Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BrianDavion wrote:
Renfri was a great character (in both the books and series) because there's no question she was not exactly a good person, but the question was, was it her nature or was it the gak life that donkey-caves like Stegabor forced on her for simply being "born under a bad star" CDPR seems pretty fascinated with that question too having tackled the subject on two seperate occasions. (once in a module for witcher 1, and once in witcher 3's blood and wine DLC)

This, in my opinion was completely undermined in the series by making her undoubtedly mutant by making her immune to magic. This gives a lot of weight to Stegobor's theory of every girls born under the eclipse to be monsters destined to destroy the world. In fact she displays everything that the mage said she should display. She's a "stealth mutant" with inhumane powers, she's born with a thirst for violence and she's a natural born leader whose up to no good. In the show, she displays great leadership skills in controlling her thugs and the villagers up to a certain point, cannot let go of her murderous plans even if they don't make sense, is mysteriously immune to magic and and can keep up with the superhuman witcher in single combat. What other proofs to you need to believe Stegobor, a sign letter from the evil goddess of the night that she is indeed her minion? The choice was obvious and easy to make.

They never showed her being resistant to magic. They only said that she was and the only person to say she was was Stregobor.

The thing that gets brought up about children born under the black star (black sun?) is that BECAUSE of the myth they are mistreated by people all around them peasants and servants shun them, children are not allowed to play with or speak to them. They are raised in sad lonely worlds because of the day and time they were born. Because they are ostracized and mistreated they tend to lash out. So what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the child bad so people mistreat them? Or do people mistreat them because of a myth and they act according to their nurture?

It's never really answered. Geralt believes more of the second because he has never seen definitive proof of the first.

 Lance845 wrote:
They never showed her being resistant to magic. They only said that she was and the only person to say she was was Stregobor.

She also said it to Geralt when they were about to fight and he was considering using a spell against her. Plus, her immunity to magic is essential as to why Stregobor can't actually handle her by himself like he did for all the other girls. If it wasn't true why ask another guy to do his business it's not like lazyness stopped him for the others?

The thing that gets brought up about children born under the black star (black sun?) is that BECAUSE of the myth they are mistreated by people all around them peasants and servants shun them, children are not allowed to play with or speak to them. They are raised in sad lonely worlds because of the day and time they were born. Because they are ostracized and mistreated they tend to lash out. So what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the child bad so people mistreat them? Or do people mistreat them because of a myth and they act according to their nurture?

Having a terrible childhood doesn't make you a mass murderer either especially not when you are in a situation where you can easily escape your predicament, find support from other people (Geralt in that case). There are far more children with terribly abusive parents and childhood that don't become mass murderers than the opposite. If "bad childhood" can be considered a very common cause for such behavior it's not a complete excuse. Add the fact that she does shows signs that the prophecy isn't bollock like her surprising leadership skills, her resistence to magic, her incredible talent for violence, etc and I think you have proof beyond reasonnable doubt that Stregobor tells the truth.

I don't know in the books, but in the show, the audience is in a situation where one side is obviously correct though the hero doesn't seem to be able to recognise it and the audience is expected to follow the protagonist lead because Stregobor is a sleazy man who seem insolently carefree while Renfri is a ridiculous attractive doe-eyed woman whom we want to believe because she's just that stunning. The scenario isn't about "lesser evil" or "two bad choice", this is a poorly disguised illusion. The scenario is about deceiving appearences.

on the lovely Renfri:

She definately claims she is resistant to magic - not sure why she can't walk into the tower then?
The only person in the show who actually claims she is evil is the def dodgy mage who cuts up girls - "yeah totally when they are dead - wink wink"....
Same dodgy wizard claims her stepmother said she was an evil child - but no confirmation and it might be a step mother that wants rid of an obsticle to her own children Snow White style
She actually does swear by Lilit at one point but no reaction from the Witcher so assume its just a saying.
She says that the wizards henchman abducts and rapes her - the dodgy wizard says what happened was "unfortunate" so seems likely
She has a bunch of (bandits?) that are incredably loyal to her - to the death.
She says she will kill the girl helping the wizard (who seems to be quite keen on killing herself) but then doesn't - seems to be a bluff - we never see her kill anyone.
For some unknown reason she tries to get herself killed by telling the Witcher what she is going to do instead of just letting him ride off and gettin on with her venegance
The Witcher could have knocked her out when he first won the fight
The villagers obey the wizard immediately she is gone - ironically he then claims she is the one who influences people but also, comic book villian style taunts the Witcher by saying he may have made the wrong choice not to help her The girl tells the Witcher to get away whilst he can - implying that she can't
The dodgy wizard can't wait to slice her open

If the show had then had him kill the wizard as well that would have been more satisfying.

epronovost wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
They never showed her being resistant to magic. They only said that she was and the only person to say she was was Stregobor.

