So far, the Witcher 3 seems kind of sexist

[Bombiz]

It doesn't though. It's actually one of the few games that treats it's audience as adults. It's not telling you what to think, it's crafting a realistic scenario and letting you decide for yourself.

This is a depressingly common attitude though, and it makes me wonder if games can be more than toys if so many of it's core supporters aren't willing to give more than a superficial analaysis.

I'm willing to give things more than a superficial analysis if they're not domestic abuse. Games are and can be more than toys. But I reserve my right to go 'Oh domestic abuse? Nawp'. And then not engage.
There's no reason to despair just because I personally do not like it. I don't watch films or TV with domestic abuse either, if I can help it.

That's fine. You have every right to not play the game because it tries to give a more then superficial analysis of domestic abuse. Just don't say untrue things about the game.mainly the fact that the game tries to make people sympathize with the Baron.
At least that's what I think everyone's complaints with you are? Idk.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

So if all fantasy is tedious I suggest that you don't read it and don't play video games based on it. You can try writing your own instead. Enjoy that. But quit being the "stop enjoying what I don't enjoy" type. THAT is tedious.

FYI, medieval setting, and a fantasy one at that, isn't about how advanced the technology is. It's about how advanced the society is overall. Witcher is CLEARLY set in a world inspired by medieval time. Writers often, if not always draw inspiration from real civilizations when it comes to social structures and politics. It makes the world feel like it could be a real place. You need less suspension of disbelief to immerse yourself in the world.

Before you cry "sexism" maybe you should try to actually use your head and think of the reasons why someone would create such a world and not some progressive medieval world. I know it's hard to get your of a bubble once you're in. But do try to read something every once in a while FOR FUCK SAKE before you go on your shallow crusade of ignorance. I weep for future generations if this is the best you can do when faced with something you don't like. I mean Jesus fuckin' Christ SJW's are like religious zealots at this point. There are no shades of gray with you people.

Did I say I didn't enjoy it? Did I cry sexism? I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in the argument that it was "real medieval", which the Witcher most certainly isn't. I've enjoyed both the games and the books (and A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones), so I'd appreciate if you stopped reading a little too much into my arguments and didn't use me as a stepping off point to joust the windmills in your head.

Point of order; WHICH women are sub-ordinated to men?
Ciri, the chosen one and future empress of the whole of Nilfgard (if she chooses to be so)?
Yennefer who, historically, has had Geralt dancing on a string?
Hows about the Lodge of Sorceresses as a whole, which is essentially the illuminati?
Cerys an Craite, the future Queen (if you have any damn sense in who you back)?
Ves who is subordinate to exactly one man, her commander officer, and has many men subordinate TO her?
Milva who backs the sco'iatel and soldiers on through a pregnancy to help Geralt and his group?

Could you give me an example so I know what to debate?

I was debating whatever to bring up the inconsistency of the Lodge of Sorceresses (and the general point that women tend to become more powerful magic users then men), but ultimately decided against it since I felt it was a long-winded and detail-oriented criticism in a post that was already running a bit long. It is a credit to the writers at CDPR that they stepped up their game in writing female characters over the course of the series, but the general atmosphere in all three Witcher games and the novels is one of women being distinctly oppressed, especially in regards to the frequent threats, comments and scenes of explicit or implicit sexual violence. I think you understood too, that this was my point and that the "named" women in the books and games tend to take a distinctly different role from the commoners they are portrayed amongst (just like the "named" men tend to not be illiterate peasants).

 

[Phasmal]

It doesn't though. It's actually one of the few games that treats it's audience as adults. It's not telling you what to think, it's crafting a realistic scenario and letting you decide for yourself.

This is a depressingly common attitude though, and it makes me wonder if games can be more than toys if so many of it's core supporters aren't willing to give more than a superficial analaysis.

I'm willing to give things more than a superficial analysis if they're not domestic abuse. Games are and can be more than toys. But I reserve my right to go 'Oh domestic abuse? Nawp'. And then not engage.
There's no reason to despair just because I personally do not like it. I don't watch films or TV with domestic abuse either, if I can help it.

That's fine. You have every right to not play the game because it tries to give a more then superficial analysis of domestic abuse. Just don't say untrue things about the game.mainly the fact that the game tries to make people sympathize with the Baron.
At least that's what I think everyone's complaints with you are? Idk.

