The Witcher series

[Cahir]

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. First, about the chick from the video, I predicted one argument she was going to use. The argument is about Ciri's Elder Blood somehow enabling her to survive the Trail of Grass. This trait does not change her biology or hormones, so it doesn't change two crucial variables as to why women couldn't survive Trials. That's why there were no female Witchers. Also, with a "fix" like that, you are opening doors to potentially lazy writing in terms of covering for plot holes. Why did Ciri survive? Elder Blood! Why did x happen? Elder Blood! Why does y want to do z with Ciri? Elder Blood! I hope you get the picture.

Also, it doesn't explain why Ciri would even want to go through trials. Ask yourself this question: would you want to willingly go through long torture that more likely than not result in your death for no reason and against all reasons? No? Thought so.

The chick is also missing some other things, like Ciri drawing magic from elements. This is something Ciri gave up during the novels, as in: she forever lost the abillity to use conventional magic.

Regarding the interview, I do like how some statements work with reality. Claims such as that they'll respect the lore, that they won't just do stuff because they want etc. and a statement that actions speak louder than words. Yes, indeed they do, because the trailers shows that they do things just because they want to and they in fact don't follow the lore. Beautiful self-own there.

Dude, CDPR literally brought back Geralt from dead for Witcher 1. Having Ciri undergone the Trial of Grasses is really not "the worst" they could have done to the books, than they already did. I also can't see why her blood could not make her more resilient to the effects of potions needed to be drunk during the trial. It's more believable than her travelling from one world to the other (and no one questioned that).

 

[Cahir]

Besides, doesn't even need to be her blood. It's possible that someone perfected the potion formulae, which makes the process less deadly. I'm thinking the new school of Lynx would be a key here. We don't know yet, if Ciri will be the founder or she will track them down (or maybe jump back in time, if they turn out to be an ancient school). There are endless possibilities for an interesting explanation.

 

[O_Bruce]

I agree that there are possibilities, and I agree that it wouldn't be the first time CDProject did something violating the lore. (in TW1 case, initally that game was meant to allow you to create your own Witcher, but since testers tended to create a Geralt-like character, Geralt became a protagonist). Still, I am concerned about the fact that there is no possible good explanation and that all we'll have to work with would be bad and less bad.

It's one thing if the devs said something along the lines of: "we know it doesn't match the lore, but we decided to do so as a compromise for gameplay reasons" etc. Not trying to convince people of something not possible.

 

[Cahir]

I agree that there are possibilities, and I agree that it wouldn't be the first time CDProject did something violating the lore. (in TW1 case, initally that game was meant to allow you to create your own Witcher, but since testers tended to create a Geralt-like character, Geralt became a protagonist). Still, I am concerned about the fact that there is no possible good explanation and that all we'll have to work with would be bad and less bad.

It's one thing if the devs said something along the lines of: "we know it doesn't match the lore, but we decided to do so as a compromise for gameplay reasons" etc. Not trying to convince people of something not possible.

Here's where we disagree. I see a plenty good explanations (I do agree that elder blood wouldn't be the most interesting). I also admit, that I read the books 25 years ago, so the details are very fuzzy at this point, so in many cases I wouldn't even say if things are consistent with books or not. Personally, I don't think it cannot expand the lore from books at this point.

 

[O_Bruce]

Let's just agree to disagree then. If TW4 comes out in few years and it utterly proves me wrong, then I'll gladly admit to being wrong. Until then, I guess it is what it is.

 

[m7600]

"Chick" as a term isn't offensive. It's like me calling a guy "dude".

I wanted to comment on this from a technical standpoint. The female version of "dude" is "dudette".

And the male version of "chick" is "rooster". But you wouldn't say that, unless you were a redneck from Alabama or something like that.

 

[Eternal]

Please help me understand!

Please explain to me WHY Ciri (not my favorite character in the saga at all) can't be a witcher? I’ve been googling all sorts of things about this topic, but I didn't find a direct answer. There are a lot of knowledgeable fans here. Is there any information that witcher mutations are transmitted/implanted on the Y chromosome (I respect both genetics and lore) or is it all about the irrationality of (not)making witchers out of girls, because they are physically weaker (I don't argue with that at all, I’ve been involved in building a house with my dad, and I know some men are capable of hammering a nail with their fist)?