She also said it to Geralt when they were about to fight and he was considering using a spell against her. Plus, her immunity to magic is essential as to why Stregobor can't actually handle her by himself like he did for all the other girls. If it wasn't true why ask another guy to do his business it's not like lazyness stopped him for the others?

She said what she had always been told. Stregobor said what he actually believed (because he full on believes in the curse). Again, you never actually SEE it.

The thing that gets brought up about children born under the black star (black sun?) is that BECAUSE of the myth they are mistreated by people all around them peasants and servants shun them, children are not allowed to play with or speak to them. They are raised in sad lonely worlds because of the day and time they were born. Because they are ostracized and mistreated they tend to lash out. So what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the child bad so people mistreat them? Or do people mistreat them because of a myth and they act according to their nurture?

Having a terrible childhood doesn't make you a mass murderer either especially not when you are in a situation where you can easily escape your predicament, find support from other people (Geralt in that case). There are far more children with terribly abusive parents and childhood that don't become mass murderers than the opposite. If "bad childhood" can be considered a very common cause for such behavior it's not a complete excuse. Add the fact that she does shows signs that the prophecy isn't bollock like her surprising leadership skills, her resistence to magic, her incredible talent for violence, etc and I think you have proof beyond reasonnable doubt that Stregobor tells the truth.

I don't know in the books, but in the show, the audience is in a situation where one side is obviously correct though the hero doesn't seem to be able to recognise it and the audience is expected to follow the protagonist lead because Stregobor is a sleazy man who seem insolently carefree while Renfri is a ridiculous attractive doe-eyed woman whom we want to believe because she's just that stunning. The scenario isn't about "lesser evil" or "two bad choice", this is a poorly disguised illusion. The scenario is about deceiving appearences.

Renfris skills are a result of her life outside the castle and struggling to survive every day. Being a leader isn't the result of a curse, neither is knowing how to fight.

except this isn't abusive parents this is waaaay more then that. she's treated horriably as a child, and yes that can do some real damage (especially as if you're told all your life you're an evil monster there is a temptation to say "feth it" and just BE THE EVIL MONSTER. the fact that he's atopsy'd all the girls and still sees a point to it (combined with a later episode showing other wizards bashing hium for cutting open young girls,) suggests to me he's not exactly discovered any definate proof.
So imagine your childhood is gak, and your lfie is destroyed, you manage to survive and fall in with some bandits, whom, suprise you by being more decent men then the so called nobles you knew.

but the one thing that keeps you going, the one thing that has stopped you from just killing yourself and making the pain stop, has been one day you will get your vengence on the son of a bitch who destroyed your life and the lives of god knows how many others like you.

yeaaah renfri makes sense. not saying she's right (the point of the story is that neither side WAS right and Geralt was forced to choose the lesser evil) but I can understand the character, no need for a fancy curse etc. she makes sense without.

epronovost wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Renfri was a great character (in both the books and series) because there's no question she was not exactly a good person, but the question was, was it her nature or was it the gak life that donkey-caves like Stegabor forced on her for simply being "born under a bad star" CDPR seems pretty fascinated with that question too having tackled the subject on two seperate occasions. (once in a module for witcher 1, and once in witcher 3's blood and wine DLC)

This, in my opinion was completely undermined in the series by making her undoubtedly mutant by making her immune to magic. This gives a lot of weight to Stegobor's theory of every girls born under the eclipse to be monsters destined to destroy the world. In fact she displays everything that the mage said she should display. She's a "stealth mutant" with inhumane powers, she's born with a thirst for violence and she's a natural born leader whose up to no good. In the show, she displays great leadership skills in controlling her thugs and the villagers up to a certain point, cannot let go of her murderous plans even if they don't make sense, is mysteriously immune to magic and and can keep up with the superhuman witcher in single combat. What other proofs to you need to believe Stegobor, a sign letter from the evil goddess of the night that she is indeed her minion? The choice was obvious and easy to make.

