So far, the Witcher 3 seems kind of sexist

[The Madman]

Now I'm not getting into the nitty gritty details here because I've been through this argument before and know perfectly well it leads nowhere, but there is something that should be emphasized in regards to the Bloody Baron quest-line:

-At no point are the Barons actions ever portrayed in a positive light. He is in the wrong for what he did, he is a bad guy, that is without question. The games doesn't even give you the option of supporting him for those actions. He *IS* however a bad guy with some positives to him: He treats Ciri well for example and genuinely seems to both understand how horrible he has been and wants to be better. This does not redeem his earlier actions, it gives him depth. Villains need something to make them vaguely sympathetic else-wise they're boring. The Baron is a villain, but he's one that by all indications desperately wants to be better, this is what makes him compelling.

-Many people are talking about the two 'you're both bad' and 'you suck' dialogue options but there's a third one as well that seems to be ignored. When asked whether Geralt wants to hear the Barons side of events, you can say no, at which point Geralt positively snarls that nothing the Baron says could make what he did better and that he doesn't want to hear it. The game then continues on from there.

Beyond that no, I don't think Witcher 3 is sexist. I think the game most certainly takes place in a setting where sexism is rampant and that the developers aren't shy in terms of the occasional bit of titillation, but I don't believe there was ever any sort of sexist intention by the developers either purposely or by accident. The game features a whole roster of compelling, well-written female characters both good and bad. Not just the romantic interests either, but figures like Cerys, Phillipa, Priscilla, and of course Ciri.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

I mean. It's appropriately sexist to a point?

I never really thought the game was good beyond visuals and world-building, but as I consider this part of the world building... It's not a bad thing. It's not sexist for the same of sexism or male superiority or any stupid shit like that. It's more a reflection of some parts of our reality.

It also makes sense with all of the idiots running around.

 

[Fox12]

Welp, thankfully I prepped a flame proof bunker for just this occasion.

But yeah, The Witcher series is kinda sexist sometimes.

I remember Geralt mentioning Yennifer's distinctive scent of lilac and gooseberries to strangers only twice, both times in the form of a question to discern her location; he's hardly "obsessed".

Spoiler: Sure

While my original comment contained hyperbole, I'm still allowed to think it's weird and creepy and it still took me out of the experience for a moment.

Oh, yes, the young woman that smelled like lavender and cream? Why, I remember smelling her two days ago. She traveled west, I think.

Spoiler

Not creepy : P

It's something I've noticed with some older movies and books that recognizing someone by scent is considered romantic, nowadays it seems to be more associated with creepy behavior as it's generally portrayed as something stalkers and obsessed people do. In the case of the Witcher though, it might just be kind of a clunky way to demonstrate Geralt's superior senses, his sense of smell is supposed to be pretty advanced.

Could also be a language thing, it reads like something that likely sounded more romantic or normal in polish but lost some of the context being translated to English.

I'm sure it was supposed to sound romantic, but it does seem kind of creepy when you think about it, haha. I was reading Jane Austen's stuff the other night, and apparently it was considered romantic to keep a lock of someone's hair, even if they didn't know about it.

 

[Silence]

snip

You are right about that the Beautiful Elite is a trope that applies here, but keep in mind that these are sorceresses, who use their magic to improve their looks. That they are the best looking is not only because these are the love interests - it's the lore of the world.

As I haven't yet played Hearts of Stone, I'm not sure about Shani (found her quite average in Witcher 1), but there the trope might actually apply without background story.

 

[infohippie]

I disagree that it's untrue. The game painting the situation as morally grey 'them being as bad as each other' is something I disagree with and feel that it's painting the abuser in a more sympathetic light than it should.
Just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't make it 'untrue'. I'm fine if people think it's not trying to make you feel sympathetic. That's fine.

"The abuser"? Which one? They're BOTH abusive of each other. Or does only abuse towards women count?

 

[Flathole]

"(video game) IS MISOGYNISTIC!" is the new "(game) ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE!"