I disagree that it's untrue. The game painting the situation as morally grey 'them being as bad as each other' is something I disagree with and feel that it's painting the abuser in a more sympathetic light than it should.
Just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't make it 'untrue'. I'm fine if people think it's not trying to make you feel sympathetic. That's fine.

Anyway, this thread's starting to bum me out. So I'm out. I have a horrible tendency to keep coming back to threads I shouldn't so, I won't be reading responses from this thread any more.

I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Politrukk]

First, I think just the important female NPC's look good, with the rest of the NPC's (not important ones) looking pretty mediocre, considering that those NPC's are witches who can change their looks it's not too weird, I don't see the important male NPC's as ugly either, especially Gerald and Dandelion.

I already mentioned the main character, of course you don't want the main character ugly, the main character is you. And unless a female NPC is very old, or literally a monster, they tend to be quite attractive. At the very least miles over every single other male NPC.

As for the second thing, The Baron was in the wrond for killing his wife's lover (though it mitigates when you remember he was in a war with probably has some kind of issue after it), but she was a fucking psychopath, she pretty much mentally abused him until he started hitting her plus selling her unborn baby to witch's thing (if I remember correctly). Yeah, "technically" he is the one with power, but mentally torturing your spouse is as bad as beating him. Especially as learning about him you see he tries to be a good husband and father only to be driven mad by his wife.

Everything that you cite as her being a psychopath for happened after he dismembered the man she loved in front of her. Given that the Witcher 3 takes place in a misogynistic society, she was fighting back using basically the only means she could. Those are, running away, killing him, or killing herself. All of which she tried. If someone killed someone I loved, and fed them to dogs in front of me, I can't say I'd be treating them in all that great of a manner.

I think you're looking far, far, far to deep into that line. I took that line as "Holy shit, you are both terrible people!" not "Holy shit, You are both equally at fault and terrible people". I'm just not really seeing it from my end here.

It's honestly hard to not hear the words "You two deserve each other" said about an abuse victim and her husband (Said in that context), and not interpret it as saying she deserved a husband who beat her.

Is Geralt not allowed to have backwards opinions as well about things? He's a monster killer in a a feudal fantasy world, like how progressive do you actually expect him to be?

I mean the little I've played of Witcher 3, Geralt doesn't come across as a guy who's really good with relationships. So it kinda fits the character that he would say something like that.

To draw a comparison... LA Noir would be a sexist game too, even racist. Well no shit, it's 1950s america and it's characters are flawed. Not every character needs to be a rolemodel, ya know?

EDIT: My feeling would be a little different if the game's main character was suppose to be a proxy for the player to project on to, like Fallout 3.

Geralt is generally portrayed as a good guy (Or at the very least has the option to be), though he may use iffy means to achieve those ends. Regardless, through this entire situation you've had the option to play the "good guy" taking a stand against the abuse, and treating this guy like how we would in a more modern society. You even get that option at this point too, only if you pursue it the game focuses on something that's incredibly reaching and indefensible, and you come across as stupid for suggesting it. It just doesn't seem to me like the writers think that the option that they don't deserve each other is valid.

They could have definitely done something like LA Noire, and Madmen, and then it wouldn't have bothered me. The problem is that it isn't coming across like that, and saying that it is just seems like an adhoc response to justify his actions. Even in Madmen, the show doesn't portray the actions the characters are making as positive, even if the characters do.

They deserve eachother because she cheated on him and drove him insane and he apparently developed into a psychopath because of it so she made him into what he has become due to abuse.

At least that's what I'm reading from this.

I can't quite see how people can't look beyond that it's right their in the words, SHE, MADE, HIM.

If anything not judging her is the most sexist part of all.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I'm pretty sure you're in the minority who thinks Geralt isn't an attractive male.

Perhaps. I know a few other women who think Geralt is either ugly or 'meh', none of them think he's a real panty-dropper.

--

This topic's getting into more than a little gross territory now, with such gems as 'but he loves her', 'she knew what to say to get him to hit her' (read: she hated his guts and tried to kill herself and him, making her more of a hostage than a wife, she clearly wanted out) and 'she sacrificed his baby' (read: she magically aborted the baby of her abuser because she hated him so much she literally could not bring his child into the world).

STAY. CLASSY.

