A hero?
An anti-hero.
His motivations are not altruist most of the times, but he has a positive impact in the lives of many people and you can empathize with his cause.
And sometimes disaster will come if you cross his path, because he either cannot avoid it or do not want to.
Yeah, that still doesn't spell evil to me.
Who, IRL, would you label as evil besides, basically, dictators that killed thousands to millions?
Arsene Wenger.Who, IRL, would you label as evil besides, basically, dictators that killed thousands to millions?
Spoiler
I think to say that the Bloody Baron is just an ******* requires a lot of minimizing of mundane evil by comparison with the typical chaotic evil we see in VGs. His list of potential offences, involving multiple counts, he would be charged with would be as follows in a modern criminal justice system:
Spoiler
We could call this person "evil" IRL.
Wait, Witcher 3 tries to sell this person as being just morally grey? 
This is, I think, the most important difference.In comparison, if you dislike fast action combat, you have to pass on TW3.
This is, I think, mandatory for a roleplaying game.The Inquistor is not a character. He is a blank slate.
Yes. You're basically making it up. It's nothing more than headcanon.Out of curiousity; do you mean this along the lines of because it is based upon interpretating or imagining what the other person is feeling and what they mean with their gestures and words?
Funny, I did.It might be 'better' at giving the player freedom to respond to trivial questions in a variety of ways.
It's certainly not 'better' in providing the player with the option of giving the protagonist meaningful and powerful qualities. I never had a whit of 'freedom' to make my Inquisitor smart or brave or charismatic or anything of the sort.
I may be entirely wrong here, but I don't think people meant "impact the world" as in the outcome of quests, or story. I think people meant reactivity, as in from the general populace (granted, Thedas seems to be suffering from a severe case of underpopulation.) In TW3 for example, peasants are always remarking on how different and alien Geralt, as a witcher, is to them. Whether they're insulting, intrigued or downright afraid. It does a fantastic job of letting the player experience the lore first hand. How Witchers are a dying breed, and how despite their sole purpose is to protect people from monsters, the people are mistrustful and consider Witchers more beast than man.
Dragon Age: Inquisition for an example does a great job telling you how looked down upon elves are, or how Qunari are feared and considered heathens, but we are never shown this in game. We are treated as any Andrastian human would be treated. People accept (and even cheer) you becoming the leader of a religious order, with an army at your back. It's yet another case of Bioware having great lore but not using it.
Pretty much this. I just played a side quest in TW3 where I haggled a good price out of this guy and once I completed the job he tried to cheat me. Geralt mentions that this sort of thing happens often. How he risks his life to help someone out and all they want to do is cheat him out of his rightfully earned money. Not only are we told this but we're experiencing it first hand. We can hear the anger and frustration in Geralt's voice as he's dealing with this dude, and of course you have a choice in how you respond to him.
I can't imagine anyone making Geralt the leader of their army et al. As a matter of fact something like this comes up in the story.
That to me is how it should be done. An Elf, Qunari, Mage, and Dwarf becoming the leader of a human centric religious military organization is like Geralt suddenly becoming the leader of the Church of Eternal Fire.
As for the Baron, Once I got the full story I just wanted them all to shut up and pay me. lol!!
About the bloody baron...
Spoiler
As far as monsters go...if you liked being mauled by bears in DAI, give TW3 a spin. Nothing like hosing down one of those huge furballs with improved Igni.
Haven't played the games, but I seriously doubt I would be impressed with him or the writing in general given what I've heard. Hence having not played the games.
Perhaps I'll pick them up in a few years for dirt cheap.
Of course you haven't played the games. They violate your principle of heroism, because they show what will happen when you apply your bunk philosophy with actual consequences.
You may have a 'moral' satisfaction, but that's about it. And most of the times, it deconstructs how you feel about morality, since it shows the evilness of heroism.
It would be awesome to see you play the games, just to watch you whine about them.
An anti-hero.
His motivations are not altruist most of the times, but he has a positive impact in the lives of many people and you can empathize with his cause.
And sometimes disaster will come if you cross his path, because he either cannot avoid it or do not want to.
I think you have some freedom with Geralt's motivations. I think what you can't do is make him someone who thinks he can actually change the attitudes and structures that make society what it is, which is a pretty corrupt and brutal place in the universe of The Witcher. He can be altruistic, but usually he's helping individuals who have been or would be harmed by bigger conflicts rather than trying to resolve the conflicts themselves or address their root causes. A good example would be trying to help if a riot breaks out after the fight between Iorveth and Roche in TW2 - he probably doesn't think he can do much about the racial tensions that sparked it, but he can at least prevent some innocent people from being murdered. Even the Scoi'atel/Order conflict in TW1 seems to be fairly localized rather than something that will change the human/non-human relationship across the world, and the game gives you plenty of reasons not to put too much trust in either of them.
