Burn the witch!!!... Justified?

[RyQ_TMC]

Two things spring to mind from this.
1. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. Some sources say this was on charges of Witchcraft, but they're wrong. The actual charge was wearing men's clothing.

2. In Baldur's Gate 2, you find an angry mob in Amn about to burn a Drow. She has committed absolutely no crimes, although she is Lawful Evil. They just want to kill her because she's a Drow. It's more or less impossible to convince them it's a bad idea short of killing them. I forget what sort of alignment modifiers you get for saving her, but I just thought it was an interesting twist on the "burn the witch" scenario.

I remember that you get -2 reputation (which is not the same as alignment) for rescuing Viconia from the Flaming Fist in BG1, and I think it's similar in BG2 - people would see you with a Drow and assume your evil. But even here, as much as it hurts me to say it, there is reason behind that and the common folk aren't acting out of pointless prejudice. Remember that the Drow are - or at least, were back in the happy days of AD&D 2nd ed. - evil by definition, and happy to engage in genocide if they were allowed to. Of course, here you had justifiable prejudice against an innocent person, so well... at least there was a stab at an actual conflict in there.

With regards to Joan of Arc, they were just looking for a reason to kill her instead of returning her for ransom, which I believe was customary with captured enemy commanders. It was ugly business. But how does that tie into the topic?

Ohh, WFRP? Were you going to run a play by post game or just asking around?

I was looking for opinions on the 3rd edition (I'm still a bit skeptical about it...). I've never tried play by post, although I would be happy to try.

 

[RabidusUnus]

I kinda like the 'Burn The Witch' situations, as they are what happen in real life.
It's humanity, they do stupid things.
Such as the Salem Witch Trials. Those poor people...

I had to watch a movie in social studies, and I can no longer think if that and not laugh.
The "victims" statement is court is rocking back and forth going, "Murrrrderrraahh!" and being possessed makes them slowdance. It was freaking hilarious.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Well, in the fictional universe, I think it depends on the rules of the universe. You have to establish a context. In the aforementioned WH4K and Dragon Age (haven't played the latter), if using magic actually draws from dark powers and has side effects to it that always cause more harm then benefit, then yes, outlawing magic is reasonable. Even burning at the stake is reasonable if said magic has does something like drive the person who uses it incurably insane and causes them to go on a bloodthirsty rampage.
In the aforementioned Witcher example (another game I haven't played), it sounds like her being put to death was justified based on her actions, or at least that's how I read what you were saying.
Personally, I really wish we'd let that whole "Burn the witch" thing die. Sure, it was significant back in the Puritan days, but overuse has boiled it down to boring and trite.

 

[TheScarecrow]

-snnnip-

That is a good take on the whole wtch-burning bit, mixed in with a bit of lovely, lovely racism.

She was burned for the charge wearing men's clothes? What a shame.

I played it once before, not sure if it was 3rd addition but I certaintly remember having fun.

 

[Tzekelkan]

-snip-

A few examples spring to mind. To me, the worst offender is The Witcher, where

Spoiler

a convincing argument can be put forward that Abigail actually deserves her punishment, yet the game arbitrarily declares rescuing her - and massacring an entire village - to be "good", and letting her die to be "evil", after a chapter full of run-of-the-mill sterotypes which set up a clear "burn the witch."

-snip-

PS I know this topic is verging on off-top, but since I only put examples from games here (there are some from non-game works of fiction, but I guess three is enough)...

Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you (the original poster) may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.

Spoiler

I didn't see it as a black-and-white situation actually... the people were trying to burn the witch because she had cast some spells on her, true. But the hero did have reason to save her, as she was had been a nice person to him beforehand and helped him with Alvin and other things.

Also, her side of the story is that she didn't do all the things she was being accused of, but the villagers themselves were responsible. I really didn't like the villagers after the part where it was implied that the priest's daughter was raped and got pregnant, but then got thrown out by her father for doing it. I believe you could see her suicided corpse in the crypt afterwards.

Although saving her is clearly not the white situation, because it is implied that she likes to play pranks on the villagers (she herself admitted to having put a spell on some random guy for the lulz). Also, I felt bad for having to murder all the villagers, even the innocent ones.