In what way was she keeping up with Geralt? I just rewatched the scene and he has her 3 times, and stops, to give her a chance to give up. Each time she keeps fighting and tries to sucker punch him, and on the fourth time he finally kills her. This is in a 1 minute fight sequence.


So, I just watched episode five, and it was good, but it was sad they took out the best parts:

Book Spoilers

 Lance845 wrote:
She said what she had always been told. Stregobor said what he actually believed (because he full on believes in the curse). Again, you never actually SEE it.

The why didn't Stregobor snapped his figgers and killed her instentaneously? He is a powerful mage and has to be assumed to be well within his capacity since every other mage of his rank and even lower are capable of killing dozens of people easily. The entire premise of the scenario relies on the fact that a powerful mage can't kill 8 bandits and his target by himself and the reason presented for why he can't do that was "she's immune to magic".

I msut also note that Stregobor wasn't caught lying at any point. He presented his version of the events and his beliefs; Renfri then did the same. At that point there isn't any way to assert the truth. She seems more convincing, but might just be a good liar and manipulator. The only thing we know for sure is that Renfri lied in a very obvious manner once when she said to Geralt she would leave Blaviken. Stregobor told no obvious lies at most he hid some information for example that the last man he paid to kill her raped her instead of killing his mark, but didn't deny it when it was brought to him.

epronovost wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
She said what she had always been told. Stregobor said what he actually believed (because he full on believes in the curse). Again, you never actually SEE it.

The why didn't Stregobor snapped his figgers and killed her instentaneously? He is a powerful mage and has to be assumed to be well within his capacity since every other mage of his rank and even lower are capable of killing dozens of people easily. The entire premise of the scenario relies on the fact that a powerful mage can't kill 8 bandits and his target by himself and the reason presented for why he can't do that was "she's immune to magic".

I msut also note that Stregobor wasn't caught lying at any point. He presented his version of the events and his beliefs; Renfri then did the same. At that point there isn't any way to assert the truth. She seems more convincing, but might just be a good liar and manipulator. The only thing we know for sure is that Renfri lied in a very obvious manner once when she said to Geralt she would leave Blaviken. Stregobor told no obvious lies at most he hid some information for example that the last man he paid to kill her raped her instead of killing his mark, but didn't deny it when it was brought to him.

1) As shown throughout Yens story, no magic is free. Nobody can just snap their fingers and kill anyone. It all comes with cost.

2) Real or not Stregobor believes in the curse and HE thinks she is resistant to magic.

3) As you say, there is no way to assert the truth. As I said, Geralt doesn't believe in it because he has never seen hard evidence of it. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's always presented in all Witcher material that nobody is sure if the curse is real or not. There COULD be a curse, or there could just be a bunch of kids who spend their lives told they are monsters and tortured or killed because their birthday happened to be on a "bad day", Even if there is a curse it just means these people are victims of circumstance who have cruelty heaped upon them because of chance. Nobody attempts to break the curse. They just ruin their lives.

1) As shown throughout Yens story, no magic is free. Nobody can just snap their fingers and kill anyone. It all comes with cost.

A very small cost considering that weaker mages can kill dozens of people. Considering his status in their council, we are to assume Stregobor has ways to kill people. Plus considering that he believes Renfri is the last girl who can bring down the apocalypse, I'm pretty sure the man is totally willing of killing someone innocent to cast a spell that would obliterate her and her small gang if need be. It seems to be both within character and within his reach. He casted permanent illusion spells and one can only enter his tower through a magic door. Stregobor isn't strapped of magical resources at all.

2) Real or not Stregobor believes in the curse and HE thinks she is resistant to magic.

The curse doesn't specify that the girls will be immune to magic only that they will be mutants (thus all the talk about internal mutations which Stregobor says the 49 other girls were). Renfri's immunity to magic which Stregobor believes, Renfri beleives and apparently Geralt believes as he decides not to through his push-back spell on her when she reminds him she is immune to magic. Where does this idea that he didn't try to kill her by his own means first? He clearly did so with 59 other girls before. I think it's hard to believe that in the couple of years where Renfri tried to kill Stregobor and him her, he didn't try to cast one spell on her at any point.