I use the term "misogynistic" because I've NEVER read or heard anything about how a video game portrays men in general in a negative, unrealistic light.

The notion of years of spousal abused being even close to equivalent to cheating on your husband is incredibly dismissive of the severity of spousal abuse, and gives the suggestion that somehow she was asking for it by goading him, and cheating on him.

MAYBE the writers were simply trying to show how people can fool themselves into feeling justified. This is one character, one questline. Writing a human, believable character with views and thought processes that you find abhorrent is the hallmark of talent. It's easy to write a self-insert that parrots your own views, but someone you would despise IRL, while still making them relatable and understandable, is difficult, but creates a whole new experience compared to homogenized characters with clear-cut heroes/villains (ie the newer Assassin's Creed games).

An easy way to deflect claims of misogyny, racism, or whatever is just to make the characters in question murderous psychos who only eat the brains of infant children. And by easy, I mean lazy and disingenuous.

It made me kind of uncomfortable watching the Bloody Baron's questline, I liked that they made him human, but they kept toeing the line between making him understandable and human, to making him seem sympathetic and justified.

Reminds me of the mercenary fellow from Spec Ops: The Line, a well-written character in a well-written game.

Spoiler

Personally, I shot his head after the trucks flips. He did terrible things... but he was doomed to die either way. He seemed to truly believe in his methods. Either way, having him suffer in agony would be pointless.

Can you not form your own opinion on the character and situation, or do you assume nobody who plays the game can? Do you really believe men will play this game, complete the quest, then go savagely beat their wives because a video game told them to?

 

[FirstNameLastName]

They deserve eachother because she cheated on him and drove him insane and he apparently developed into a psychopath because of it so she made him into what he has become due to abuse.

At least that's what I'm reading from this.

I can't quite see how people can't look beyond that it's right their in the words, SHE, MADE, HIM.

If anything not judging her is the most sexist part of all.

This is how I'm interpreting how the writer was trying to make us view the situation, and this is what I take issue with. As I mentioned in the OP, and Phasmal mentioned in one of her posts, there is this notion that this scene conveys that she made him beat her. That she was verbally abusive to the point he had no other choice. This not only absolves him of responsibility, but it ignores the incredibly horrifying context of their relationship. To summarize things:

- She fell in love with another man and cheated on him
- She announced her intention to leave him
- He killed the man she loved in front of her in a fit of rage and fed him to dogs (Which he admitted he was wrong to do, good for him!)
- She gets into a fit of rage and tries to kill the Baron.

Now as things go, we've established that she didn't love the Baron anymore, and that she now loathes him to the point of wanting to kill him. Over the next however many years of their marriage, she attempted to kill herself multiple times, kill him, and escape. It is very clear that she is being kept in this marriage against her will to a man who she'd rather kill herself than be with. On top of that, the Baron beats her and rapes her, resulting in her trying to abort their child.

No shit she's "emotionally abusive". She loathes this man, and she wants nothing more than to be out of this marriage. In a normal, healthy relationship, emotional abuse is terrible. When you're trapping someone in a relationship with you, beating them, and raping them, you lose the right to expect them to be nice to you.

"But he loves her" and "She knew how to push all the right buttons" are two of the prime justifications that people who engage in spousal abuse use to defend their actions. If someone is emotionally abusive, you leave them. You don't hit them. It's never an excuse, even in relationships without so much context behind them.

In our world, yes, but I'm not sure that applies to Temeria. It's been a while since I've played the Witcher, so I'm not too sure exactly which religion is dominant in Velen, but the Church of the Eternal Fire is apparently the official religion of both Temeria and Redania, so it seems likely that's the official religion of Velen even if it isn't necessarily practiced much. There are also various religious practices around The Ladies of the Wood and Melitele, but throughout the game the Witchhunters (affiliated with the CotEF) seem to have increasingly more influence in Novigrad and become increasingly hostile to anything that goes against the church. Further more, unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure they actually address specifically how marriage is handled under any of these religions, but if it's anything like most of the European societies from which much of the lore is inspired it's quite possible they hold to the idea of marriage being for life.

