@oldmanmadmax: "I didn't quite advocate for never working to bring justice. I simply said that it should be handled through democratic processes whenever possible."
Don't get me wrong... I 100% support this statement...
Well, then your Geralt don't differ so much from mine as you may think. My approach is always the same, protect everyone, save everyone (specially monsters and other mystical beings who can be saved in one way or the other), never harm no one if possible. The diplomatic approach is always my first move.
"To give a real world example..."
I also agree with you on this one. I would understand the situation but you summon a logical point of view. Revenge is not justice.
"In the case of Ciri..."
In the case of Ciri they not even want a witcher help you may add. But in this case the witcher has the upper hand, the knowledge and the power to solve the problem. They should wait and not act no matter the justification. I understand the call for the proper authorities, but you are forgetting a minor fact that changes everything, you live in a different world, with a different kind of justice and authorities. If Ciri do nothing, no justice will be served... and the monsters will remain...
"There comes a point when people must step outside of the own sense of justice and acquiesce to the rest of society..."
Have to disagree... especially when the rest of society acts like an enraged mob. The sense of right or wrong is not that hard to separate as some people like to portray. Grey areas exist, don't get me wrong, but most of the time (90%) are just evil actions with a good justification behind.
When it comes to dictators, tyrants and other ones similar in ways or methods, I still believe that they know exactly what they are doing, I believe that they simply don't care. That derives directly into the empathy level of each individual. They can camouflage their actions in a sense of purpose, a sense of human destiny or divine guidance, it doesn't matter... Putin knows exactly the monster he is, but for him is just another Thursday. He is adapted to this reality of "no consequence for your actions", total power with no inside adversary.
Had Europe stood with Ukraine directly in the conflict, no restraints whatsoever, the "monster" no longer be as powerful, his spread would have stopped, and we would be talking about something different than what we have right know. Now we have a ton of death people, Russia in foreign space, no real force to fight back, and the only force able to do something will probably allow Putin to win... thats what happens when people do nothing to stop monsters...the monsters don't stop...
First of all let me just say I appreciate the time and effort of your reply. I still disagree with you, but you explained in a way you won my respect.
As may be obvious by now, Alan Moore is the one I know best, but my knowledge of his work is tainted by people interpretation of his work (the movies/directors), the only source material I read from him was Watchmen.
"crusading or avenging heros"
The problem with any study or thesis is the amount of variables you can find in your research. Even when talking about superheroes, there a ton of them, and every one of them have a set of personal values that define their actions and their purpose. There is a difference between a hero that is "taking justice into their own hands", and the one that is defending someone and in that action kills or harms someone. Keep in mind that in my understanding of a superhero comes always from a perspective of protection and defence, never as an offensive or preventive measure.
In my mind the problem is always the preventive action, because there is no measure for something that may never happen.
"Do you really think that totalitarian fascists see themselves as the bad guy?"
I believe that all human beings have a perception about good and evil. Its in their nature to embrace or to disregard that perception. So yes, I believe that fascists see themselves as the bad guy, they simply choose to ignore it.
"Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler"
Yes... you are right. But you are talking about monsters, and like I told you before, most of the times the difference between a hero and a villain is not the destination, it's the process. Same can be applied in reverse... a man found a cure for cancer, yet he tortured 1 million people, did the most cruel experiences with them. But now he found a cure and will save millions forever. Its a hero? A villain? To me he is a villain... to some he may be a hero... can you see the irony? And how I shift into Alan Moore "Watchmen" view of the world...
But a hero need to be something more, to do things in the right way, even if the outcomes is not perfect.
The very core of any society lies on a set of values, laws and principles. Like it or not, democracy relies in the opinion of the many against the few. Majority wins, and majority dictates the future. It is the individual opinion that flows into a river of a group sense that finds a person/group that embodies that vision. To be ok or not with fascism relies entirely of which group/person and ideology you defend.
I agree with the power of the people to destroy regimes, I also believe in the power of the people to control economies, but that's a different matter,what I also believe is in human fragility, in fear, hate, illiteracy, greed... and so on... I believe in two powerful forces, love and hate, but I believe that while everyone want love to succeed, hate is the most powerful group tool.