In conclusion, I think a burn the witch scenario can be done well by a skilled writer.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Well, in the fictional universe, I think it depends on the rules of the universe. You have to establish a context. In the aforementioned WH4K and Dragon Age (haven't played the latter), if using magic actually draws from dark powers and has side effects to it that always cause more harm then benefit, then yes, outlawing magic is reasonable. Even burning at the stake is reasonable if said magic has does something like drive the person who uses it incurably insane and causes them to go on a bloodthirsty rampage.
In the aforementioned Witcher example (another game I haven't played), it sounds like her being put to death was justified based on her actions, or at least that's how I read what you were saying.
Personally, I really wish we'd let that whole "Burn the witch" thing die. Sure, it was significant back in the Puritan days, but overuse has boiled it down to boring and trite.

In The Witcher it was basically that a priest, backed by a few influential people, wanted to put her to death at stake for summoning a demon who kills villagers, trading in poisons and using voodoo equivalent on someone. While she was claiming that the demon came because of the villagers' evil deeds and claimed that many ugly crimes had been commited. It was basically the villagers' word against hers. Arguments could be made for both sides. For me, it was the unequivocal evidence that she had summoned the demon that made it. But later, the game arbitrarily stated that being on her side was "good" and on the villagers' side was "evil".

In Dragon Age, mages aren't outright put to death, but they are killed if possessed by a demon or if they don't submit to the control of the local Church equivalent.

 

[Break]

Missing the point somewhat. The reason that rampaging crowds with torches and pitchforks are unilaterally portrayed as evil is because they represent the horrors of mob mentality, that tendency for people to do extreme and horrifying things when the responsibility is removed from them. Regardless of what the victim has done, massing a lynch mob is an "evil" act, and rescuing the "witch" is better than leaving them to die without finding out their crime. At the very least, if you're the protagonist, you have a better chance of executing the "witch" in a sensible and humane manner, if needs be.

Well, you're still completely right in that it's lazy writing with a stale binary morality system, but y'know. Your reasoning could be better. .

I see your point, but it's not just about lynch mobs. Warhammer and Dragon Age-verse, which I gave as examples, both employ official witch-hunters, who operate within the boundaries of law and don't necessarily stir mobs up.

Now I see how the horrors of lynch mob mentality might be responsible for creating this trope in the first place, but it extends to any situations pitting a witch against a persecutor, where it's portrayed in a binary way even if it's entirely justified within a setting.

I've yet to play DA:O, but I was under the impression that mages in that universe were portrayed as legitimately dangerous, and that neither side was given any particular moral high ground by the writers. And I have very little experience with Warhammer, but it seemed to me that all the sides were fairly evil in their own way.

Really, for any universe where mages and witches are persecuted, you can name one that sets them as mysterious and respected. As far as unimaginative writing goes, well... I don't know if one particular trope can be such a problem. Crappy writers will be crappy writers, regardless of what badly thought-out cliches they use.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.

Spoiler

I didn't see it as a black-and-white situation actually... the people were trying to burn the witch because she had cast some spells on her, true. But the hero did have reason to save her, as she was had been a nice person to him beforehand and helped him with Alvin and other things.

Also, her side of the story is that she didn't do all the things she was being accused of, but the villagers themselves were responsible. I really didn't like the villagers after the part where it was implied that the priest's daughter was raped and got pregnant, but then got thrown out by her father for doing it. I believe you could see her suicided corpse in the crypt afterwards.

Although saving her is clearly not the white situation, because it is implied that she likes to play pranks on the villagers (she herself admitted to having put a spell on some random guy for the lulz). Also, I felt bad for having to murder all the villagers, even the innocent ones.

Spoiler

Now I admit that I was kinda looking hard for arguments against her after saving her was arbitrarily declared the "good" choice in chapter 4... But as far as I remember, she was the only one who claimed that the girl had been raped... And she was also the one who sold her the poison.

My main point was that she was the one who summoned the Beast. She was the only one in the village capable of such magic and it was implied that the Beast was originally her dog, who was killed by one of the villagers.

Oh, and she was also a member of a murderous cult, but there is no information on that before the attempted execution.

