Does Eredin really that bad? [Spoilers]

[Nonomori]

Though Eredin is the main antagonist, I didn't hate him. Sure, he is cruel and cynical, but he at least has some understandable motives: he wanted to save his people and himself from annihilation (though apparently Avallac'h knew better way to do this). Radovid was the character I really hated and was so glad when Dijkstra offered to kill him. Being killed by Philippa-it was poetic justice for this madman.

[serker31]

There are not many truly bad characters in Witcher. Most just do their thing without thought about morality or humanism. Even Radovid is not ultimate evil: he is competent king and good tactitian, even if he is cruel and quite a bit off; and he even has good reasons, thanks to Philippa. Dijkstra is not much better, as you can see after Radovid's assasination.

[soul like that be capable of]

Originally posted by serker31:

There are not many truly bad characters in Witcher. Most just do their thing without thought about morality or humanism. Even Radovid is not ultimate evil: he is competent king and good tactitian, even if he is cruel and quite a bit off; and he even has good reasons, thanks to Philippa. Dijkstra is not much better, as you can see after Radovid's assasination.

I think the eredin isnt truly evil. he doing what every other king would do to save his people . i do think radovid is evil . if you never kill him you will see that he bascailly kills everyone that is none human. he is racist. while eymer is like eredin , not evil but would kill if needed to show his power.

[HoarseHed]

It's a mix I think. He is evil, in that he enjoys killing humans, and is power hungry enough to kill his own king but at the same time does what he does for a cause. The most dangerous type of villain really, the ones that do evil not just for evils sake but for something they believe to be neccessary. He knew fully well that there were more peaceful ways to achieve his goals but chose the most violent path because that's probably what he enjoyed.

[Nonomori]

Originally posted by HoarseHed:

It's a mix I think. He is evil, in that he enjoys killing humans, and is power hungry enough to kill his own king but at the same time does what he does for a cause. The most dangerous type of villain really, the ones that do evil not just for evils sake but for something they believe to be neccessary. He knew fully well that there were more peaceful ways to achieve his goals but chose the most violent path because that's probably what he enjoyed.

Yeah, but honestly, I can't imagine anyone really wanted that for Eredin.

I mean, by the time I met the Wild Hunt, I was WELL AND TRULY *SICK* of moral ambiguity.

I wanted the Thalmor but WORSE.

BRING ON THE NAZI ELVES!

[HoarseHed]

Originally posted by Goshujin-sama:

Yeah, but honestly, I can't imagine anyone really wanted that for Eredin.

I mean, by the time I met the Wild Hunt, I was WELL AND TRULY *SICK* of moral ambiguity.

I wanted the Thalmor but WORSE.

BRING ON THE NAZI ELVES!

Well that's kinda the point of the entire setting. There's pretty much no absolute evil. Even the crazed radovid isn't all evil, he just wants what he considers best for his kingdom, and he considers elves, dwarves, and mages to be evil schemers because that's pretty much all he's seen of those people. Hell, even hitler himself was far from pure evil, he was all about the improvement of life quality for the citizens of his country, and uniting the continent so people would no longer fight amongst the individual countries. He did what he thought was right, the cause he believed in. He just unluckily had that (huge) personal flaw about racial problems.

[MACIORELLA]

Yes he is. He is a Radovid equivalent in Elven race, treating humans like slaves, in book he had human slaves kidnapped and was treating them like little animals. He is Adolf Hitler of Elven world like Radovid is Adolf Hitler (medieval equivalent) of human world.

I think the only normal entities are dwarfs, which just like to drink, make swords and have fun. Rest are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[Nonomori]

Originally posted by HoarseHed:

Originally posted by Goshujin-sama:

Yeah, but honestly, I can't imagine anyone really wanted that for Eredin.

I mean, by the time I met the Wild Hunt, I was WELL AND TRULY *SICK* of moral ambiguity.

I wanted the Thalmor but WORSE.

BRING ON THE NAZI ELVES!

Well that's kinda the point of the entire setting. There's pretty much no absolute evil. Even the crazed radovid isn't all evil, he just wants what he considers best for his kingdom, and he considers elves, dwarves, and mages to be evil schemers because that's pretty much all he's seen of those people. Hell, even hitler himself was far from pure evil, he was all about the improvement of life quality for the citizens of his country, and uniting the continent so people would no longer fight amongst the individual countries. He did what he thought was right, the cause he believed in. He just unluckily had that (huge) personal flaw about racial problems.

By that definition, evil can't exist anywhere.

Evil is a value judgement.

You take a set of principles which someone has their reasons for abiding by.

I.e. "Kill the elves" and you say, "Nuh, uh, not on my Watch."

The villains can and should be able to give a coherent reason for the way they believe like they do and you should be able to say, "And I believe the proper response for your beliefs is to stab you in the face until dead."

See, for example, the Eternal Fire.

