Store Page
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos Workshop News Guides Reviews

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Store Page
View Stats:
Global Achievements
E|E Jun 9, 2015 @ 12:59am
Salma the Succubus
Just curious, the wiki states that " Geralt can talk to her and decide to let her go. The consequences though are to be discovered by Geralt later in game."

What is this 'consequences'? I let her go my first playthrough. Now my 2nd playthrough im contemplating whether to kill her or the wild succubus for their mutagen
< >
Showing 1-15 of 19 comments
sup2069 Aug 16, 2015 @ 10:01pm 
Was wondering this myself. Read into other threads and concluded that there are no future dealings with her. My only guess is, a follow up quest got scrapped leaving us with an ambiguous bio ending.
#1
Jabtraz Aug 16, 2015 @ 10:43pm 
there is a quest on skellige where u get ambush by a werewolf, rock troll, and a doppler. Letting the succubus live n letting go of the doppler in novigred help u seems like a caring witcher instead of a bloodthirsty bounty hunter. Making those decision let u fight the werewolf only.
#2
Y Ddraig Ddu Aug 16, 2015 @ 10:45pm 
Hah, I wondered this too. Was there any Witcher Contract in the game that had any consequence at all later down the line?
#3
Strandly Aug 16, 2015 @ 11:19pm 
I am on my first playthrough and I chopped her in half. I got to that arena quest later on and fought all 3 mobs and they were easy. The human dies in 2 or 3 hits and the troll is slow. No point letting her live if that's all you get for it.
#4
sup2069 Aug 16, 2015 @ 11:20pm 
Originally posted by Jabtraz:
there is a quest on skellige where u get ambush by a werewolf, rock troll, and a doppler. Letting the succubus live n letting go of the doppler in novigred help u seems like a caring witcher instead of a bloodthirsty bounty hunter. Making those decision let u fight the werewolf only.

I was referring to the bio entry on succubus if you let her go. What is Geralt going to regret?? I know saving her is good for the quest as I let the doppler live, but so far its onlt peventing me from getting my succubus decoction.
#5
sup2069 Aug 16, 2015 @ 11:30pm 
Originally posted by Strandly:
I am on my first playthrough and I chopped her in half. I got to that arena quest later on and fought all 3 mobs and they were easy. The human dies in 2 or 3 hits and the troll is slow. No point letting her live if that's all you get for it.

So in the end there is nothing for Geralt to regret, completly againt the Salma bio. Infact its backwards, it should mention regret only if geralt kills her (foreshadowing the arena quest later).

EDIT: Just reloaded to kill her for the mutegen after thinking she was highly stuck up and ungrateful and I missed a mutegen oppertunity. Hell she didnt even break Geralt off with some poon for sparing her life.
Last edited by sup2069; Aug 16, 2015 @ 11:34pm
#6
Strandly Aug 16, 2015 @ 11:54pm 
lol Yeah I dunno, I didn't even use a reload to see what would happen if I let her live. I decapitated the doppler too though so I guess I wouldn't have seen the benefit anyway.

I am not done with the game yet but I ran into 1 other succubus later on so if you let her live there is at least 1 more opportunity to get a succubus mutagen.
#7
Grumpy Aug 16, 2015 @ 11:58pm 
I killed her I didnt like her messing with those guys. what a ditch.
#8
Catto Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:01am 
Originally posted by Jabtraz:
there is a quest on skellige where u get ambush by a werewolf, rock troll, and a doppler. Letting the succubus live n letting go of the doppler in novigred help u seems like a caring witcher instead of a bloodthirsty bounty hunter. Making those decision let u fight the werewolf only.

This. Besides, she's harmless. As in, she doesn't harm anyone unless she's threatened (which is self-defense). Geralt would never kill a harmless sentient creature. On the contrary, if push came to shove, he would've defended her.
Last edited by Catto; Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:15am
#9
Moffin Bovin Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:16am 
Originally posted by ScarletCrimson:
Originally posted by Jabtraz:
there is a quest on skellige where u get ambush by a werewolf, rock troll, and a doppler. Letting the succubus live n letting go of the doppler in novigred help u seems like a caring witcher instead of a bloodthirsty bounty hunter. Making those decision let u fight the werewolf only.

This. Besides, she's harmless. Geralt would never kill a harmless sentient creature. On the contrary, if push came to shove, he would've defended her.

she did kill people you know. That is the exact opposite of "harmless"
#10
Catto Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:17am 
Originally posted by MofineBovine:
Originally posted by ScarletCrimson:

This. Besides, she's harmless. Geralt would never kill a harmless sentient creature. On the contrary, if push came to shove, he would've defended her.

she did kill people you know. That is the exact opposite of "harmless"

In self-defense. Which does make her "harmless". What's she supposed to do, let people kill her?
Last edited by Catto; Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:19am
#11
Moffin Bovin Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:37am 
Originally posted by ScarletCrimson:
Originally posted by MofineBovine:

she did kill people you know. That is the exact opposite of "harmless"

In self-defense. Which does make her "harmless". What's she supposed to do, let people kill her?

Did she realy have to kill them though? couldn't she have incapacitated them and then fled the city?
#12
sup2069 Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:46am 
Originally posted by MofineBovine:
Originally posted by ScarletCrimson:

This. Besides, she's harmless. Geralt would never kill a harmless sentient creature. On the contrary, if push came to shove, he would've defended her.

she did kill people you know. That is the exact opposite of "harmless"

Well according to the million and one dictionaries out there, (execpt for the oxenford dictionary "not able or likely to cause harm"), the word means exactly that, harmless " lacking capacity or intent to injure - Not causing or incapable of causing harm"

It’s all in the air really when it comes down to interpretation by the individual. To me I'd say she (if true) was harmless. Not wanting to harm a soul unless harm was to intentionally befell her by dubious entities.
Last edited by sup2069; Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:49am
#13
Catto Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:53am 
Originally posted by MofineBovine:
Originally posted by ScarletCrimson:

In self-defense. Which does make her "harmless". What's she supposed to do, let people kill her?

Did she realy have to kill them though? couldn't she have incapacitated them and then fled the city?

She could have. But she's not trained or experienced in combat (like Geralt, who can keep his nerve in any situation), she did what she did in the heat of the moment, with her own life on the line. She couldn't have fled to the city, Skellige consists primarily of several Islands. She couldn't very well buy a ticket to a boat, travelling to Novigrad or Oxenfurt.
Last edited by Catto; Aug 17, 2015 @ 1:55am
#14
Moffin Bovin Aug 17, 2015 @ 3:13am 
Originally posted by ScarletCrimson:
Originally posted by MofineBovine:

Did she realy have to kill them though? couldn't she have incapacitated them and then fled the city?

She could have. But she's not trained or experienced in combat (like Geralt, who can keep his nerve in any situation), she did what she did in the heat of the moment, with her own life on the line. She couldn't have fled to the city, Skellige consists primarily of several Islands. She couldn't very well buy a ticket to a boat, travelling to Novigrad or Oxenfurt.

She is living in Novigrad =/
#15
< >
Showing 1-15 of 19 comments
Per page: 1530 50

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt > General Discussions > Topic Details
Date Posted: Jun 9, 2015 @ 12:59am
Posts: 19

Discussions Rules and Guidelines