The Captain America bit:
Let me put things on perspective. I never cared about Cap from the comics, his representation as Captain "America" always struck me as one sided. I´m Portuguese, the influence of external countries are irrelevant for us, we have our own set of values as one country with a ton of history. But Captain America from the Marvel movies, the Cap Chris Evans perfectly portrays, changed my view of the character and put him as my favourite hero hands down. I like the idea of a hero who will do the right/honourable thing no matter the consequences. It's not about the greater good, its about what is right. Obviously, what is right for one person may be the wrong thing for another person, but in the movies, everything he does is what I consider the right thing to do. A hero must protect the weak, never the strong. But that doesn't mean that the strong are the villain or that the week are the saint. Its all about context, variables and knowledge. Cap has a handicap, most of the times he sees the immediate problem, he acts in the moment, don't project the future, and I love this. To do the right thing you can´t look the outcome, you should not have any doubt, it is what is.
"went so far as to paint those who wanted to reign him in and place him under the authority of a democratically appointed committee as evil, petty, and self serving"
He explains way more than that. Captain´s core is to act if necessary and then be judged by it. Now lets think about it... America, Russia, China... and lets add, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine...Just to use a today's analogy... Do you think you could act in honest way with those countries controlling your actions? Personal interests are oldest/new reality... Cap don't want those interests to be the ones dictating his actions... seems logical to me. But at the same time, you need some sort of control, (who watches the watchmen?), and that's what makes the argument so compelling, and that's why you have reason in both sides.
Geralt:
"He's not looking to impose his will."
Mine too... And that's why I disagree with you. There is a difference to impose your will or to stop you from doing harm to another. You want to hang yourself? Ok, my Geralt will save you one time (because he doesn't knows what you are doing), if you do it again, its your choice...
My Geralt knows monsters, so he knows more about one specific topic than "normal" people, and as person with high level of knowledge he has a more effective action. No folklore, no dogmas, no restrains... he acts when needed. The outcome, after everything resolved is up to people...
You can see in this trailer people acting out of fear, out of customs, culture... Ciri solved their problems, so she helped the entire village, killing that woman was not necessary, it was their choice, they become the monsters (no matter justification),killing monsters is what Witchers do... unless we can only say that animals or deformed beings are monsters. If something time proves again and again, is that there are no bigger monster than human beings.
"He's the true embodiment of a democratic society..."
Yes... When you consider that democracy is the acceptance of all difference/opinions and actions no matter the consequence. And that's not democracy, because, just to point an example between others, justice is essential in a democratic plain.
Let me end with this statement. I know the quote has some flaws, like human nature itself, but it contains the essence of what I mean.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing"
@zalos: "However, when faced with idiots like that guy..."
I get it... when facing these kind of people (on the extreme) we tend to go to the other extreme. But that's when they win, when they take us into more extreme views. That way no one is right...
@oldmanmadmax: "How can you say that the Geralt from the games..."
I was not talking in absolute terms. You know the Geralt from the books and the limitations he has on a linear narrative. Geralt from the games has a bunch of alternatives to engage the same situation. My point is that even the devs shows you this in one of their trailers. Knowing that you, as the gamer, are the one defining your own path. That's why I love the games, you are not constrained to the original writer view of Geralt.
"The cinematic of him..."
You can applied the same logic as before. Geralt could choose to ignore the situation or not. Vesemir seems ready to do it, Geralt don't. By saying this I do not meant that we should go that path, its a choice... this one in line with my view.
"he's no avenger or crusader"
Really? Are you sure? That's the irony of the situation. I agree he is not a crusader, and avenger is not his style, but maybe some player out there loves that vision of Geralt, and if the game allows the player to be that... why not?
"Black and white is monochromatic."
Sorry... the word monochromatic lead me into a definition of an unique colour. If is so... then yes... as I said, I strongly believe in black and white vision of life. :)
"There's a marked difference between harming someone..."
The act remains the same, the only thing that differs is the justification. And in my view you have only one valid justification to harm someone.
To do it unintentionally... and even so, its not a fully valid justification, there is a tone of variables to put in the equation... be drunk and doing something wrong unintentionally is not a valid justification (just to point an example).
"it was largely taken out of context for dramatic effect."
In a way that's the funny thing. The same statement can be explored in a vast number of interpretation having in consideration the values of the person playing the game.
An example of one quote I love the most: "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."
I know there´s a lot of people who understand this quote in a total opposite understanding of my own interpretation. And that, in a way is Great.
"Geralt's personal growth comes from..."
Well... You said it yourself "what one considers growth, another may consider regression"... That can be applied to any situation. You may think that act in a way is "becoming some Marvel goofball", some may think is to be honourable and good.
It will always lead to subjectivity. In my view Geralt growth comes with life choices and not attachment. And that happens because ( and keep in mind that I´m talking about the games not the books) he always leaned into connection with people, but always fighting it. I have a feeling I'm not explaining what I Mean correctly on this situation. English is not my mother language so I am fighting myself for better words on this topic.