 

[m7600]

Please help me understand!

Please explain to me WHY Ciri (not my favorite character in the saga at all) can't be a witcher? I’ve been googling all sorts of things about this topic, but I didn't find a direct answer. There are a lot of knowledgeable fans here. Is there any information that witcher mutations are transmitted/implanted on the Y chromosome (I respect both genetics and lore) or is it all about the irrationality of (not)making witchers out of girls, because they are physically weaker (I don't argue with that at all, I’ve been involved in building a house with my dad, and I know some men are capable of hammering a nail with their fist)?

It's a tough comparison to make. In our Modern world, the only context where strength is important is in strongman and strongwoman competitions. It's not even relevant in body building, not in the way that it's relevant to strongmen and strongwomen. Outside of their world, strength has become irrelevant. It has been supplanted by other things: technique, machines, animal labor, tools, etc.

 

[Eternal]

I’m ready to agree with your view, although I have a small clarification due to my personal experience. You’re largely right if we’re talking about a fairly modern society of an economically prosperous country. Many individuals/families can exchange their talents/intelligence/services for a sufficient amount of money and get access to technology, machines or animal labor (Hooray for the 21st century!). But if you’re poor, you barely have enough to cover the cost of consumables, you’ll inevitably turn to your physical abilities to save money for daily living (Shame on the 21st century!). Therefore, in some situations around the world, an individual's physical strength still plays a significant role for them or their families.

In the context of the Witcher world, physical parameters are definitely important for the craft. Even being a strong and trained man is not enough to handle monster hunting. Witchers monsterise themselves - as you accurately pointed out, it's like combining human strength and animal labor to compensate for their own deficiencies in strength, agility and reaction speed. Naturally, in real life and fantasy world as well, some women are stronger than some men (after all, humanity is very diverse), but Ciri doesn't look too much like a female strongman. And I quite like that she compensates for her possible lack of brutality by using sorceresses’ spells. It’s quite smart. It's, in your analogy, similar to employing the labor of machines.

I think it would be a logical and elegant solution and would develop the ideas of Witcher schools (supplement yourself to be able to combat successfully). I have high hopes for the Lynx school as an interesting mix of training, mutations, elixirs, and magic.

However, I’m a neophyte to the fandom (it's been quite a while since I read (only) the first book and I (only) played The Witcher 3). Which is why I asked the question in the previous post. I mean, I really like the idea, but I can't say how far it is from the lore. After all, if mutations can only gain a foothold on the Y chromosome, for some biological reason, then no matter how hard REDs try, it would certainly be a pretty major change in the world’s logic. But if it's just about Witcher craft suitability, then, like I said above, I don't see a problem. On the contrary, I find it interesting when a character creates something of their own based on their individual prominent traits (Go Ciri, punish all the bad monsters of Neverland!).

 

[m7600]

if mutations can only gain a foothold on the Y chromosome, for some biological reason

I was agreeing with you until I read this. I'm at a loss on this point. I mean, are there chromosomes in the Witcher's lore? I don't think so. I don't think they even have molecules and atoms in that world. Medievalist settings typically have that problem. Instead, they usually have the four elements: earth, fire, air and water. But I could be wrong.

 

[m7600]

In other words, @Eternal (and everyone else in this conversation, @Antimatter , @O_Bruce , @Skatan , @Cahir , etc.), if someone invented a microscope in the Witcher's world (it's not implausible, the first microscopes were invented by the Dutch during the Early Modern period), what would I actually see? If I take a tissue sample from Geralt, and I placed it under the microscope, would I see his cells? Does he even have cells? And if he does, can I see subcellular structures (i.e., mitochondria, nucleus, etc.)? Do people have genes in the world of the Witcher? Do they have genetic material, as in, DNA and RNA? If none of the above is the case, then I don't see what the difference between men and women is in that world. If there's no genetic differences between them, then their physical differences must be accounted for in some other way. Are there molecules in that world? Are there atoms? Do quarks, electrons and photons exist in the world of the Witcher? Does the Higgs boson exist in that world? Presumably no. So, -this is just me thinking-, you would have to explain their physical differences using the theory of the four Classic elements, for example. Maybe males have more "earth". Maybe females have more "water". Who has predominantly fire? Monsters? And who has predominantly air? Common folk?