3) As you say, there is no way to assert the truth. As I said, Geralt doesn't believe in it because he has never seen hard evidence of it. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's always presented in all Witcher material that nobody is sure if the curse is real or not. There COULD be a curse, or there could just be a bunch of kids who spend their lives told they are monsters and tortured or killed because their birthday happened to be on a "bad day", Even if there is a curse it just means these people are victims of circumstance who have cruelty heaped upon them because of chance. Nobody attempts to break the curse. They just ruin their lives.

There is indeed no way to assert the truth with a 100% accuracy but when a man says there is an ancient prophecy that declares that 60 girls born under a total solar eclipse and from royal families will be born with horrible mutations and drown the world in blood. Renfri was a princess and described has possessing mutant powers. She was born on that day and certainly has a great talent for bloodshed. She is the second best fighter in the show so far and is a very successful bandit and murderer. These are pretty solid circumstantial evidences there. Ironically, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people hatred nurture the violence and hatred inate in the girls until they germinate in genocidal monster bent on revenge against the world itself, but that's another impossible to verify theory and pointless to the moral dilemma at Geralt's feets. He can't wind back the clock to try to change how things were. He can only do something now. What is certain is that Renfri is a killer hellbent on revenge that would sooner die than let go of her hatred even when offered a chance at a real life with the genuine affection of someone else to help it. She is ready to kill anybody and anything even a man she seems to have genuine affection for if it would kill Stregobor. She's exactly the kind of women mentionned in the prophecy. This all seems to point toward the fact that Stregobor is fundamentally correct in his assesment. How, in those circumstances, is killing her a hard choice? It might be a slightly sad choice for what Renfri could have been, but even then maybe that was destiny too. It seems to be the recurring theme of the season: you can't fight against destiny.

One thing that the series doesn't do quite as good a job at but the books do a pretty good job at doing is noting that the old fairy tales etc that are out there...

Are bs. not all of em and some have a foundation in truth, but eneugh that Geralt will role his eyes when he hears the words "prophecy". "I don't belive in prophecy or destiny" is a pretty major part of his character arc in the first season. even when HE is tangled up in it.

Quite liked the series. Didn't find the time jumps confusing at all, it was just 3 storylines that give the world a sense of history as they converge. I will say the first episode feels very disjointed. Renfri's story doesn't make for the best introduction, particularly as a parallel to Ciri's plight. I get what they're going for, but it felt like there was probably a better way to get across the "hated by humanity" prior to doing the Butcher origin.

Still, it was a well done series and great to see the series brought to life. My wife, who's tolerance for fantasy can hit a hard stop was enthralled to the end. Looking forward to more.

epronovost wrote:

1) As shown throughout Yens story, no magic is free. Nobody can just snap their fingers and kill anyone. It all comes with cost.

A very small cost considering that weaker mages can kill dozens of people. Considering his status in their council, we are to assume Stregobor has ways to kill people. Plus considering that he believes Renfri is the last girl who can bring down the apocalypse, I'm pretty sure the man is totally willing of killing someone innocent to cast a spell that would obliterate her and her small gang if need be. It seems to be both within character and within his reach. He casted permanent illusion spells and one can only enter his tower through a magic door. Stregobor isn't strapped of magical resources at all.

2) Real or not Stregobor believes in the curse and HE thinks she is resistant to magic.

The curse doesn't specify that the girls will be immune to magic only that they will be mutants (thus all the talk about internal mutations which Stregobor says the 49 other girls were). Renfri's immunity to magic which Stregobor believes, Renfri beleives and apparently Geralt believes as he decides not to through his push-back spell on her when she reminds him she is immune to magic. Where does this idea that he didn't try to kill her by his own means first? He clearly did so with 59 other girls before. I think it's hard to believe that in the couple of years where Renfri tried to kill Stregobor and him her, he didn't try to cast one spell on her at any point.

3) As you say, there is no way to assert the truth. As I said, Geralt doesn't believe in it because he has never seen hard evidence of it. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's always presented in all Witcher material that nobody is sure if the curse is real or not. There COULD be a curse, or there could just be a bunch of kids who spend their lives told they are monsters and tortured or killed because their birthday happened to be on a "bad day", Even if there is a curse it just means these people are victims of circumstance who have cruelty heaped upon them because of chance. Nobody attempts to break the curse. They just ruin their lives.

