henry killed all those catholics so that he could divorce Mary's mother, Queen Cathrine of Arogon. i think she might have been a bit bitter knowning that she had been hated her entire life for no better reason than the fact that she wasn't born with a penis. Thats just me though.
I've heard of it, hell, I quite like it. But it's no more trustworthy than Wikipedia (which is what I imagine they consult most of the time).
So take your throbbing fanhood elsewhere.
I've heard of it, hell, I quite like it. But it's no more trustworthy than Wikipedia (which is what I imagine they consult most of the time).
So take your throbbing fanhood elsewhere.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
