Woodland Beast Quest - SPOILER

[BONI]

Hi All

I am in a quandary how to complete the Woodland Beast Quest. In the Witcher 1 and 2 I chose what I thought was the moraly good decision and wanted to continue in the same vein with the Witcher 3. However I dont know if it is moraly good to spare the elves or kill them. If I kill them the completion log/journal says (Though the witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation, Geralt sailed according to his own moral compass. His needle pointed decidedly towards the elves' much-deserved death) Does this log entry suggest it is the right/moraly good action Or not. However If I spare them it says in the completion log (The witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation - and Geralt, feeling the pain of the elves' lot in his very marrow, duly followed that recommendation). Is this the moraly good decision because of Geralt feeling the pain of the elves. I just dont know what one is considered the just decision. killing the elves to avenge the innocents they have killed Or sparing the elves out of sorrow. If there is no GOOD or BAD way to go regardless of what the completion log states what is the lesser of two evils:)

I cant find a definitive and conclusive answer anywhere Online that helps:)

[tonypa]

Many quests in W3 are designed same way - they just do not have right or wrong options, you do not feel good or bad afterwards. If you choose one way, something bad happens to some people and if you choose other option then someone else will suffer.

In my first playthrough I avoided all the spoilers and always tried to choose good option. I can honestly tell more then once I was punished for that.

So... I suspect this is not answer you were looking for :)

[Rocknack]

It's all about choosing the lesser evil.

[thejuiceweasel]

As Tonypa said, there's really no morally unambiguous answer. This applies to quite a few quests in W3.

Part of being a witcher in a dark world like this is making choices that are hard to stomach, no matter what you do. Sometimes, everybody loses.

[BONI]

Hi All

Thanks for your input. I was just wondering about the GOOD and BAD thing because of what the completion log says for Woodland Beast. I tried it both ways SPARING the elves and then KILLING them. I wanted to be a good and just Geralt, but either way ended up feeling bad because of my decision in the quest. On KILLING the elves the log said (Though the witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation, Geralt sailed according to his own moral compass. His needle pointed decidedly towards the elves' much-deserved death) which I stated in my previous post, which made me think this was the correct (GOOD or LESSER of two evil paths). But then on my next load when I SPARED them the log said (The witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation - and Geralt, feeling the pain of the elves' lot in his very marrow, duly followed that recommendation) made it sound like that was the (GOOD and JUST) decision. I know you say there is only a lesser of two evils option, but the completion log for Woodland Beasts is confusing?

At the moment I keep loading in a save before I completed Woodland Beast and doing it either way, but Im just not satisfied with my decisions, because I feel bad either way. On this quest I am just not getting anywhere because I just cant decide. I know I should just get on with it and play the game like I did with Witcher 1 and 2. I am just a goody two shoes and like to play that way. I never like to play the baddy:)

Letting the elves get away with murder seems WRONG, because they have killed people BUT right because they are only trying to survive. Killing them seems wrong because they are only trying to survive BUT right because they have killed innocents. This will give me a headache:)

Is there anybody else that thinks the way the completion log is put for Woodland Beast is confusing. Or is it just me:)

[BONI]

Hi All

I guess it is only me that finds the completion log summary for Woodland Beast confusing then, seen as I have had no replies:)

[BONI]

Originally posted by Rocknack:

It's all about choosing the lesser evil.

In your opinion what would you say the lesser evil was for Woodland Beast Quest. I am intrigued:)

[BONI]

Hi All

Anyone?

There must be someone out there that has a view on the completion log:)

Or what people in their opinion would consider the lesser of two evils when it comes to the Woodland Beast Quest. I find the way the completion log is worded especially when you kill the elves to be confusing.