There is indeed no way to assert the truth with a 100% accuracy but when a man says there is an ancient prophecy that declares that 60 girls born under a total solar eclipse and from royal families will be born with horrible mutations and drown the world in blood. Renfri was a princess and described has possessing mutant powers. She was born on that day and certainly has a great talent for bloodshed. She is the second best fighter in the show so far and is a very successful bandit and murderer. These are pretty solid circumstantial evidences there. Ironically, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people hatred nurture the violence and hatred inate in the girls until they germinate in genocidal monster bent on revenge against the world itself, but that's another impossible to verify theory and pointless to the moral dilemma at Geralt's feets. He can't wind back the clock to try to change how things were. He can only do something now. What is certain is that Renfri is a killer hellbent on revenge that would sooner die than let go of her hatred even when offered a chance at a real life with the genuine affection of someone else to help it. She is ready to kill anybody and anything even a man she seems to have genuine affection for if it would kill Stregobor. She's exactly the kind of women mentionned in the prophecy. This all seems to point toward the fact that Stregobor is fundamentally correct in his assesment. How, in those circumstances, is killing her a hard choice? It might be a slightly sad choice for what Renfri could have been, but even then maybe that was destiny too. It seems to be the recurring theme of the season: you can't fight against destiny.

Except thats not what happens on screen.

"Evil" monster killing mutant comes to town,
Villagers want him to move on and look to a group of armed men (likely bandits -BUT never stated) to move him on
Renfri says no - and buys him a drink
Teenage girl (chatting about the animals she has killed) desperate to get out of village leads him to Wizard
Wizard Claims that Renfir is evil and a mutant and needs killing.....because she wants to kill him and he wants to slice her open...claims her stepmother told him she was evil.
Witcher says nope
Renfri and Witcher have a heart to heart, she tells him that she was raped by the Wizards minion and wants revenge
Witcher says nope but sleeps with her
She says bye i am leaving
Turns out she is not, stupidly leaves her men to tell him not to interfere
Witcher slaughters her men
Renfri claims she will kill people till the Wizard comes to her, threatens Teenage Girl
Renfri does not kill the girl
Witcher kills Renfri despite him having her cold several times (he could have knocked her out...)
Wizard turns up to taunt the Witcher that he might have killed the wrong person and to slice open Renfri

We never see Renfri kill anyone - she threatens to do so but doesn't.
We never see if she has mutations and if she has why they would be "evil" - are Witcher mutations evil?

 Mr Morden wrote:
We never see Renfri kill anyone - she threatens to do so but doesn't.

No, we indeed don't see her kill anyone neither do we see Stregobor making any autopsies or killing anybody either. Does that mean he does neither? Of course not, we will take the character to his word to make sense of the setting. Renfri claims to be a bandit and to have killed a lot of people. She also claims she is ready to kill anyone that would prevent her from getting her revenge and she does try to kill Geralt precisely for that even though she obviously seems to like him. The fact that Renfri kills people isn't really in question. I think that should she had won the fight against Geralt, she would have killed more people to get Stregobor down that tower. In my opinion the only reason she doesn't kill the girl she has in hostage is because she intended to do so after defeating Geralt and being in good position to fight Stregobor since he likes the girl; the idea was to make a spectacle out of her death to torture psychologically Stregobor (that and potentially because it's fairly taboo to kill children on screen in shows and movies). I would also like to point out that this being her plan tells a lot about both Renfri's and Stregobor psychology. Renfri thinks Stregobor cares enough about the lives of innocent people that he would leave his sanctum to try and stop her if she killed enough of them.

We never see if she has mutations

It's necessary for the plot to even take place for her to be immune to magic and that's only possible if she's a mutant as per the knowledge provided to us by the setting.

and if she has why they would be "evil" - are Witcher mutations evil?

It would basically be the definitive proof that Renfri matches to perfection a prophecy about the end of the world. I would also like to point that being a murdererous bandit makes you an evil person (I think Stregobor even mentions she leaves her victim impaled on spikes). We are in a magical world where prophecies are a real thing. Geralt is sceptic of them and is proven wrong at every turn about them.

As for the Witcher's mutations, they aren't evil per say but the people who used to make them certainly were. It seems that you don't willingly become a Witcher in the first place.

Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative - although even he when he tuants the Witcher at the end implies its not all true or perhaps any of it.
I am assuming (just as possibly incorrectly) that she is telling the truth and the Wizard is lying.