Just saying; in medieval societies leaving a marriage is often a much bigger deal than it is now, especially if you're some kind of ruler in an already troubled region. Since the Baron rules more by force than respect it's questionable what impact would have, but we don't really know exactly how big of a deal remarriage is.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Do you really believe men will play this game, complete the quest, then go savagely beat their wives because a video game told them to?

Yup. You got it. That's exactly what I believe

EDIT:

Okay, I got snippy, and I'm doing what I said I wouldn't do at the start of this topic.

Of course I don't think that. I've said nothing that would suggest that I believe something so ridiculous.

The thread is long, and I've made a fair few posts, but just to summarize things I've already said: I like the fact that they rounded him out more than a cartoon villain, that is inherent in good writing. I'm not objecting to the fact they made him human. What I objected to was the way that the game handled the situation. I've gone into detail about this at least a couple times before in this thread, but it doesn't boil down to "The characters weren't perfect so this game is sexist".

People can form their own opinions, which, in fact, I did here. However there is still the way that the game was written to convey the events inside of it. The game can be written in a way that endorses a specific interpretation, and that's what I'm arguing it did. The work itself can be built on racist or sexist ideas. If you disagree, there's a lot of old English literature about Africans that you really should read.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

In our world, yes, but I'm not sure that applies to Temeria. It's been a while since I've played the Witcher, so I'm not too sure exactly which religion is dominant in Velen, but the Church of the Eternal Fire is apparently the official religion of both Temeria and Redania, so it seems likely that's the official religion of Velen even if it isn't necessarily practiced much. There are also various religious practices around The Ladies of the Wood and Melitele, but throughout the game the Witchhunters (affiliated with the CotEF) seem to have increasingly more influence in Novigrad and become increasingly hostile to anything that goes against the church. Further more, unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure they actually address specifically how marriage is handled under any of these religions, but if it's anything like most of the European societies from which much of the lore is inspired it's quite possible they hold to the idea of marriage being for life.

Just saying; in medieval societies leaving a marriage is often a much bigger deal than it is now, especially if you're some kind of ruler in an already troubled region. Since the Baron rules more by force than respect it's questionable what impact would have, but we don't really know exactly how big of a deal remarriage is.

I'd actually been thinking about this as well. Even if divorce and remarriage was forbidden, his wife was trying to run away. She pretty much already had before he decided to come over and drag her back. She'd for sure decided to get out of that marriage, he was keeping her there by force. He had the option to let her go, though to be fair she might not want to leave him with their daughter. Hell, that's probably why they stayed together for so long.

Either way, I think it's a little much expecting her to be nice when she's pretty much being held hostage. If a scenario like this happened in real life, I feel like nobody would be saying "Well yeah, the kidnapper beat her repeatedly, but to be fair she was really emotionally abusive."

The daughter does make things more complicated, but dealing with her emotional abuse wasn't something he had to live with, being married to a man who slaughtered her lover in front of her was something Anna had no choice in.

 

[Overusedname]

Is Geralt not allowed to have backwards opinions as well about things? He's a monster killer in a a feudal fantasy world, like how progressive do you actually expect him to be?

I mean the little I've played of Witcher 3, Geralt doesn't come across as a guy who's really good with relationships. So it kinda fits the character that he would say something like that.

To draw a comparison... LA Noir would be a sexist game too, even racist. Well no shit, it's 1950s america and it's characters are flawed. Not every character needs to be a rolemodel, ya know?

That's a pretty solid argueement really. I've never particularly understood why the main character of any given story has to be perfect to satisfying some kind of role model quota. Flaws are interesting.

 

[Clockwerkman]

I've already said multiple times in the OP that I like this game. That being said, just because I like the game doesn't mean that I have to be okay with absolutely every part of it. For instance, what I've discussed here is a problem that I have with the game. Particularly when I like a game, I care more about the parts that I don't like.