(Ay, yo, I know you aren't responding any more and this is one of this things you seem to have a real personal issue with so not gonna prompt you on one and drag you down. But the whole point of what I'm assuming was plucked from my post was that Anna's not portrayed as a straight up victim. Not condoning the abuse in the least, and it never is by any character, but explaining the framing and how it isn't a flat abuser/victim relationship is what the game's shooting for rather than out and out sexism. I suspect you'd not accept any offered motives and that's totally legitimate, but we won't have a productive discussion if we simplify what's meant to be a complex situation into a right/wrong deal. Still, apologies if the discussion upset you.)

 

[Solkard]

I'm pretty sure you're in the minority who thinks Geralt isn't an attractive male.

Perhaps. I know a few other women who think Geralt is either ugly or 'meh', none of them think he's a real panty-dropper.

Reminded me of this, http://www.flixist.com/ul/198220-Penny%20Arcade%20-%20Beastly.jpg

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I actually find this refreshing in games. All too often devs feel like they need to make a point with these sorts of issues, and in doing so end up creating rather 1 dimensional scenarios and characters.

I agree, and I mentioned this in the OP as well. I liked that they didn't just turn him into a one dimensional villain. I was all onboard until the part in the game that I mentioned. He defended himself exactly how the character would, it's how the developers handled this that I took issue with.

I know there are some arguments to be made about fiction being fiction, and if your immersive dissonance can accept the existence of demons and magic, then why not accept equally-competent shieldmaidens, etc. There are, of course, exceptions to OPs cherry-picked examples of gendered stratification in The Witcher 3, such as the very empowered, non-sexualized Cerys an Craite potentially becoming the queen of Skellige (basically the Vikings). She is never nude, never squirms to be saved under duress, and is obviously the best choice for the isle's leader.

In other words, if your contemporary sensibilities can't handle the brutal realization of an uncivil fictional world that mirrors the one we lived in 7 centuries ago...

Well, just be glad that's not the world many of us live in anymore, and stop getting triggered over it. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if a roller coaster is too scary or uncomfortable to ride, there's always the merry-go-round.

I never said that the game didn't have empowered characters. Thus far, I think the game has actually been doing pretty well in that regard. And I can hardly be accused of cherry picking when I have literally not seen the characters you've mentioned yet.

You are being condescending. I've read plenty of dark fantasy where far worse happens than in the Witcher, and I haven't been "triggered" by it. Reducing my issues to being triggered is entirely disingenuous. My issue is not with the depiction of a bad and scary world, it's with the way that the developers handled this scenario.

So, let me recap.
The main reason that you are upset about the witcher 3 is the fact that you have the option to choose a dialogue choice which doesn't completely condemn an abusive husband?

Absolutely not. Having the "Deserve each other" option makes sense. Making the "Deserve each other" option the "right" option is what I take issue with.

As for the superhot babes. It's pretty much part of the source material and lore. The main female characters are all sorcerecess that change their body with magic. Did you know Yennefer originally has a hunchback? Yeah.
When you look at the normal NPC characters the female characters look at best average and most look just as ugly as the male ones.

I was chiefly talking about the normal NPCs, and there really seems to me to be a very stark difference, even between the "ugly" female characters. I don't have time to take a representative random sample of the NPCs in the game, just I have found that this:

Spoiler

Is what most of the male NPCs looked like, and this:

Spoiler

Is what most of the female NPCs looked like. If your experience was different, we're just going to have to leave it at that.

But I would wager that you aren't bothered by anything in the Witcher 3, not really. Otherwise you would have put 30+ hours into the game it would have taken to complete the Bloody Baron questline, and progress far enough into the game to visit Triss. Therefore the conclusion I've come to, is that you made this thread to stir up an SJW conversation.

I've already said multiple times in the OP that I like this game. That being said, just because I like the game doesn't mean that I have to be okay with absolutely every part of it. For instance, what I've discussed here is a problem that I have with the game. Particularly when I like a game, I care more about the parts that I don't like.

I created this thread to discuss an issue I had with the game, not to stir up drama. If you want to assume that my intentions are otherwise, you are free to do so.

---

Since people seem to be fixated on this point, I want to try again to make things clear about my stance.

I don't have an issue with this game taking place in a mysoginistic society. That in of itself doesn't make something sexist. The First Law Trilogy takes place in a sexist society, as does A Song of Ice and Fire, and I have no issue with any of those three. I've ran my own D&D games that took place in sexist societies. This doesn't bother me.