[BONI]

Hi All

I never knew I was quite this uninteresting Or unpopular:D

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by Sly Old Fox:

Hi All

Thanks for your input. I was just wondering about the GOOD and BAD thing because of what the completion log says for Woodland Beast. I tried it both ways SPARING the elves and then KILLING them. I wanted to be a good and just Geralt, but either way ended up feeling bad because of my decision in the quest. On KILLING the elves the log said (Though the witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation, Geralt sailed according to his own moral compass. His needle pointed decidedly towards the elves' much-deserved death) which I stated in my previous post, which made me think this was the correct (GOOD or LESSER of two evil paths). But then on my next load when I SPARED them the log said (The witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation - and Geralt, feeling the pain of the elves' lot in his very marrow, duly followed that recommendation) made it sound like that was the (GOOD and JUST) decision. I know you say there is only a lesser of two evils option, but the completion log for Woodland Beasts is confusing?

At the moment I keep loading in a save before I completed Woodland Beast and doing it either way, but Im just not satisfied with my decisions, because I feel bad either way. On this quest I am just not getting anywhere because I just cant decide. I know I should just get on with it and play the game like I did with Witcher 1 and 2. I am just a goody two shoes and like to play that way. I never like to play the baddy:)

Letting the elves get away with murder seems WRONG, because they have killed people BUT right because they are only trying to survive. Killing them seems wrong because they are only trying to survive BUT right because they have killed innocents. This will give me a headache:)

Is there anybody else that thinks the way the completion log is put for Woodland Beast is confusing. Or is it just me:)

It's a tough call, particularly in that quest because of the elves themselves.

Spare them, and you're doing so simply because they are elves. But the truth is they are murderers and thieves. And it is also true that they are only killing caravans bringing supplies to the Nilfgaardian troops.

So is it morally aceeptable to kill them because they are thieves and murderers? Or is it pardonable because of whom they are targeting?

It's kind of like the TV show Dexter. He's a serial killer but that's okay because he only targets and kills other serial killers. However justified, he's still a murderer.

Geralt is supposed to be neutral when it comes to politics so he's not supposed to be for or against Nilfgaard, for or against Velen, etc. Yet you know fully well that he can't help himself sometimes. He does choose a side. He does defend non-humans when they are targeted.

There is no black and white with this quest, as with many others. If you feel what they're doing is wrong, regardless of whom they are targeting, then kill them. If you feel that anything that harms Nilfgaard can't be all bad and you kind of have a soft spot for elves and other non-humans anyway, then spare them.

Thanks for the input BuzzardBee. Much appreciated. Your right though it is a tough call. I know I will never be satisfied with the way I complete Woodland Beast, because of either KILLING the elves or SPARING them, but ultimately I will have to make a decision or I wont get anywhere. I still find the completion log summary confusing for this quest. What do you think?

When I did KILL the elves I felt bad when I turned in the quest because of what the Captain said about pacifying the elves.... I think that was the right word. I didnt want the elves to suffer because of me. Then again I didnt think it right they get away with murder:)

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

I think the log views Geralt as the law enforcer. As I wrote, sparing the elves means letting them go on murdering and stealing at will. It's small comfort that they're only targeting the ones they are but they're still not innocents.

Compare that with the treatment of other elves elsewhere in the game (the woman being burned alive in her house so that thieves can steal her money, the other elves being harrassed and beaten simply because of what they are).

I take the log as saying that Geralt feels that wrong is wrong no matter the justification. Sparing the elves wouldn't seem right to him because of their actions.

In my own playthroughs, if I'm trying to have Geralt be as neutral as possible, then he has to view their actions and weigh them accordingly. Their actions in fact will bring more harm to other elves should anyone ever learn the truth.

In fact, the quest is made even more morally gray if Geralt agrees to keep their secret and then kills them anyway.

The log entry then would read:

I... Geralt promised not to betray their secret, but in the end he changed his mind. You might say, that he acted dishonorable, and you'd probably be right -- but those Scoia'tael were no innocents themselves.

If Geralt spares them:

.... The witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation -- and Geralt, feeling the pain o fthe elves' lot in his very marrow, duly followed that recommendation.

In the end, I suppose, it all comes down to just how fond you are of elves.