I created this thread to discuss an issue I had with the game, not to stir up drama. If you want to assume that my intentions are otherwise, you are free to do so.

---

Since people seem to be fixated on this point, I want to try again to make things clear about my stance.

I don't have an issue with this game taking place in a mysoginistic society. That in of itself doesn't make something sexist. The First Law Trilogy takes place in a sexist society, as does A Song of Ice and Fire, and I have no issue with any of those three. I've ran my own D&D games that took place in sexist societies. This doesn't bother me.

What bothers me about the quest is how the developers handled it. I like the Bloody Baron quest, and I liked how they decided to humanize what would normally be a one dimensional villain. I'd love to see more quests like it, but it was toeing a dangerous line of giving him too much sympathy. My issue with that particular part of the quest was how Geralt's options were to say "You both deserve each other", or to grasp at straws in a attempt to say that the Baron's still chiefly blame because he's responsible for her cheating, which gets immediately shot down by the Baron (Rightfully so). This conveys that the "correct" option is to say that they both deserve each other.

Why don't I accept the argument that Geralt is just supposed to be a sexist character and a byproduct of the environment? Why do I think that this speaks about what the game itself is trying to say about the situation?

Firstly, from what I've seen of Geralt, when you take the good dialogue options, he's chauvanistic and worst. They don't portray him as the kind of person who'd think that a women cheating on her husband deserves to be beaten and raped over a period of years (She was almost definitely raped, given that they had a child, and that she was so intent on getting rid of it). Maybe if you chose the evil dialogue choices, but this hardly seems in character of the good dialogue choices. I may well be wrong, I haven't seen everything there is about this character.

Secondly, and more importantly, they actually let you make the good choice. It's not like they just subject you to the response of "They deserve each other". They are very evidently saying you have a choice between thinking that her actions make her a terrible person deserving of him, and that he's still the one at fault here, and that she's not at all responsible for his actions. As I mentioned before, they turn the second response into a flimsy justification, intended to get shot down. Because of this, you can't just say that Geralt's character is sexist, because they very clearly give you the option to not make him so. They just don't appear to think much of that option.

So, to put things succinctly, I don't think that the game is sexist. For starters, I think the way the game approaches gender is actually the opposite, for the most part. I'll agree that more of the women than the men in the game are attractive, but the discrepancy doesn't seem very large, or like it's the focus, to me.

As far as the baron quest line, I think that it actually handles the issue with a fair amount of tact. I think that it's great to talk about hard issues like this in games, and I think we would be worse off to not have games that take a hard look at problematic elements of both history, and our current culture. With regards to your specifics, I don't see the "you both suck" option as sexist at all. I think in fact, that you are excusing the wife as an abuser, just because she was abused. By that logic, the baron himself would be blameless because his wife abused him.

As far as Geralt's "good" dialogue being chauvinistic, I couldn't disagree more. I can't remember a single statement from him saying something disparaging to any specific group, much less women as a gender. I'd be interested to see where you got that impression from though.

Below is a bit of a longer reply. Kind of meanders a bit. Read it or don't

Spoiler

I think I'll take a different view on this whole discussion than most. To be honest, I think most of the people in this thread have had bad points, on both sides of the issue.

To start off, let's look at Geralt's morality. One of the other people in this thread brought it up, but I don't think he was quite accurate. Geralt is a character who exists in a grey/grey, or grey/black world, with a desire to have a black/white morality. This is apparent with both previous games, and with the trailer "killing monsters" for the third.

Given this moral framework, we are also indirectly told that Geralt is a somewhat untrustworthy narrator, at least as far as morality is concerned, as he not only has a somewhat altered perspective, but as he is also forced to work outside the scope of politics, even on the local level. All this to say, I wouldn't read heavily into what Geralt says, so much as examine the broader context.