Basically, I think you can make him this guy if you want:
http://tvtropes.org/...ightInSourArmor
Spoiler
I think to say that the Bloody Baron is just an ******* requires a lot of minimizing of mundane evil by comparison with the typical chaotic evil we see in VGs. His list of potential offences, involving multiple counts, he would be charged with would be as follows in a modern criminal justice system:
Spoiler
We could call this person "evil" IRL.
His beating her didn't cause her to miscarry.
Either play enough of the quest to know what's going on, or stop being disingenuous.
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
This is, I think, mandatory for a roleplaying game.
A blank slate protagonist is a huge win for DAI.
says you
I think the Inquisitor is one of the worst things about DA:I so painfully boring it hurts
The Warden had more interesting as a mute
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
Wait, Witcher 3 tries to sell this person as being just morally grey?
yes because he is, in real life its not always black and white
I can only imagine how Bioware would have portrayed him (probably as a misogynistic madman lol)
His beating her didn't cause her to miscarry.
Spoiler
Either play enough of the quest to know what's going on, or stop being disingenuous.
This is, I think, mandatory for a roleplaying game.
A blank slate protagonist is a huge win for DAI.
Blank slate is good. But not when the game limits you to fill the slate in 1 out of 2 ways.
Blank slate is good. But not when the game limits you to fill the slate in 1 out of 2 ways.
I can only imagine how Bioware would have portrayed him (probably as a misogynistic madman lol)
You're right that I didn't play far enough but the idea that this is a defence is insane. The apparent plot makes him even worse than criminally negligent:
Spoiler
Murder doesn't make him evil, especially in an rpg setting. Almost every major character in these kinds of games is a murderer, the protagonist especially so. The Baron isn't a good man, but there's a lot of things in between good and totally evil.
Murder doesn't make him evil, especially in an rpg setting. Almost every major character in these kinds of games is a murderer, the protagonist especially so. The Baron isn't a good man, but there's a lot of things in between good and totally evil.
Murder doesn't make him evil, especially in an rpg setting. Almost every major character in these kinds of games is a murderer, the protagonist especially so. The Baron isn't a good man, but there's a lot of things in between good and totally evil.
If there is something that makes him evil, it's the way his thugs acted towards the villagers, essentially robbed and raped to their heart's content.
But... from the game he just seems like a Robert Baratheon kind of guy, trying to drown his demons in a drink, doesn't much care for a world gone mad.
Perhaps he just didn't interfere because that was the only way to keep them in line? Yeah, he's not a good guy by any means.
It's not just murder. It's how he takes a life, and why, and what he does for years. It's all things taken together. A bit of crying and charisma doesn't wash it away. As I said repeatedly, he's not evil by RPG standards. But he certainly would be by ours.
I agree, but charisma aside, it was not just a bit of crying, he pays a heavy price, one way or the other.
And I think he starts to realize, the horror of what he had done towards the end. Given time, it is possible that he would have changed, alas...
Wait, Witcher 3 tries to sell this person as being just morally grey?
No. TW3 doesn't sell anything. You have the option to completely denounce him as a thug, or to be somewhat sympathetic with his situation.
(which is rather brutal, even if it's his fault mostly)
[spoiler] He almost beats his wife to death in a drunken rage. His violent drunken beatings are certainly seriously enough to force her to miscarry. He almost burns a man alive...*snip*
First of all, it is never really mentioned how badly he beat his wife, it just says he did. In fact, I got the impression the wife was able to fight the Baron off of her for the most part to escape. Him beating his wife almost to death is your head-cannon.
Secondly, the game does reveal that it was the Crones that caused the miscarriage not the beatings. It's the entire plot for the quest for crying out loud. the wife went to the Crones to have them abort the baby but it was killing her so she went to the pellar for the amulet to stop it thus stopping the abortion, but she lost the amulet in her escape from the Baron so once again the Crones got control and she lost the baby. So your point about his beatings causing the miscarriage is just flat out false.
Thirdly, the Baron didn't even know there was a person in the barn so at worst it would be accidental manslaughter not murder.
The bloody baron was absolutely a "grey" character. Please get your facts straight before making arguments. Thank you.
You're right that I didn't play far enough but the idea that this is a defence is insane. The apparent plot makes him even worse than criminally negligent:
Spoiler
There are a lot of things that can happen in a all around disgusting relationship. I remember reading you had someone cheat on you before -- What I got from this quest was that both people were severely abusive toward each other. Negativity feeds off other negativity. I've been cheated on too, and the result of that was I feel paranoid of everyone I'm befriended to. Started with drinking for him maybe, and then insecurity, physical violence, and what have you. I don't consider that 'evil', I consider him a human that had mostly negative dealings.
But it's just my opinion.
Is it worth noting that the first time he hit her was when she was attempting to murder him with a knife? 
Retour en haut