What bothers me about the quest is how the developers handled it. I like the Bloody Baron quest, and I liked how they decided to humanize what would normally be a one dimensional villain. I'd love to see more quests like it, but it was toeing a dangerous line of giving him too much sympathy. My issue with that particular part of the quest was how Geralt's options were to say "You both deserve each other", or to grasp at straws in a attempt to say that the Baron's still chiefly blame because he's responsible for her cheating, which gets immediately shot down by the Baron (Rightfully so). This conveys that the "correct" option is to say that they both deserve each other.

Why don't I accept the argument that Geralt is just supposed to be a sexist character and a byproduct of the environment? Why do I think that this speaks about what the game itself is trying to say about the situation?

Firstly, from what I've seen of Geralt, when you take the good dialogue options, he's chauvanistic and worst. They don't portray him as the kind of person who'd think that a women cheating on her husband deserves to be beaten and raped over a period of years (She was almost definitely raped, given that they had a child, and that she was so intent on getting rid of it). Maybe if you chose the evil dialogue choices, but this hardly seems in character of the good dialogue choices. I may well be wrong, I haven't seen everything there is about this character.

Secondly, and more importantly, they actually let you make the good choice. It's not like they just subject you to the response of "They deserve each other". They are very evidently saying you have a choice between thinking that her actions make her a terrible person deserving of him, and that he's still the one at fault here, and that she's not at all responsible for his actions. As I mentioned before, they turn the second response into a flimsy justification, intended to get shot down. Because of this, you can't just say that Geralt's character is sexist, because they very clearly give you the option to not make him so. They just don't appear to think much of that option.

 

[CritialGaming]

---

Since people seem to be fixated on this point, I want to try again to make things clear about my stance.

I don't have an issue with this game taking place in a mysoginistic society. That in of itself doesn't make something sexist. The First Law Trilogy takes place in a sexist society, as does A Song of Ice and Fire, and I have no issue with any of those three. I've ran my own D&D games that took place in sexist societies. This doesn't bother me.

What bothers me about the quest is how the developers handled it. I like the Bloody Baron quest, and I liked how they decided to humanize what would normally be a one dimensional villain. I'd love to see more quests like it, but it was toeing a dangerous line of giving him too much sympathy. My issue with that particular part of the quest was how Geralt's options were to say "You both deserve each other", or to grasp at straws in a attempt to say that the Baron's still chiefly blame because he's responsible for her cheating, which gets immediately shot down by the Baron (Rightfully so). This conveys that the "correct" option is to say that they both deserve each other.

Why don't I accept the argument that Geralt is just supposed to be a sexist character and a byproduct of the environment? Why do I think that this speaks about what the game itself is trying to say about the situation?

Firstly, from what I've seen of Geralt, when you take the good dialogue options, he's chauvanistic and worst. They don't portray him as the kind of person who'd think that a women cheating on her husband deserves to be beaten and raped over a period of years (She was almost definitely raped, given that they had a child, and that she was so intent on getting rid of it). Maybe if you chose the evil dialogue choices, but this hardly seems in character of the good dialogue choices. I may well be wrong, I haven't seen everything there is about this character.

Secondly, and more importantly, they actually let you make the good choice. It's not like they just subject you to the response of "They deserve each other". They are very evidently saying you have a choice between thinking that her actions make her a terrible person deserving of him, and that he's still the one at fault here, and that she's not at all responsible for his actions. As I mentioned before, they turn the second response into a flimsy justification, intended to get shot down. Because of this, you can't just say that Geralt's character is sexist, because they very clearly give you the option to not make him so. They just don't appear to think much of that option.

The problem with your stance on Geralt is that you misunderstand Geralt. At least that is my opinion based on what you are taking away from the story here. I don't know if you have read any of the books, or how much of the other games you have played, so I can't judge your opinion based on what you do and do not know about the guy.

But look at it like this. Ever notice that people don't really trust Witchers? Ever notice that when you play "nice guy" Geralt people are always a little confused and say things like, "Wow, I guess Witchers do have a heart." Or some shit along those lines.

Know why?

Geralt and other Witchers like him, are bad dudes. They are people twisted by torture and mutations, and their desire to hunt monsters is because of the monetary gain they reap from doing so, and little else. The mutations rip away their emotions and as a result they do not give a fuck about people.