Even so, I'll address your point about the baron. While I agree that the "correct" option is to say that they both share blame, as others have pointed out, you can say in a different section of dialogue that you think he's completely at fault and bypass the whole thing. So, to conclude that the game is sexist because you chose an answer that you thought was sexist doesn't seem very fair to the game.

On that note, I think that the dialogue in question is in fact not at all sexist. I think this is an example of confirmation bias, where there isn't really anything to confirm. For starters, Geralt never says that the wife deserved to be beaten, he says they both are at fault. The text does say "you deserve each other", but I believe the intent is to say "you both suck" which is reinforced by what the character actually does say when you choose that option.

On that note, I think that your conclusion that she was raped is unfounded. The whole point is that they are both terrible people who are terrible for each other. She not only cheated on him, she stole from him, and then kidnapped his child, and then when he got his child back (in a way that even the game admits is unethical) she mentally and physically abused him. It is entirely possible she still slept with him consensually in between bouts of codependant spousal abuse. It is also possible that this was a case of marital rape, but the game does not say that, so to use that as proof of the games sexism is pretty circular.

To me, the game isn't trying to defend the baron, or the wife. It's trying to show an example of how fucked up the world can be, and show a hard situation with no easy solution. Was the baron wrong to murder the dude who his wife cheated on? Yes, and the game says as much. It also makes no qualms about calling him out on his abuse. In addition to that, we are presented all this in a world very different from our own. Now, it's not explicit on details like this, but given the setting, I would expect many parallels to medieval history. Namely, that marriage meant far more back then, and was much harder to get out of. In the modern day, this situation would be far more easily resolved with a divorce and therapy for the baron. In the setting in which we are given, the husband kind of ran out of any semblance of good options when he murdered the lover.

He could probably divorce her given her infidelity, but not only would she likely kill herself, if she didn't she would be guaranteed to live a short life as a beggar, as no one would marry a woman divorced for infidelity. Given the nature of that society, if you are an unmarried woman, you are either a sorceress, or a beggar. So not only does he not want to do that to her because he actually does love her, but he also wants what's best for his daughter. So, he's trapped by his PTSD, his alcoholism, his love for his wife, and what sounds like a shit ton of spousal abuse from her as well.

Here's where I definitely have a difference of opinion. While he's not excused for beating his wife, his wife is not innocent. Her being physically abused does not give her the right to abuse her husband, just as being abused by his wife doesn't give him the right to abuse her. The reason why "you both suck" is the right option, is because they do both suck. Both had options to prevent things from getting so fucked up, and they both had options to change things once they did get fucked up.

Below is a spoiler from the end of the quest line.

Spoiler

This isn't even including the fact that the reason the miscarriage occurred wasn't even the barons fault. The wife got a trio of blood magic using witches to suck the life out of the baby. Which is a bit fucked up IMO, since the miscarried baby seems pretty late term. Then again, abortion is a whoooooole nother can of worms I don't want to get into. That being said, I hope you'd at least agree that the issue isn't clear cut.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

That's a pretty solid argueement really. I've never particularly understood why the main character of any given story has to be perfect to satisfying some kind of role model quota. Flaws are interesting.

I absolutely don't think they need to be, and I respond to this objection earlier. To avoid repeating myself:

Spoiler

Why don't I accept the argument that Geralt is just supposed to be a sexist character and a byproduct of the environment? Why do I think that this speaks about what the game itself is trying to say about the situation?

Firstly, from what I've seen of Geralt, when you take the good dialogue options, he's chauvanistic EDIT:and at the worst. They don't portray him as the kind of person who'd think that a women cheating on her husband deserves to be beaten and raped over a period of years (She was almost definitely raped, given that they had a child, and that she was so intent on getting rid of it). Maybe if you chose the evil dialogue choices, but this hardly seems in character of the good dialogue choices. I may well be wrong, I haven't seen everything there is about this character.