She says she kills people - does she kill innocents? No on screen evidence - in fact the opposite, the Wizard on the other hand.....cuts up girls that he says are evil that may or may not be alive when he does it, we know he is not bothered by the fact that there is an "unfortunate incident" - Renfri being raped.....

Its just as possible a bluff that the Witcher calls and she won't go through with - we don't know what she will or won;t do because the show does not show her aledged darker side.

I think the idea is that she wants the Witcher to kill her (for some reason) as she knows almost immediately she can't win, he is faster, stronger and just better. Probaly now she has been "loved" by a man she can;t live with herself of something similar.....

So Stregobor claims she impales her victims...and we believe him because..... who other than him has a bad word to say about her?

The Witcher is not inherently evil But a girl with mutations enabling her to fight is.....that kinda fits the quasi-medievil fantasy setting.. Interestingly the teenage girl Stragabor is grooming likes killing - guessing he will have to cut her up when he realises she is "evil"...

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative

Not really no, I use the information that the show provided to me. Stregobor is certainly not a good man. He is a sleazy, arrogant and creepy man who is far from being adverse to violence and extreme measures, but if he is 100% correct he is a hero who tried to save the world albeit using radical and unpalatable means (and he is still an donkey-cave). If Renfri is a 100% correct, is just a normal girl who cannot bring the end of the world, lived a life of tragedy and pain becaue of a mad man, she is still a mass murdering bandit and Stregobor is another kind of mass murderer (possibly with his own terrible childhood). At best Renfri is only marginally better than Stregobor, but at worst she's the most dangerous person alive. Having a horrible childhood doesn't excuse murder. Geralt is the living proof of that even in the context of the show. This seems like an easy choice to make. It's also the one Geralt makes, consciously or not. The entire theme of the first episode is undermined by the fact that in the information blackout makes one choice obviously better. Narratively speaking it feels terribly forced, the hero was dragged in the plot and did absolutely nothing beside providing a conclusion on what could be best described as an impulse. He could have decided to get involved in the story unfolding around him, but did not. He even refused as pointed out by Stregobor to have the confirmation he made the right choice (or not). In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".

I know I’m late to the party, but I’ve only just started watching The Witcher. I’m 5 episodes in and I honestly don’t think I can be bothered to finish it.

I’ve never read the books, I’ve never played the games, but that shouldn’t matter. However, after 5 episodes I have no idea why any of this is happening, I’m pretty clueless about the world in which it’s taking place and I don’t really care to find out. It all just feels like generic, cliched and mediocre fantasy.

epronovost wrote:
In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".

Well yeah, the screenwriting geniuses behind the show decided to butcher, ahah, the source material and cut out Geralt's actual motivation from the script. No wonder people are confused.

epronovost wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative

Not really no, I use the information that the show provided to me. Stregobor is certainly not a good man. He is a sleazy, arrogant and creepy man who is far from being adverse to violence and extreme measures, but if he is 100% correct he is a hero who tried to save the world albeit using radical and unpalatable means (and he is still an donkey-cave). If Renfri is a 100% correct, is just a normal girl who cannot bring the end of the world, lived a life of tragedy and pain becaue of a mad man, she is still a mass murdering bandit and Stregobor is another kind of mass murderer (possibly with his own terrible childhood). At best Renfri is only marginally better than Stregobor, but at worst she's the most dangerous person alive. Having a horrible childhood doesn't excuse murder. Geralt is the living proof of that even in the context of the show. This seems like an easy choice to make. It's also the one Geralt makes, consciously or not. The entire theme of the first episode is undermined by the fact that in the information blackout makes one choice obviously better. Narratively speaking it feels terribly forced, the hero was dragged in the plot and did absolutely nothing beside providing a conclusion on what could be best described as an impulse. He could have decided to get involved in the story unfolding around him, but did not. He even refused as pointed out by Stregobor to have the confirmation he made the right choice (or not). In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".

you keep saying "doesn't excuse" no one is saying it's excused.
Perhaps it's best to remember the name of this story in the book. "The Lesser evil" BOTH Stregobor and Renfrei are Evil. the question is "whom is the lesser evil?"
Also we're outright shown that you don't need a curse to be a wicked kid. did you listen to what the little girl says to geralt while she's taking him to Stregobor? she's clearly "not quite right" herself. So maybe just maybe Renfri's not a wicked bandit because of a curse? she didn't CHOOSE to become a Bandit, the lifestyle was forced onto her. thing is you can argue eaither way, and people have been arguing about whose right since the story "the lesser evil" was published.

