Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I chose to kill both parties involved. The knights and the vampires both had to die to ensure that neither could exert influence over the girl. The knights claim she's under some kind of vampiric spell of coercion. The vampires claim she's not, and is there by her own choice.
If you side with the knights, you are forcing the girl to do what's politically expedient to benefit her brother and marry against her will. If you side with the vampires you are forced to take them at their word, that there is no coercion involved and that she simply likes being a ♥♥♥♥♥. They could be lying. It's 50/50.
The only reasonable thing to do is let the confrontation happen by initally accepting the vampiric sex bribe, then opting to stay out of it once the knights show up. Both parties will slaughter eachother and the Blue Eyed Girl will absolutely hate your guts after it's over. But, at least you can rest easy knowing she's free to live her life as she sees fit. Start a new life, or go back to whoring, either way, you did your part.
Because I believed they were lying. They woudn't have tried to bribe me otherwise. Moreover, I don't believe in consensual transactions between humans and vampires. Vampires by their very nature prey on humans first with with unnatural beauty as a lure, then with trances to keep them coming back for more. People entering the brothel may have thought they were going there for a consensual transaction, though I wonder if their families felt that way once they bankrupted themselves on all the subsequent visits afterward? Furthermore, I don't condone the spread of a disease that will make the bearer as dependent as the prey. Geralt didn't either, which is why he killed the Bruxa that was preying on Nivellin in "The Last Wish" despite it being a "consensual relationship" according to both parties.
The only thing I'm certain of with the knights is that her brother would have tried to marry her off to someone she did not want to marry, which despite being against her will is not the moral equivalent of being forced into prostitution. In this case, the union would have been short anyway since he was old and infirm, and she and any potential children would have at least stood to inherit something in the end.
Both were the wrong choice though, so I ensured her freedom.
Geralt had a vampire friend who was a higher vampire. Also if you kill the vampires Blue Eyes runs away again meaning they were probably telling the truth. It was common back then to marry young women to old men for prestige or money. Also killing them just because they're vamps makes you no different than the people who hate witchers for being mutants. The fact is there is no evidence of them killing anyone or taking blood without permission except for the word of the Order who are bigoted by defualt.
Irrelevant, Geralt has amnesia and didn't know any of these vampires from Adam, moreover that Vampire gave up feeding, these did not. Blue Eyes running away doesn't indicate anything other than she's rightly horrified after a horrifying experience. Killing them gives her the choice to reject her wickedness or continue to revel in it.
Vampires are parasites who prey on humans, Witchers are not. These are not even remotely moral equivalents. The Order > Vampires. What the Order wants is better for the girl than a life of prostitution.
She would choose (if she were sensible) marrying the man to remain a virtuous woman, which again is its own reward. She may hate her husband, but she will love her children. She will have something to look on and be proud of in her old age if she does right by them as a mother and they will love her for it. Genuine love, not the kind bought with gold.
This requires her to eschew instant gratification and look to the future, something youths are notoriously poor at, even when they are not being puppeted. The Order is better because the result is unambiguously better. We also have nothing but her word to say this man she's betrothed to marry is dreadful, which again could have just as easily have been an over-exaggeration or another implanted falsehood. Even if it's all true, and he doesn't appeal to her juvenile sense of attractiveness, love can grow over time. If not, then he will die and she will be heir to his property and will have an extended family to see to her needs.
Some contentions:
They were hiding that they're vampires. Even when questioned, the head vampire is evasive and tries to pretend that anything could have caused the bite wounds. The Order had no idea about it, if they did, as you said, they would have cleared them out themselves because they take on the duty of monster slaying pro-bono.
The fact is she will be forced to be a vampire for the rest of her existence once she makes that choice. I would suggest that since she is in the morning of her life, she has no idea what is actually desirable long-term. That's putting aside if she's being mind-controlled.
The brother is arranging the marriage to benefit all parties involved. The base assumption the game is trying to persuade you to accept is that because the man is older and wants to marry a young woman that he is disgusting or vile or will mistreat her by default. This is meant to illicit a negative response from modern audiences, to lead the player to make certain assumptions based on nothing more than the word of characters who are known to be liars.
Marriages and relationships aren't failing because people are having kids too young. The contrary, they're too old by the time they have them (if they have them at all) and more importantly, have been through too many prior romantic partners making them incapable of fidelity in mind or body. Monetary concerns are not a good reason to not have kids. Provided you're capable of feeding, sheltering and loving them, that is sufficient.
The will of God is a complicated matter. Personal freedom is not the ultimate virtue, rather faith and righteousness. The narrow path often involves you sacrificing your immediate pleasure and putting your fate in the hands of the Lord, or in her case, the hands of her brother who might actually know what's best, despite the game not showing it. Anyway, theology is beyond the scope of the conversation. Suffice it to say, "Virtue" in the Witcher is close enough to the Medieval western idea of it, sans the higher power.
For my part, there is no circumstance where a life of prostitution is better than being a mother. I think Geralt, having spent most of his life on the road, homeless, longing to have a family, would know that instinctively, even though he is often prone to bouts of cynicism. In my youth, I chose to go further and ensure that she'd be free of all influence except her own, but now that I'm older, even the in the few years between my old post and this one, I'm not convinced I'd make the same choice again.
Have a good Christmas.
also to make it more interesting our views on marriage are also different.
I think the exact opposite to what you said in this comment.
my beliefs are also exact opposite to yours in the comment.
No matter how different our beliefs and views are
In my opinion I believe all beliefs and views should be respected and not forced to anyone. Anything that is forced is never good no matter what it is.
I also wish you happy Christmas ,
If you need my earlier comments in the future in case you forget the point you were trying to make with the earlier comments , I can send them to you as private message as I have a backup.
Feel free to do whatever you feel is best. I take no offence either way. I will leave my comments up, even if they no longer make sense. I think people will be able to tell I was replying to someone even if the posts are gone. Beside that, the posts I made will help me to see how my own views on this quest changed over time. For what it's worth, I think you made fine arguments, ones I would have made myself in the past, even if I no longer hold to them.