Jump to content

Witcher... here we go again.


Domi

Recommended Posts

NWN2 has even less evil options than BG, since you cannot even attack neutral NPCs; a funny way to censor evil characters. :thumbsup:

So, basically they moved back with interaction to prehistoric times? That's pathetic.

 

Another game that spits in the face of male gamers everywhere is the loathable Drakan: Order of the Flame where players are forced to play as a female protagonist.

Exactly :) ! I don't get this gender fetishism.

 

As for the Witcher itself...

There are no female Witchers.

 

I've seen a gameplay video and from one side it looks interesting.

I can say one thing - it's an action-adventure-tactical game, not an RPG.

 

A RPG should allow to create a variety of characters, roleplay and develop them in meaningful ways. Also, character stats should affect the gameplay in meaningful ways, like inteligence and wisdom enchancing dialogue options, etc.

 

The Witcher doesn't fulfil this criteria.

Link to comment
There are no female Witchers.

 

Where there is one, ther ecould be others. After all, there were no Bhaalspawn in D&D world of Faerun at all till BioWARE added them. Not a hell of an alteration to the lore to add a few tough and hated females to a few tough and hated males in a Very Special Stronghold X.

Link to comment
Where there is one, ther ecould be others. After all, there were no Bhaalspawn in D&D world of Faerun at all till BioWARE added them. Not a hell of an alteration to the lore to add a few tough and hated females to a few tough and hated males in a Very Special Stronghold X.

I say no to canon raping.

Link to comment
So, she wasn't, others were. Big deal. Just like Bhaalspawn, only here is a stronger precedent.

 

It would be more like adding male priests of Lloth and making them equal to females in drow society.

 

There is a difference between creating sexist elements in the game (like the "collecting cards" game) and creating a dark fantasy setting. That a fictional world contains such elements like gender or race restrictions doesn't mean it is advertising them.

Link to comment
It would be more like adding male priests of Lloth and making them equal to females in drow society.

 

Uhm, seeing that the justification to the 'no female witchers' was given with the quote from the book that stated that the main character can't really see a good looking chick as one... it's quite a bit different from the male priests of Lloth :)

Link to comment
Uhm, seeing that the justification to the 'no female witchers' was given with the quote from the book that stated that the main character can't really see a good looking chick as one... it's quite a bit different from the male priests of Lloth :)

So, what's the differences? Both things are canon for those worlds.

Link to comment

Well, I can see some sence in the "Female Spider Queen who manifests her powers often and with glee rejects males in the female-dominated society as her priests", I can't see any sense in the "Women in general are too good-looking to be Witchers." In other words, there is neither a tradition, nor religious beliefe, nor anything else that prohibits any female to become a Witcher. What's not prohibited, is allowed, see Bhaalspawn.

Link to comment
In other words, there is neither a tradition, nor religious beliefe, nor anything else that prohibits any female to become a Witcher. What's not prohibited, is allowed, see Bhaalspawn.

 

The witcher was not a chosen profession, nor was it inherited (like Bhaalspawn), but a created one, by using magic-enhanced training during youth to cause mutations that made them superior fighters.

I don't recall the book that well, but the witchers chose only boys for their training - whether it was only tradition, or only boys being susceptible to that training.

Link to comment

See, the way I see it, if that's the matter of being chosen one, a PC in a great many games qualify to being special and exceptional. After all my PC could have been a tomboy that really wanted to be a witcher, people thought she was a boy and by the time everyone got clued in it was too late ans since they trained one lady, well, they could have trained another, and finally, there are female witchers, they are just extremely rare. In other words, I don't see a strong prohibition in the canon that cannot be easily by-passed in a number of ways. I don't see why it wasn't, appart from the unfathomable to me desire to play "as that one particular character from the books". I like a great many book chracaters; I don't want to play as any one of them.

Link to comment
After all my PC could have been a tomboy that really wanted to be a witcher, people thought she was a boy and by the time everyone got clued in it was too late ans since they trained one lady, well, they could have trained another, and finally, there are female witchers, they are just extremely rare. In other words, I don't see a strong prohibition in the canon that cannot be easily by-passed in a number of ways.

 

And a male drow boy could pretend to be a girl, so that he could be trained as a priestess.

What you propose really doesn't fit the story that is told by the books; especially if you base it only on few quotes.

Link to comment

Not really. Lloth is presented as omnipresent and knowing the smallest details, and would have taken a particular offence at a male trying to pass himself for a female; the poor sod would have been driderized in no time after horrible tortures. But you know, whatever. I am not touching the game with a 10 foot pole anyway, and have no interest in those books. I am just annoyed that someone took Aurora all set up for custom characters and brow-beated it into another fixed male lead thing. Bleh.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...