BrianDavion wrote:

Perhaps it's best to remember the name of this story in the book. "The Lesser evil" BOTH Stregobor and Renfrei are Evil. the question is "whom is the lesser evil?"

Didn't I provided a simple litmus test to solve this problem in the information vacuum provided to the protagonist? One comes out pretty clearly as the lesser evil there.

epronovost wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative

Not really no, I use the information that the show provided to me. Stregobor is certainly not a good man. He is a sleazy, arrogant and creepy man who is far from being adverse to violence and extreme measures, but if he is 100% correct he is a hero who tried to save the world albeit using radical and unpalatable means (and he is still an donkey-cave). If Renfri is a 100% correct, is just a normal girl who cannot bring the end of the world, lived a life of tragedy and pain becaue of a mad man, she is still a mass murdering bandit and Stregobor is another kind of mass murderer (possibly with his own terrible childhood). At best Renfri is only marginally better than Stregobor, but at worst she's the most dangerous person alive. Having a horrible childhood doesn't excuse murder. Geralt is the living proof of that even in the context of the show. This seems like an easy choice to make. It's also the one Geralt makes, consciously or not. The entire theme of the first episode is undermined by the fact that in the information blackout makes one choice obviously better. Narratively speaking it feels terribly forced, the hero was dragged in the plot and did absolutely nothing beside providing a conclusion on what could be best described as an impulse. He could have decided to get involved in the story unfolding around him, but did not. He even refused as pointed out by Stregobor to have the confirmation he made the right choice (or not). In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".

Again you are taking one characters assertions as Fact and building up the justifcation from that with little to no onscreen evidence. Who says she is a "mass murdering bandit?" Thats a leap from her assertion that she had to kill to survive. Is she a "bandit" like the hafling-Elves and the Satyr in the second episode or something else? We don;t know.

Why is no-one in the village apparently afraid of her if thats the case? Why are they happy to give her dirty looks when she buys the Witcher a drink when a psycho rampaging bandit lord would have slit his throat for or less. If she has generated that powerful a reputation the villagers should have been incredably scared of her - but they are not - no-one but the wizard is.....she is not presented as a villain on screen right up until the moment she decides to commit sucicde by atacking the Witcher.

I would agree that its not a very well done episode, and the Witcher is a disintersted party

On they don't kill children - well its not a very adult show then. GOT (they chucked a kid out of a window to die), Shanara did, Into the Badlands did - but they still managed to have some female T+A in the first episode....

As for the Witcher's mutations, they aren't evil per say but the people who used to make them certainly were.

So a Witcher can choose not to be evil but a mutated girl can't?

it's worth noting BTW that in the end Geralt clearly choose stergobor as the lesser evil. that said they made him out to be more of an ass. The book does a MUCH MUCH better job of this story. they sadly missed a few VERY important things in the details (I feel like they where trying to be too clever)

 Mr Morden wrote:
So a Witcher can choose not to be evil but a mutated girl can't?

Within the context of Stregobor's theory, the mutations are a symptom, not the cause.

Also, Sapkowski either didn't know or didn't care about the proper definition of mutation, because witchers are not mutated, at least not the way Renfri was.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's worth noting BTW that in the end Geralt clearly choose stergobor as the lesser evil. that said they made him out to be more of an ass. The book does a MUCH MUCH better job of this story. they sadly missed a few VERY important things in the details (I feel like they where trying to be too clever)

Do you care to expand? From my point of view the first episode was all style and very little actual substance which is a disapointing because there was enough material (and acting talent) to make an interesting story out of this.

epronovost wrote:


Do you care to expand? From my point of view the first episode was all style and very little actual substance which is a disapointing because there was enough material (and acting talent) to make an interesting story out of this.

So in the books, the story is the third entry, not the first. Preceding it is a fragment of a framing story that establishes quite efficiently that witchers are considered barely better than the monsters they hunt and not welcome in most places. From there, "Lesser Evil" starts with Geralt almost immediately meeting with Caldemeyn, the burgmaster of Blaviken. And lo and behold, Caldemeyn invites Geralt to a beer, and later into his house, offering room and board. Doesn't hide little Marilka in the cellar. They're clearly well acquainted, friendly even.