So would you say the completion log summary:

(Though the witcher codex would recommend charting a neutral course in such a situation, Geralt sailed according to his own moral compass. His needle pointed decidedly towards the elves' much-deserved death)

Is this moraly just Or lesser of two evils?

I was confused with the "sailed according to his own moral compass". Did it imply Moral Or Moraly wrong?

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's probably the lesser of two evils. As I wrote, the average elf going about his business yet being harrassed, beaten or even killed certainly deserves protection and if it comes to it, sparing their lives.

But these elves are another matter. They're not going about their business. They could find work. Yes, it might be difficutl given the blatant racism all about yet others manage to survive and even raise families.

These elves claim they are starving and killing these men and taking their goods is for their own greater good. It's hard to justify murder and theft when there are alternatives.

So yes, I'd say "his own moral compass" is telling Geralt that those elves had to die. What they were doing is wrong, on several levels, and placed in his hands, it was the only choice he could make.

Always in accordance with the individual player's moral compass, that is. If you really hate Nilfgaard and applaud anything that harms them, you might feel differently. You might think the elves are doing some good while feeding their own to boot.

I think the log is implying that it's morally right to kill those elves because they aren't innocents.

Thank you ever so much. If that is what the log is implying then I think the elves need to DIE!:) I will just say its nothing personal, but you need to DIE! There I go again:)

I just didnt like what the Captain said about pacifying other elves Or something like that when I chose to KILL them. That made me feel bad because I didnt want other elves to suffer because of me Or what The Woodland Beast elves were responsible for:)

Edit: Then again I suppose other elves suffer in the Witcher 3 regardless of what my Geralt does:)

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

And that's part of the problem. Those elves will inevitably bring danger and death to other elves by association. These elves were bad, were wrong, because they were killing people and stealing in order to live. They weren't doing it as part of the war effort.

But once their secret is revealed, once the soldier learn that it wasn't a monster out there killing their men and stealing their supplies but a band of elves, even if they're dead, others will continue to pay for that because of the racism and hatred that exists against non-humans.

But, weighing it all, what they did was wrong and they should pay for it. All Geralt can do afterwards is try to help whatever elves he comes across that might need assistance.

True. And then he will feel all warm and fuzzy inside because he actually helped them:)

I heard that if you KILL them you dont get all of your weapons back. Have you found that happen to you?

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

No because you just have to loot everything there and you'll find them all.

Fair enough. When I KILLED the elves I found the weapons. The reason I asked is because I read Online that there was supposedly a bug that caused some of your weapons to not be in the stash. So I just wondered thats all:)

This may of been sorted out by one of the patches?

This was the thing I found on a site called Gosunoob regarding the quest. The post said this:

(Be careful not to do this quest if you give over your weapons with any extra swords. A sword I made but was not at the level to use disappeared after this quest, and it is not returned with my weapons.)

If this helps to warn other people in case it happens to them then myself and the person who started the post on Gosunoob will be happy:)

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

You might want to check the date of the site. Many created guides for the quests shortly after it was released and they do not reflect changes that was made by subsequent patches, and there have been a LOT of them.

I don't recall this glitch. At least it never happened to me so I won't say it didn't happen to others. Just that I don't recall even reading about a fix in any of the patch notes. Still, good to have the warning out there, just in case.

I'll check the notes again and post back if I find anything.

UPDATE: I checked all the changelogs for all the patches and hotfixes and the contract was never mentioned anywhere as being fixed. But as I said, I never personally experienced this issue so...

I have to admit I never checked the date of the post which I should have done, only that I read it. Stupid of me I know, not paying attention. I will have another look and see what the date of the post was:)

Edit: The post was last year July 7th:)

[BONI]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Odds are if the issue did exist, it was probably fixed and they forgot to put it in the changelog but I don't rememeber anyone saying anything about losing weapons during that contract.

Whatever. So long as the issue doesn't persist, right?

Agreed. There have been patches for other games that sometime dont get a mention in changelogs especially if they are minor fixes. Still its good to know these things:D

Its been fun talking to you BuzzardBee:)