Is Geralt canonically an antihero or a moralfag?

Is Geralt canonically an antihero or a moralfag?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=c0i88t0Kacs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Moralfag.

Neither

Moralfag. He literally can't stop himself from butting into everything.

Moralfag that wants to be an antihero but fails miserably

He's very clearly a moralfag that lives in a universe where morality doesn't trump practicality.

Moralfag, kinda. He does what he thinks is right, but doesn't mind getting his hands dirty. If it involves hurting innocents or allies he out

He also doesn't mind going out of his way to be a dick if he's being a dick to someone bad. So, both?

He tries to avoid being moralfag but fails most of the time. Becomes asshole if you piss him off.

Just curious, did you guys read the books or are you getting this from elsewhere? TW3 is my intro to the universe so I don't know how Geralt is "supposed" to act in a lot of scenarios.

I'm and I said it based on books.
Geralt literally can in 9 out of 10 cases not stop himself for intervening into shit.

from intervenin*
He sees injustice being done and he won't move on, he'll try to, he'll tell himself not to intervene, but at the last moment he will anyway.

> always saving those who in need
Read books, he's a hero.

Basic premise of everything that happens in Witcher books is as follows
>Look at me, I am an emotionless monster hunter, I am supposed to be perfectly neutral.
>Oh no, a situation where I can't be perfectly netural...but I will act like a dick and stay perfectly neutral.
>Fuck that, innocent people/innocent monster/Ciri are being endangered by that thing, fuck I can't stay neutral
It's his regular shtick. Everyone including himself comments about how he is a killing machine and then he proceeds to prove that he is more than that, usually causing some sort of a major fuck up in process, possibly political instability in a whole region just because he moral fagged.

Books. Geralt is always getting involved in shit that doesn't concern.

Last book ends with/first game starts with him having amnesia after getting almost killed trying to stop a mob killing non-humans.

He tries to be neutral but he's still a softspot superhobo.

Best way to play him is to stay neutral and sometimes even like an asshole until shit hits the fan, then go all out moral fag and save the day.

Neither, he's just a fag.

You have to use the books to some extent since the games always give the player a degree of choice, whereas book Geralt is who he is 'supposed' to be and who video game Geralt was based on.

See by the end of the books its absolutely clear Geralt is a moralfag. Also the books are very good, definitely worth a read.

if you want to get an idea of how Geralt acts in the books watch this trailer youtube.com/watch?v=c0i88t0Kacs

>geralt in the books summed up
>geralt is neutral and doesn't give a shit about politics but somehow always finds himself in the middle of shit
>after enough time being spent in the middle of shit, geralt finally decides to start taking sides

A cuck.

I read the books 20 years ago and there was one moment I loved about them

In book two, Geralt meets the antagonist, a wizard, and after a talk about art and a walk up a winding mountainous path where some steps are real and some are only illusions the two get down to what they knew was about to happen, a bossfight.

Then the wizard summons an iron quarterstaff and proceeds to beat the everliving fuck out of Geralt who is supposed to be the master of swordsmanship.

He slaps Geralt's shit so hard that he takes months of healing by the dryads at the Brokilon forest and the injuries prevent him from ever being really good again until the very end of the book.

I realize now that this was an attempt to de-garystu Geralt but to 16 year old me it was fucking awesome.

The books are young adult literature however and kinda cringy if you re-read them in your late twenties

>36 year olds on Sup Forums
wew

He's a moralfag, but one that is incredibly tired of peoples shit.

A leftist.

In the books he's generally apathetic but will moralfag if the opportunity presents, or if something pushes his buttons.
He doesn't go out of his way for it, but he won't ignore it either.

I'm 31, might have been younger when I read them

you won't really leave Sup Forums either, shitposting is one hell of a drug

Something I liked about it was the wording. Something along the lines of
>In time, Geralt would look back and wonder what he did wrong.
>his every move was perfect, his stance flawless, but his mistake was fighting in the first place

I mean you can call him a moralfag all you want but it's not like he's on a mission to save everyone he meets. It's just that he's a decent human being with certain advantages that grant him the opportunity to do good.
Most people in his place would do the same.

he flat out refuses to take part in the whole race war shit and says both sides are retarded

point of interest - author of the books is a huge "SJW" as Sup Forums would term it. This is especially evident in his later books about medieval europe.