And if you've read any of the books, you'll realize that Geralt is a fucking asshole. Like a big time asshole. He plays nice with people long enough to do his job, but he doesn't care about the results so long as coin lands in his pocket.

So Geralt's "You deserve each other." response utilizes his lack of truly caring about the consequences. His morality is very off-kilter and it had made him a complex man. On one hand, he isn't supposed to feel emotions, yet throughout the games it becomes clear that not only can he feel love, but he also feels empathy to an extent. What end up happening is he gets into situations like with the Baron where he wants to help, then learns that both people are fuckheads and thus gets mad at himself and at them for trying to do the right thing or care.

You deserve each other, can be heard as, Go fuck yourself, in his tone of voice.

Also I don't nessesscarilly think that this response is the "good" response. In the game there are better endings for characters than other endings, but many of them are fucked and twisted one way or the other. That response might get you a more "complete" ending, but it doesn't really mean it yields the happiest results.

Frankly I thought the game did a fantastic job with allowing the player to be "nice" Geralt, or "Ass" Geralt. More so than in the other games. And honestly, like many other people posted here, I really think you are looking for a sexist boogeyman where there isn't one.

There has to be some separation between storytelling drama without slapping a sexist label on it. People have to get kidnapped, bad shit has to happen to people, without it, there is no story.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I always got the impression that Geralt doesn't really want to be involved in the details of people's lives and personal affairs. He's really only interested insofar as how it gets him closer to finding Ciri. I think you're taking that dialogue choice and spinning it in such a way that the developers didn't intend. I read it as Geralt being dismissive of the story and disgusted with the entire situation rather than "your wife is equally as bad as you because physical and emotional violence is equally damaging." The game isn't asking you to think of the Baron as being in the right. He tells his side of the story so you can see what led to the situation becoming as dire as it did. There's always two sides to a story and typically there's a way to see how both of their perspectives developed. That's just good writing.

It sounds like you went looking for sexism and were determined to find it regardless.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

They deserve eachother because she cheated on him and drove him insane and he apparently developed into a psychopath because of it so she made him into what he has become due to abuse.

At least that's what I'm reading from this.

I can't quite see how people can't look beyond that it's right their in the words, SHE, MADE, HIM.

If anything not judging her is the most sexist part of all.

This is how I'm interpreting how the writer was trying to make us view the situation, and this is what I take issue with. As I mentioned in the OP, and Phasmal mentioned in one of her posts, there is this notion that this scene conveys that she made him beat her. That she was verbally abusive to the point he had no other choice. This not only absolves him of responsibility, but it ignores the incredibly horrifying context of their relationship. To summarize things:

- She fell in love with another man and cheated on him
- She announced her intention to leave him
- He killed the man she loved in front of her in a fit of rage and fed him to dogs (Which he admitted he was wrong to do, good for him!)
- She gets into a fit of rage and tries to kill the Baron.

Now as things go, we've established that she didn't love the Baron anymore, and that she now loathes him to the point of wanting to kill him. Over the next however many years of their marriage, she attempted to kill herself multiple times, kill him, and escape. It is very clear that she is being kept in this marriage against her will to a man who she'd rather kill herself than be with. On top of that, the Baron beats her and rapes her, resulting in her trying to abort their child.

No shit she's "emotionally abusive". She loathes this man, and she wants nothing more than to be out of this marriage. In a normal, healthy relationship, emotional abuse is terrible. When you're trapping someone in a relationship with you, beating them, and raping them, you lose the right to expect them to be nice to you.

"But he loves her" and "She knew how to push all the right buttons" are two of the prime justifications that people who engage in spousal abuse use to defend their actions. If someone is emotionally abusive, you leave them. You don't hit them. It's never an excuse, even in relationships without so much context behind them.

 

[Fox12]

Welp, thankfully I prepped a flame proof bunker for just this occasion.

But yeah, The Witcher series is kinda sexist sometimes.

I remember Geralt mentioning Yennifer's distinctive scent of lilac and gooseberries to strangers only twice, both times in the form of a question to discern her location; he's hardly "obsessed".

Spoiler: Sure

While my original comment contained hyperbole, I'm still allowed to think it's weird and creepy and it still took me out of the experience for a moment.

Oh, yes, the young woman that smelled like lavender and cream? Why, I remember smelling her two days ago. She traveled west, I think.