 

[pvt_hudson]

The Witcher the biggest offender? I always let her burn, part of the Witcher code not to get involved, engaging the entire village in combat is not seen as a good thing as it goes directly against the code, the best way to play is to stay neutral throughout which is difficult but rewarding. As for making you feel guilty for it as if you had done something evil, well... i did just sleep with her then leave her to get burnt at the stakes so yeah it is an "evil" outcome, just part of the beauty of the game. The game doesn't say it's strictly a evil outcome more just letting you know that your actions have concequences and is tapping into the guilt you should feel or choose to ignore in the version of Geralt you decide to create. Every time you had to make a decision there would always be a good and a bad outcome, - letting her burn to avoid bloodshed = good - the guilt over letting someone who turns out is innocent = bad, sorry to go on for a bit off topic but this game was special, still none that beat it in its field in my no doubt outnumbered opinion.

 

[Tzekelkan]

Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.

Spoiler

I didn't see it as a black-and-white situation actually... the people were trying to burn the witch because she had cast some spells on her, true. But the hero did have reason to save her, as she was had been a nice person to him beforehand and helped him with Alvin and other things.

Also, her side of the story is that she didn't do all the things she was being accused of, but the villagers themselves were responsible. I really didn't like the villagers after the part where it was implied that the priest's daughter was raped and got pregnant, but then got thrown out by her father for doing it. I believe you could see her suicided corpse in the crypt afterwards.

Although saving her is clearly not the white situation, because it is implied that she likes to play pranks on the villagers (she herself admitted to having put a spell on some random guy for the lulz). Also, I felt bad for having to murder all the villagers, even the innocent ones.

Spoiler

Now I admit that I was kinda looking hard for arguments against her after saving her was arbitrarily declared the "good" choice in chapter 4... But as far as I remember, she was the only one who claimed that the girl had been raped... And she was also the one who sold her the poison.

My main point was that she was the one who summoned the Beast. She was the only one in the village capable of such magic and it was implied that the Beast was originally her dog, who was killed by one of the villagers.

Oh, and she was also a member of a murderous cult, but there is no information on that before the attempted execution.

Spoiler

I checked it up on the [a href=http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Abigail]Witcher Wiki[/a] to see where it was that you say the game decided to label the situation as good/evil and realized for me it hadn't, as I had saved her.

Anyway, I think it wasn't her that summoned the Beast. The journal entries in the beastiary state that it can appear wherever dishonest people live, and I saw a lot of corruption in that village and I understood Abigail is innocent. However, the whole thing is only made out from vague notes and stuff people implied and visual clues you find yourself (like the body in the crypt or the armor of the dead brother in the fat guy's house which Geralt mentions as being suspicious).

That's why I loved the story in that game: it wasn't at all black-and-white morality as all moral choice games have and you were never sure of your actions. I think I did what was best and you did what you liked, and we're both convinced we were right. I don't see this as a sign of a lazy writer at all, I see it as beautiful.

 

[Dragoonit]

Sorry, what were we talking about?

This is exactly what i thought of when i saw this topic....well played

 

[Jamienra]

explains it all

Wow Ninja'd really bad....

 

[Pegghead]

Discussion value?

So what, they burned people because they thought they were witches. Sillier things have been done. I mean what is the damn point of this thread, witch burnings hardly come up in fiction so it's nothing to ***** about.

 

[benbenthegamerman]

OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.

Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.

Y'know Bloody Mary did some wacky stuff. Around 300 people burned because they were protestant.

[sub]Just thought I'd add it in because her reign was one of the worst[/sub]

King Henry VIII (Mary's father) started the reformation. He made Lutheranism the main religion of England, and hundreds, if not thousands of people died for wanting to stay catholic. King Henry was much worse than Mary.

 

[Flames66]

I'd probably jump to the rescue, if only because I find female user of magic quite attractive.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Okay, I haven't read two pages of comments, but I just wanted to say that you may have interpreted the Abigail situation differently than I in the Witcher.

Spoiler

I didn't see it as a black-and-white situation actually... the people were trying to burn the witch because she had cast some spells on her, true. But the hero did have reason to save her, as she was had been a nice person to him beforehand and helped him with Alvin and other things.