Haven't read the books but I got the feeling that was the case from the ways the NPCs reacted no matter what you chose to do.

I don't know how good a person the author is. He is in a special kind of denial, saying that the Witcher games are only popular because his books, and how his books have absolutely not received any boost in sales from the video game. It's pretty much accepted he is salty as fuck that he choose a flat payout from CD Projekt instead of the royalties plan. Like sure CD Projekt was a nobody at the time, but it's his own fault.

book geralt does what he needs to do to keep himself and those important to him safe and that's all he cares about.

games geralt is much closer to being a hero or moralfag, at least in the third game. first game is probably closest to the books.

He's a moralfag who uses the made up code as a shield against the consequences

He's a cynical moralfag that tries to rationalize himself out of such situations but usually fails.

It's mainly a shield against shit he doesn't want to do when someone self important won't take no for an answer

Eh. In the books he has his own goals and its really about him trying to reach them. Really its him just landing in circumstances and forming bonds with people and protecting those said people after a life of slaughtering horrors for a pittance. He doesn't go out of his way for some kind of moral imperative. The whole CDPR trilogy is probably the most expensive fan fiction ever made(not that thats a bad thing they're all amazing) but if you've read the books its really the only way to view them for several reasons.

They are only popular because of the books. It's the established universe that sets it apart. Especially the first game.

Moralfag
Not only does he constantly butt into other people's business he constantly criticize people on their actions and beliefs.

I read the book and wow they are so relevant today. Elves are basically black people - they used to be kings but had some issues and then an inferior race of humans came and took everything away from them pushing them into ghettos. Dwarves are asians.

And all that from a guy writing in the nineties in a conservative shithole. He must be a true visionary. Did he ever write any nonfiction?

Geralt's tragic flaw is his morality. It's literally what gets him killed. Geralt canonically dies in the books because he can't just sit by and watch innocent non-humans get killed by a mob riled up by the church. Everyone tells him not to intervene, even his non-human friends Yarpen and Zoltan where there and were afraid and wanted to just bar the door and use their trap door exit to sneak out, but Geralt goes grabs his sword and tries to break up the slaughter, kills a few of the ring leaders does a pirouette in the wrong direction miscalculates his movement on account of his bum knee (something the game kinda ignore, I guess when the games unkilled him they fixed his miss-set knee) and ends up getting a pitchfork in the chest, one of the tines of which punctures his heart and he dies coking on his own blood. Triss, Ciri and Yen show up but too late, he's already dead and cold.

Subtle. 7/10

except Ciri space magic'd and he woke up next to Yen in some field

Technically speaking Geralt and Yen end up "somewhere else".
It might be another dimension, afterlife or Lady of Lake just bullshitting.

"So what was then?"
"Well, what", she snorted. "They married."
"Tell."
"Ah, what's to tell there? There was a happy feast. Everyone came together, Dandelion mother Nenneke, Iola and Eurneid, Yarpen Zigrin, Vesemir, Eskel ... Coën, Milva, Angoulême ... and my Mistle ... I was there myself, ate and drank. And they, to say Geralt and Yennefer, later had their own house and were happy, very, very happy. Like in the fairy tales. You understand?"
"Why are you crying, Lady of the Lake?"
"I'm not crying at all. My eyes tear from the wind. And that's it!"

It's a lot more obscure and bittersweet than that, the book ending is meant to be ambigous. Regardless of where he actually ends up for all intents and purposes Geralts story in the books is over and he is "dead" in a sense that he will probably never walk earth again.
...now you can also take it at face value and the whole Witcher game approach would work.

In both the books and the games it's stated that Geralts insistence of neutrality is just a bullshit excuse he thought up himself to try and justify staying out of things, which he never does anyways. In the end, he is actually one of the most empathetic characters in the series - despite killing a LOT of people which tells you something about the world he lives in. If anything he doesn't really preach his morality and is more put-upon by most of the shit he sees. I always saw him as someone who knows his ideals aren't worth shit but will continue to stand up for them because otherwise he might as well give up.

Bitter and cynical moralfag