Spoiler

Not creepy : P

 

[EternallyBored]

Welp, thankfully I prepped a flame proof bunker for just this occasion.

But yeah, The Witcher series is kinda sexist sometimes.

I remember Geralt mentioning Yennifer's distinctive scent of lilac and gooseberries to strangers only twice, both times in the form of a question to discern her location; he's hardly "obsessed".

Spoiler: Sure

While my original comment contained hyperbole, I'm still allowed to think it's weird and creepy and it still took me out of the experience for a moment.

Oh, yes, the young woman that smelled like lavender and cream? Why, I remember smelling her two days ago. She traveled west, I think.

Spoiler

Not creepy : P

It's something I've noticed with some older movies and books that recognizing someone by scent is considered romantic, nowadays it seems to be more associated with creepy behavior as it's generally portrayed as something stalkers and obsessed people do. In the case of the Witcher though, it might just be kind of a clunky way to demonstrate Geralt's superior senses, his sense of smell is supposed to be pretty advanced.

Could also be a language thing, it reads like something that likely sounded more romantic or normal in polish but lost some of the context being translated to English.

 

[Amaror]

Absolutely not. Having the "Deserve each other" option makes sense. Making the "Deserve each other" option the "right" option is what I take issue with.

Now you're just grasping at straws here. None of the dialogue choices are clearly "right" or "wrong". Of course the bloody baron shoots geralts reply down when geralt chooses the "It's still all your fault"-option. That's what people tend to do when they pour their heart out to you about the dreadfull choices they make and you reply aggressively without any understanding.
Still doesn't make any of the choices more "right" than the other.

I was chiefly talking about the normal NPCs, and there really seems to me to be a very stark difference, even between the "ugly" female characters. I don't have time to take a representative random sample of the NPCs in the game, just I have found that this:

...
And?
Sure the guys won't win any beaty-contests anytime soon, but the girl isn't that attractive either. She doesn't look bad, but she's certainly not a "superhot babe".
In fact both of the guys seem to be pretty well proportioned in the chest and torso area. The only really "ugly" thing about them is that one guys haircut, otherwise I don't think they look really that bad.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Out of respect for your not having played more of Witcher 3 (and a desire to avoid spoiling future events) I'd like to focus on the two choices that you're focusing on in this particular segment.
First of all, you do have the option to simply not listen to any of this. I do recall a dialogue choice that has Geralt telling the Baron that he's not interested in listening to his justifications. I found that choice quite refreshing because while the devs obviously put a lot of time and effort into writing all that dialogue and animating the accompanying scenes, they were still willing to give players the option to simply sidestep the whole debate and continue with the game. And that's a great thing. The devs could have easily forced the player to sit through all the dialogue and the accompanying murkiness but they didn't. They let the player skip all that in-game.
Secondly, I do recall a third dialogue option that has Geralt saying something along the lines of 'Not my business to get involved' even after listening to the whole story from the Baron. That too was a refreshing option to see. The game doesn't force the player to pick a side. It gives the option to say 'No comment'. More games need options like this rather than forcing players to declare for one side or the other.

Thanks for avoiding spoilers. Looked it up, and it turns out you're right. There was a third option where you can just wipe your hands of the business, but admittedly that doesn't really change much to me.

There was clearly a lot of thought and care put into the questline. The Baron was a thoroughly fleshed out character. The entire time I was going through this quest, I was enjoying it, though there was a nagging worry of just how sympathetic they'd try to make the Baron in the end. And they ended up taking it in a direction I feared they would.

The problem with your stance on Geralt is that you misunderstand Geralt. At least that is my opinion based on what you are taking away from the story here. I don't know if you have read any of the books, or how much of the other games you have played, so I can't judge your opinion based on what you do and do not know about the guy.

But look at it like this. Ever notice that people don't really trust Witchers? Ever notice that when you play "nice guy" Geralt people are always a little confused and say things like, "Wow, I guess Witchers do have a heart." Or some shit along those lines.

Know why?

Geralt and other Witchers like him, are bad dudes. They are people twisted by torture and mutations, and their desire to hunt monsters is because of the monetary gain they reap from doing so, and little else. The mutations rip away their emotions and as a result they do not give a fuck about people.

And if you've read any of the books, you'll realize that Geralt is a fucking asshole. Like a big time asshole. He plays nice with people long enough to do his job, but he doesn't care about the results so long as coin lands in his pocket.