 

[Cahir]

In other words, @Eternal (and everyone else in this conversation, @Antimatter , @O_Bruce , @Skatan , @Cahir , etc.), if someone invented a microscope in the Witcher's world (it's not implausible, the first microscopes were invented by the Dutch during the Early Modern period), what would I actually see? If I take a tissue sample from Geralt, and I placed it under the microscope, would I see his cells? Does he even have cells? And if he does, can I see subcellular structures (i.e., mitochondria, nucleus, etc.)? Do people have genes in the world of the Witcher? Do they have genetic material, as in, DNA and RNA? If none of the above is the case, then I don't see what the difference between men and women is in that world. If there's no genetic differences between them, then their physical differences must be accounted for in some other way. Are there molecules in that world? Are there atoms? Do quarks, electrons and photons exist in the world of the Witcher? Does the Higgs boson exist in that world? Presumably no. So, -this is just me thinking-, you would have to explain their physical differences using the theory of the four Classic elements, for example. Maybe males have more "earth". Maybe females have more "water". Who has predominantly fire? Monsters? And who has predominantly air? Common folk?

It's a fantasy world, I didn't even remotely think to ponder about such things. It's made for fun, not for philosophical debate

 

[m7600]

It's a fantasy world, I didn't even remotely think to ponder about such things. It's made for fun, not for philosophical debate

But it's the Hard Magic vs. Soft Magic debate. Personally, I like hard magic a lot more, but that's personal preference. Is the Witcher's setting hard magic or soft magic? I'm completely ignorant on that point.

 

[Cahir]

But it's the Hard Magic vs. Soft Magic debate. Personally, I like hard magic a lot more, but that's personal preference. Is the Witcher's setting hard magic or soft magic? I'm completely ignorant on that point.

All right I might have a different idea what's the difference between hard and soft magic, so if you could briefly explain how you see the difference, I might be able to have a better answer for you.

 

[m7600]

what's the difference between hard and soft magic

Ok so, let me just preface this by saying that I'm not an expert in that debate. Outside the circle of professional fantasy literature people, the "hard magic vs soft magic" debate is somewhat of a recent topic of discussion. The way I see it, is that "hard magic" is the fantasy equivalent to "hard science fiction", and "soft magic" is the equivalent to fairy tales. In soft magic, for example, sometimes animals talk. Why do they talk? Who knows? They just talk. In a hard fantasy setting, there is a reason why those animals talk. Maybe a Druid cast a spell on them. What spell? "Speak with Animals", or "Animal Communication", or whatever you want to call it. And how does "Speak with Animals" work? Well, it's a druidic power, and in D&D that power is related to the Druid's Wisdom ability score. Why? Because it's divine magic, not arcane magic. And if it's divine magic, which god or goddess grants that power? None. It comes from Nature, directly (or, depending on the setting, there may be a God or Goddess of Nature, such as Gaia).

Not sure if this is helpful or if I'm confusing you even more.

 

[Cahir]

Ok so, let me just preface this by saying that I'm not an expert in that debate. Outside the circle of professional fantasy literature people, the "hard magic vs soft magic" debate is somewhat of a recent topic of discussion. The way I see it, is that "hard magic" is the fantasy equivalent to "hard science fiction", and "soft magic" is the equivalent to fairy tales. In soft magic, for example, sometimes animals talk. Why do they talk? Who knows? They just talk. In a hard fantasy setting, there is a reason why those animals talk. Maybe a Druid cast a spell on them. What spell? "Speak with Animals", or "Animal Communication", or whatever you want to call it. And how does "Speak with Animals" work? Well, it's a druidic power, and in D&D that power is related to the Druid's Wisdom ability score. Why? Because it's divine magic, not arcane magic. And if it's divine magic, which god or goddess grants that power? None. It comes from Nature, directly (or, depending on the setting, there may be a God or Goddess of Nature, such as Gaia).

Not sure if this is helpful or if I'm confusing you even more.

