100
They better not make the Witcher woke.
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
100 points (94.6% liked)
Games
21105 readers
115 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
- Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review. :silly-liberator:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I have to imagine a lot of it is weird brainworms about "nonviolence" despite playing a game where you slaughter people willy nilly.
maybe I was already too leftist when I played the game because keeping the sword from the elvish freedom fighter while the dude attacks him just seems petty and dickish and obviously taking a side in the conflict on the side of Roche.
Geralt has already stated he doesn’t really care about their quarrel, so just giving the dude his sword and let whatever happens happen just seemed like the more neutral (and less assholeish) of a move.
It's another trolley problem type thing; if you don't give him the sword you're obviously taking a side and just letting him die but you can pretend that you're not responsible; if you give him the sword you're in some sense "responsible" for whatever happens next, mainly that one of those two people is probably going to get killed. You're responsible in either instance, but it's easier to delude yourself you're not in the first.