So Geralt's "You deserve each other." response utilizes his lack of truly caring about the consequences. His morality is very off-kilter and it had made him a complex man. On one hand, he isn't supposed to feel emotions, yet throughout the games it becomes clear that not only can he feel love, but he also feels empathy to an extent. What end up happening is he gets into situations like with the Baron where he wants to help, then learns that both people are fuckheads and thus gets mad at himself and at them for trying to do the right thing or care.

You deserve each other, can be heard as, Go fuck yourself, in his tone of voice.

I looked up a playthrough of the game online, and that dialogue option expands out to "You're right, fault on both sides. Hers and yours". So he's not absolving himself of the situation, he's agreeing with the Baron's take, which very much centers around the notion that though he shouldn't have hit her, she was at least partially responsible by goading him into it. It's different than I originally thought from the "You deserve her" comment, but it's still condoning a whole lot given the context I've discussed surrounding their relationship, as well as giving a troubling take on spousal abuse. Though it's worth noting, I'm not bothered too much by this being an option in the first place, it's how the other option is handled that gives rise to my issue.

Also I don't nessesscarilly think that this response is the "good" response. In the game there are better endings for characters than other endings, but many of them are fucked and twisted one way or the other. That response might get you a more "complete" ending, but it doesn't really mean it yields the happiest results.

When I say good response, I mean less in regards to results, but more in regards to what it says about the person who said it. A good option might end up having terrible consequences. I've tried to explain why a good character wouldn't swallow the Baron's justification, hence I consider the latter one to be the 'good option'.

Frankly I thought the game did a fantastic job with allowing the player to be "nice" Geralt, or "Ass" Geralt. More so than in the other games. And honestly, like many other people posted here, I really think you are looking for a sexist boogeyman where there isn't one.

There has to be some separation between storytelling drama without slapping a sexist label on it. People have to get kidnapped, bad shit has to happen to people, without it, there is no story.

Overall yeah, they did a good job giving the player options. Which made this one stick out all the more. There absolutely can be a separation between drama and sexism. I've read many books that I think depict bad situations with sexist characters and societies well, even ones where the protagonist themselves isn't innocent, and I think many of them are totally fine.

You're free to think that, and I at least appreciate that you've been far less condescending than the other people in this thread who've accused me of just looking for things to be sexist.

 

[CaitSeith]

What bothers me about the quest is how the developers handled it. I like the Bloody Baron quest, and I liked how they decided to humanize what would normally be a one dimensional villain. I'd love to see more quests like it, but it was toeing a dangerous line of giving him too much sympathy.

If that's true, then I think that's a pretty realistic approach. Home abuse is done by people who look like everyday normal persons, dealing with an imperfect marriage (something that the mayority of the married people relates to, because no marriage is perfect). You see their good side in public, and you wouldn't ever think them capable of doing such horrible things to their spouces in private. What would you do if you discover a long-time friend or a member from your family was that kind of person? (and that you knew they had their problems, but never suspected something so extreme). I know that isn't the part you have issues with, but I wanted to point this out.

EDIT: I certainly have to play these games. This story alone seems pretty interesting.

 

[Casual Shinji]

the Baron beats her and rapes her

brutally beats her, rapes her

Wait... rapes her? Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I don't believe it was ever claimed or suggested in the game that he raped his wife.

 

[CritialGaming]

You're free to think that, and I at least appreciate that you've been far less condescending than the other people in this thread who've accused me of just looking for things to be sexist.

You sir, are welcome .

Still though, no game is perfect, and no story can completely avoid falling under sterotypical tropes sexist or racist or whatever. So taking one thing, one story thread from a piece of work as big as the Witcher 3 is bound to make a lot of people here roll their eyes at you.

Are you familiar with the "seven storys" thesis? If not I recommend at least reading the wiki on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots

Basically what it says is that of all the stories every told, they are only variations of seven basic concepts. So within those limiting seven concepts there is an endless (theoretically) variations that can be built upon those seven concepts, however every story ever told ultimately falls under those seven categories. So take that into account in the Witcher 3, look at all those short stories through out that entire game...and really it is remarkable that small writing team could make the game so interesting.

However that being said, there are bound to be plot points that aren't handled perfectly. Like your Baron example. But that shouldn't be used to take away from the body of the work itself. After all, you wouldn't slam a burger for it's pickles right?