So that's Geralt's stake in the story - a place where he's accepted, more or less.

In the mean time, Geralt meets Stregobor. The gentlemen know each other, as Stregobor had Geralt arrested and almost executed in the past. The whole Black Sun theory is presented, in rather great detail. Geralt's not impressed, but he goes and meets with Renfri. He makes it clear he's not going to allow Renfir to kill Stregobor, but from the onset, his concern is more the local community than the mage himself. Later on Renfri visits him, offers her side of the story and mentions an ultimatum she's going to present to Stregobor, without going into details.

Next morning, Caldemeyn mentions another ultimatum, the Tridam one, over breakfast - bandits taking a number of pilgrims hostage on a river barge, demanding the release of their companions. A lot of people die and a member of Renfri's entourage happens to be one of the hostage takers.

Geralt has an epiphany, rushes to the market, where Renfri's men are waiting for her and, as it turns out, for him. They try to kill him, he kills them back. Renfri shows up, claiming Stregobor told her she could just as well kill every man, woman and child in Blaviken and it wouldn't budge him from the tower. They fight. Renfri dies, making one last dramatic attempt at taking Geralt down with her.

Caldemeyn shows up, finds the market silent as a grave, littered with multiple corpses, and tells Geralt to leave and never come back. Thus our hero pays the price for choosing the lesser evil.


It's not a particularly complicated story, but it needs a bit more than 20 minutes and a mutilated screenplay to play out properly.

@His Master's Voice

from your resumé the story appears much better. and even thematically different. The first episode of the show seems to make it a story of "choosing the lesser evil" so basically we are supposed to find who we should trust more...which the character doesn't really do. In the novella, it seems to be more about the cost of your decisions than about finding who is right or less evil than the other. The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.

epronovost wrote:
@His Master's Voice

from your resumé the story appears much better. and even thematically different. The first episode of the show seems to make it a story of "choosing the lesser evil" so basically we are supposed to find who we should trust more...which the character doesn't really do. In the novella, it seems to be more about the cost of your decisions than about finding who is right or less evil than the other. The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.

Indeed, in written format, the story can be used as a bit of a justification for staying neutral. Had Geralt walked away, people would have died but it wou;dn't have been on him, by getting involved, no one thanked him, he was blamed and cast out for it.

in the series however they wanted to eistablish the Geralt didn't belive in destiny, his whole character growth is clearly intended to be accepting that destiny exists, that he has one and what his place in that destiny is

epronovost wrote:
The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.

She claims she would not go ahead with the killings, since Stregobor had no intention of leaving the tower, but that's after Geralt already got involved. And then there's the dagger, at the end. In the show, it's easy to see her as the more positive of the two, it's way less obvious in the book.

Anyway, in the book, the titular lesser evil is not about Stregobor or Renfri. They're both merely catalysts for the choice between standing aside and losing nothing, and getting involved and losing everything.

Witchers in general have a policy of non involvement because when lords and gak hire them for things that are not killing monsters they end up as political tools and scape goats which get a lot of them killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geralt more than most end up with ties to "rich people". As you see with the law of surprise.

BrianDavion wrote:

epronovost wrote:
@His Master's Voice

from your resumé the story appears much better. and even thematically different. The first episode of the show seems to make it a story of "choosing the lesser evil" so basically we are supposed to find who we should trust more...which the character doesn't really do. In the novella, it seems to be more about the cost of your decisions than about finding who is right or less evil than the other. The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.

Indeed, in written format, the story can be used as a bit of a justification for staying neutral. Had Geralt walked away, people would have died but it wou;dn't have been on him, by getting involved, no one thanked him, he was blamed and cast out for it.

in the series however they wanted to establish the Geralt didn't belive in destiny, his whole character growth is clearly intended to be accepting that destiny exists, that he has one and what his place in that destiny is

Agreed the written story seems a far more thought out and have a satisfying narrative

The problem with the show (to me at least) is that by chosing to use this story as the first story they handicap themselves as they need to both establish characters and world that you want to see more of but also a more intricate narrative than they have time for. If Episode one had been the Witcher and this story and episode two the runaway Princess it may have worked better. what we get (IMO) is a series of mixed up scenes that want you to engage but give confusing and contradictory messages that a few minutes on each would have adied tremedously.