"The classical model of a hero is really just a caricature for fascism."
We are losing track of the topic... ironically, and because the conversation has been civil, you got me intrigued with this view... Why do you think this?
This is also very amusing because the hero I truly like the most is Cap America (from Marvel movies, not comics).
@oldmanmadmax: "your assertion that even the Geralt from the books would slay the man in question"
Then you didn't get me. I was talking about the Geralt from the games. I never try to define the Geralt from the books. Its a linear figure in the mind of the writer. Thats up to him. I´m always talking about Geralt from the games. And by definition his options.
Go see the trailer from TW3 when they are hanging a woman on a tree and you will see what I mean.
"I'm afraid that I don't see the world through the same monochromatic prism that you seem to."
I don't know if monochromatic is the right reference. I´m more of a black and White guy... very little grey in my moral set...
"I believe that harming another out of fear for ones own survival or that of loved ones is always understandable and sometimes it's even justifiable."
Yup, I really dont go on the same direction. Harming another has no justification in my books. Unless you are defending yourself or others, but that's a very different context. Harm another out of fear is no different than harm another because of personal beliefs (religion) or other major justifications. I also don't believe in the greater good so... it is good or bad... even if good can have no good results and bad could.
"Given a choice between an evil and a lesser evil, I'd rather not choose at all."
That's exactly my point and a rationalization I agree 100%. Funny that you choose a line that goes directly in same line with my personal preference. In this trailer you dont have an evil and a lesser evil, you have two evil things, a monster and humans, the same result must be applied to both... seems logical for me.
"You're free to alter his personality all you like. I just prefer the one crafted by the original author."
That I can respect. It's a matter of choice and personal preference. I really don't like Geralt from the books, but I do love the Geralt from the games.
"what one considers growth, another may consider regression"
Agree. It's all a matter of perspective. I see growth in Geralt, Triss, Ciri... almost all characters except for Yennefer. But some people may see otherwise. But the game provides choice, so you can apply the things you like to your character. But I have to say it... if your Geralt is the same as the books... then what kind a growth does he achieved?
"I just don't think he would consider them to be monsters in that situation"
I think this is the biggest mistake you and some people like you do. You are not Geralt from the books, you're Geralt from the games. The Geralt from the books will always choose Yennefer no matter the monstrous things she would do. The Geralt from the games has the commodity to choose a different path. Same can be applied to his moral values, that obviously have a connection with the gamer moral values.
So... I dont have to consider what Geralt from the books would do, only what my Geralt (in your case your Geralt) would do... and my Geralt would kill them no mercy mode.
"Lashing out at others out of fear isn't cruelty."
I strongly disagree...
"That's just human nature."
Cruelty is part of Human nature, but its not an excuse to use it.
"Evil is causing harm for harm's sake."
Evil is way more than that... way, way more than that...
"he doesn't go out of his way to try and save the world nor does he strive to bring justice to those that have done wrong."
Well... my Geralt does... in TW3 he is no longer the man a play in TW1. It is called character growth.
@oldmanmadmax: "my own morality aligns with Geralt's from the books"
Interesting... My morality aligns far away from Geralt from the books. In the game it was a fresh start for him, and that fresh start is aligned with a new (or not) morality. The one expressed by the player.
That's why Yennefer is a no no for me... LOL
"I don't think that the ass that stabbed that girl was the kind of monster that Geralt would strike down with impunity."
My Geralt would... LOL... Maybe that's the reason that Ciri actions in the trailer just feel right for me.
"She definitely comes across like a self-righteous crusader. Male or female, that personality trait gets on my nerves."
I see it the other way. Not doing nothing is the unacceptable thing. They killed a girl out of fear, thats the definition of a monster... and you know, even Geralt kills these kind of monsters...
@olddadgamer: Big doubts about that... I don't see CDPR making boundaries on that matter. Its irrelevant for me, have to admit, but is a logical movement to give players the most amount of choices possible.
@oldmanmadmax: "it's in how the world will interact with you"
That is a point I can give you. Geralt as a male will provide a different approach than Ciri as a female. Even if both are Witchers the context is different. Medieval Europe... women are treated poorly. The status of respect is based on hierarchy or in row power (Witches).
But there's also a thing I know... my choices were going to be the same, Geralt or Ciri... because my moral core dont change. So... if Ciri needs to kick in the balls some "monster"... Geralt would do the same...
"you know that they'll be flirting with you"
Well... Ciri is a Witcher... I don't know if flirting will come as strongly as you think...
blindbsnake's comments