[HoarseHed]

Originally posted by Goshujin-sama:

By that definition, evil can't exist anywhere.

Evil is a value judgement.

You take a set of principles which someone has their reasons for abiding by.

I.e. "Kill the elves" and you say, "Nuh, uh, not on my Watch."

The villains can and should be able to give a coherent reason for the way they believe like they do and you should be able to say, "And I believe the proper response for your beliefs is to stab you in the face until dead."

See, for example, the Eternal Fire.

I never said there wasn't any evil and that the people in mention weren't evil, I said there was no ABSOLUTE evil. And yes by that definition true and pure evil can't really exist anywhere (perhaps with a few exceptions like true sociopaths and such) but yeah that's pretty much spot on. There's plenty of evil, just differing degrees of it. In the case of the villain about to kill the elf, you can kill the villain but that in itself is an act of evil. Yeah you saved the elf but who says that elf won't from now on be jaded against humans and perhaps go on to kill a human just for the hell of it? But that's the entire point of the plot. Every key person and situation has flaws and evils to them. The hard thing is choosing the lesser evil, and as Geralt says it he'd rather not have to choose. It just so happens that he has to quite often.

[Nonomori]

Originally posted by HoarseHed:

Originally posted by Goshujin-sama:

By that definition, evil can't exist anywhere.

Evil is a value judgement.

You take a set of principles which someone has their reasons for abiding by.

I.e. "Kill the elves" and you say, "Nuh, uh, not on my Watch."

The villains can and should be able to give a coherent reason for the way they believe like they do and you should be able to say, "And I believe the proper response for your beliefs is to stab you in the face until dead."

See, for example, the Eternal Fire.

I never said there wasn't any evil and that the people in mention weren't evil, I said there was no ABSOLUTE evil. And yes by that definition true and pure evil can't really exist anywhere (perhaps with a few exceptions like true sociopaths and such) but yeah that's pretty much spot on. There's plenty of evil, just differing degrees of it. In the case of the villain about to kill the elf, you can kill the villain but that in itself is an act of evil. Yeah you saved the elf but who says that elf won't from now on be jaded against humans and perhaps go on to kill a human just for the hell of it? But that's the entire point of the plot. Every key person and situation has flaws and evils to them. The hard thing is choosing the lesser evil, and as Geralt says it he'd rather not have to choose. It just so happens that he has to quite often.

Point taken.

I suppose on my end, I think Eredin would have been more interesting as a Hate Sink. A kind of character we can and could WANT to defeat and feel no emotional qualms in destroying.

I don't approve of those kind of characters in general but I think Geralt would have no emotional hangups about it with Eredin.

Eredin is threatening Ciri, Geralt will go to ANY lengths to destroy him.

[serker31]

Originally posted by Goshujin-sama:

I don't approve of those kind of characters in general but I think Geralt would have no emotional hangups about it with Eredin.

Eredin is threatening Ciri, Geralt will go to ANY lengths to destroy him.

Exactly. If you want some disposable character, think of Junior.

[Nixxo]

I always saw Radovid as the true Antagonist.... Eredin and the rest of the wild hunt was just obstacles in my way to "save"/find Ciri. Don’t get me wrong, they all need to die both the wild hunt and Radovid. But, if I had to choose I’ll choose kill Radovid and his “hit squads”/witch hunters any day.

[sedashov]

So, after a bit of thinking about Eredin's motivation, I wonder why authors did not delve into his character a little bit more, at least through conversations between Geralt and Avallac'h. If white frost could have been stopped by Ciri why did Eredin want to conquer Aen Seidhe world instead of going Avallac'h's way? Sending Ciri to stop the white frost seemed to me much better way to save Aen Elle world. Possible answer can be Eredin's hatred for humans, yet Ciri herself insisted that his main motive was imminent destruction of Aen Elle world. Or maybe he did not trust Avallac's or did not believe prophecies about child of the elder blood? For me, it is quite interesting why he chose conquest instead of helping Avallac'h and sending Ciri to battle the white frost...

[Big Moustache]

It depend on who is writing the history book. Like the Spanish for example: In South America they were called: the bane/scourge of mankind (though not many alive to call em that), in Europe they were called: conquistadores. Cleansing the world from savages and infidels, or genocide and plundering the largest stash of gold ever? Just being human, who found a easy filthy rich target...

[KoalafiedKiller]

I don't think he's all bad, just radical. I feel the scene where he is trying to reach Ciri through the magic says a lot about him. Obviously he was in agony and risking his life but he needed Ciri to save his people.

I think he probably doesn't want to rely on a prophecy to save his people and would rather go with the more concrete plan of just getting them the heck outta dodge, which is the reason for his bloody campaign.

[Mutare]

Avallach was more evil than Eredin was. Avallach was nothing more than Ciri's Pimp. Radovid was an insane racist. I would have liked the option to kill Avallach in my game.