Also, her side of the story is that she didn't do all the things she was being accused of, but the villagers themselves were responsible. I really didn't like the villagers after the part where it was implied that the priest's daughter was raped and got pregnant, but then got thrown out by her father for doing it. I believe you could see her suicided corpse in the crypt afterwards.

Although saving her is clearly not the white situation, because it is implied that she likes to play pranks on the villagers (she herself admitted to having put a spell on some random guy for the lulz). Also, I felt bad for having to murder all the villagers, even the innocent ones.

Spoiler

Now I admit that I was kinda looking hard for arguments against her after saving her was arbitrarily declared the "good" choice in chapter 4... But as far as I remember, she was the only one who claimed that the girl had been raped... And she was also the one who sold her the poison.

My main point was that she was the one who summoned the Beast. She was the only one in the village capable of such magic and it was implied that the Beast was originally her dog, who was killed by one of the villagers.

Oh, and she was also a member of a murderous cult, but there is no information on that before the attempted execution.

Spoiler

I checked it up on the [a href=http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Abigail]Witcher Wiki[/a] to see where it was that you say the game decided to label the situation as good/evil and realized for me it hadn't, as I had saved her.

Anyway, I think it wasn't her that summoned the Beast. The journal entries in the beastiary state that it can appear wherever dishonest people live, and I saw a lot of corruption in that village and I understood Abigail is innocent. However, the whole thing is only made out from vague notes and stuff people implied and visual clues you find yourself (like the body in the crypt or the armor of the dead brother in the fat guy's house which Geralt mentions as being suspicious).

That's why I loved the story in that game: it wasn't at all black-and-white morality as all moral choice games have and you were never sure of your actions. I think I did what was best and you did what you liked, and we're both convinced we were right. I don't see this as a sign of a lazy writer at all, I see it as beautiful.

Spoiler

The problem with summoning the Beast is, as you say, that the game seems to imply that it could arise all by itself. Whereas one of the fundamental laws of the Witcherverse - in fact, a major plot point in the very first Witcher story written years ago - is that spells do not cast themselves. While most of the "mook" monsters you encounter are actually part of the ecosystem, so to speak, the Beast must have been summoned by someone, if you follow the rules set by the books. I considered the game 'verse to be the same as the one I read about before, and following the same rules. The creators might have dropped some of those rules for sake of story and gameplay. If they did drop the "spells don't cast themselves" rule, then I agree that the Beast may have arisen out of wickedness, and then the odds are a bit in Abigail's favor, although I still regard her as being as bad as the villagers, morality-wise.

 

[McHanhan]

I thought most people were hanged for been suspected for witchcraft and not burned. Still during the middle ages people tend to be jumpy about anything they didnt understand and they didnt understand a lot of things back then

 

[asteroth21nox]

yes, the mob is "good" for killing somebody who is different. A group of people always knows what they are doing because they are a group right? And even if the witch was indeed a witch, we wouldn't want to use their potentially usefull and unique powers to benifit society or heaven forbid teach us how to do it ourselves. Better to blindly kill this person innocent or not in the most painful way possible and remain blissfully ignorant in our stupidity. Better a murderer then a hero or becomeing enlightend of the situation or the reasons why this person is being put to death. I completly understand your logic and agree.....well ok not really.

 

[Jaranja]

OK, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while.

Back in the Middle Ages and the Reneissance, some people were put to death for heresy. In the Protestant world, some other people were also put to death for spellcraft. There was a general tendency to burn those convicted.

Y'know Bloody Mary did some wacky stuff. Around 300 people burned because they were protestant.

[sub]Just thought I'd add it in because her reign was one of the worst[/sub]

King Henry VIII (Mary's father) started the reformation. He made Lutheranism the main religion of England, and hundreds, if not thousands of people died for wanting to stay catholic. King Henry was much worse than Mary.

He actually did something for his country. Mary just screwed it over completely.

 

[Earthmonger]

Simply spitting on a crucifix was enough to condemn you for witchcraft in the dark ages, where any unusual act was viewed as quite clearly satanic. I'd like to see all who believe there's a devil deep down, actively working to dethrone some heavenly king, burned at the stake. Someone should avenge the countless innocents they slaughtered.