Well, I always look at the fantasy setting in terms of łów magic or high magic, more than hard vs soft. But taking your definition into consideration, I'd say it's definitely hard magic. There is nothing without a reason in this setting. Magic came into existence during the event called "Conjunction of the spheres", when different worlds were aligned in the same line. With magic, monsters came, and where there are monsters people look for someone who could kill them - for this very purpose, we have witchers. It's also a politics heavy setting, where neighbouring kingdoms plot how to invade others, it's a world full of racism and prejudice, where non-humans are treated with hostilty and elves went into hiding, terrorising human realms with guerilla warfare. It's a brutal world and there is nothing soft about it.

 

[Cahir]

A little disclaimer: I may not be very precise in describing intricacies of this setting, because I read the books 25 years ago. I played all three witcher games of course, so those memories are more fresh.

 

[m7600]

Well, I always look at the fantasy setting in terms of łów magic or high magic, more than hard vs soft. But taking your definition into consideration, I'd say it's definitely hard magic. There is nothing without a reason in this setting. Magic came into existence during the event called "Conjunction of the spheres", when different worlds were aligned in the same line. With magic, monsters came, and where there are monsters people look for someone who could kill them - for this very purpose, we have witchers. It's also a politics heavy setting, where neighbouring kingdoms plot how to invade others, it's a world full of racism and prejudice, where non-humans are treated with hostilty and elves went into hiding, terrorising human realms with guerilla warfare. It's a brutal world and there is nothing soft about it.

Ok, what's the difference between men (i.e., Geralt) and women (i.e., Ciri) in this setting? How would you even explain it, if there's no DNA or RNA in that world?

 

[O_Bruce]

From what I understand:
Hard magic is a system in which rules for how magic works is well defined and understood: magic follows pre-set rules that author of the work has established. So, based on a presented circumstances, the reader/player etc. knows what can and can't be done with magic in a given situation.

Soft magic has very loose rules on how magic operates, if any. In a given work, you can do a lot with magic and it also retains more of a mythical factor.

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. And in the Witcher universe, it seems that the magic system leans more to hard magic than soft magic: for instance, when a Certain Character is being taught the basics of magic by a sorceress: to use magic one must identify and then draw power from elemental veins. Magic, and veins as well, are relics from Conjunction of Spheres. You can observe "drawing from veins" mechanics in use in a recent trailer: Ciri was taking power from the water, if I understood correctly.

Now, as for the biological composition of characters from Witcher, it seems their biology is virtually identical to real-life humans, and things such as cells, hormones or chemical reactions inside human body are mentioned, usually by wizards or sorceresses. I think there was also at least one attempt on artifical insemination, if that's an indicaiton of something.

There are other things I'd like to add, though I am planning to visit my hometown this Holidays and most of the Witchers novels are in my parents' house. I can't promise anything, but I might do some research while I'm there.

 

[m7600]

Hard magic is a system in which rules for how magic works is well defined and understood: magic follows pre-set rules that author of the work has established. So, based on a presented circumstances, the reader/player etc. knows what can and can't be done with magic in a given situation.

Soft magic has very loose rules on how magic operates, if any. In a given work, you can do a lot with magic and it also retains more of a mythical factor.

Exactly.

And in the Witcher universe, it seems that the magic system leans more to hard magic than soft magic:

Exactly, so what's the difference between men and women in the world of the Witcher, from a hard magic POV? What's the explanation, if there's no DNA and RNA?

Ciri was taking power from the water, if I understood correctly.

Yeah, in typical hard fantasy fashion, the devs are using the theory of the four elements. Most Medievalist settings do that. It's a bit lazy if you ask me, but it makes sense for hard fantasy.

Now, as for the biological composition of characters from Witcher, it seems their biology is virtually identical to real-life humans, and things such as cells, hormones or chemical reactions inside human body are mentioned, usually by wizards or sorceresses.

Ok. So how far down the rabbit hole does it go? Is there DNA in that world? Atoms? Electrons, quarks and Higgs boson? Where do the devs draw the line? Have they even thought about this? They should, since Hard Magic must always address this problem. One way to partially solve it is to say that cells, hormones and such are "made" of earth and water, for example.

I think there was also at least one attempt on artifical insemination, if that's an indicaiton of something.

Not really. In the religions of the real world, for example, some of them speak of virginal birth (I e., Mary, virgin mother of Jesus). So, it's not an indication of anything, IMO