Secondly, and more importantly, they actually let you make the good choice. It's not like they just subject you to the response of "They deserve each other". They are very evidently saying you have a choice between thinking that her actions make her a terrible person deserving of him, and that he's still the one at fault here, and that she's not at all responsible for his actions. As I mentioned before, they turn the second response into a flimsy justification, intended to get shot down. Because of this, you can't just say that Geralt's character is sexist, because they very clearly give you the option to not make him so. They just don't appear to think much of that option.

So, to put things succinctly, I don't think that the game is sexist. For starters, I think the way the game approaches gender is actually the opposite, for the most part. I'll agree that more of the women than the men in the game are attractive, but the discrepancy doesn't seem very large, or like it's the focus, to me.

As far as the baron quest line, I think that it actually handles the issue with a fair amount of tact. I think that it's great to talk about hard issues like this in games, and I think we would be worse off to not have games that take a hard look at problematic elements of both history, and our current culture. With regards to your specifics, I don't see the "you both suck" option as sexist at all. I think in fact, that you are excusing the wife as an abuser, just because she was abused. By that logic, the baron himself would be blameless because his wife abused him.

As far as Geralt's "good" dialogue being chauvinistic, I couldn't disagree more. I can't remember a single statement from him saying something disparaging to any specific group, much less women as a gender. I'd be interested to see where you got that impression from though.

That bit about chauvinism was a typo, I meant to say "Chauvinistic at the worst". And I only said that because there's an instance where he asks Kiera to stand back so he can do the fight on his own. That being said, I don't believe him to be chauvinistic, but I could see how an argument could be made that he is. My point being that nowhere do they seem to portray him as needing to be a sexist and uncaring asshole. It's a stretch to say that's a part of his character when in my play through I've had the opportunity to save and help a number people out of the goodness of my heart, as well as considering the Baron vile for abusing his wife (For sure to start with).

Anyways, we agree on that part, so onto the rest of your post:

I think I'll take a different view on this whole discussion than most. To be honest, I think most of the people in this thread have had bad points, on both sides of the issue.

To start off, let's look at Geralt's morality. One of the other people in this thread brought it up, but I don't think he was quite accurate. Geralt is a character who exists in a grey/grey, or grey/black world, with a desire to have a black/white morality. This is apparent with both previous games, and with the trailer "killing monsters" for the third.

Given this moral framework, we are also indirectly told that Geralt is a somewhat untrustworthy narrator, at least as far as morality is concerned, as he not only has a somewhat altered perspective, but as he is also forced to work outside the scope of politics, even on the local level. All this to say, I wouldn't read heavily into what Geralt says, so much as examine the broader context.

As far as I've seen into the game, they don't seem to be pulling much of an unreliable narrator thing here. If there's a major theme in this game where we're supposed to be seeing everything that happens through Geralt's skewed interpretation and doubting if that's how events really unfolded, I don't really see it. The Baron's an unreliable narrator, for sure, but I'm really not seeing it for Geralt in the regular events of the game. Even if it was, this seems like a really weird place for them to pull that unreliable narrator business to imply that something different actually happened.

Even so, I'll address your point about the baron. While I agree that the "correct" option is to say that they both share blame, as others have pointed out, you can say in a different section of dialogue that you think he's completely at fault and bypass the whole thing. So, to conclude that the game is sexist because you chose an answer that you thought was sexist doesn't seem very fair to the game.

On that note, I think that the dialogue in question is in fact not at all sexist. I think this is an example of confirmation bias, where there isn't really anything to confirm. For starters, Geralt never says that the wife deserved to be beaten, he says they both are at fault. The text does say "you deserve each other", but I believe the intent is to say "you both suck" which is reinforced by what the character actually does say when you choose that option.

I didn't choose the answer that I thought was sexist, I chose the answer that I thought wasn't, and came to realize that it was the "wrong" choice. You can bypass that section and just not listen to the Baron's side, and sure, you'll condemn him as the sole guilty party, but I find it telling that if Geralt knows the full details, that side becomes invalid. Given that, it seems like the only reason he condoned the actions before was because he didn't know the whole story.

I looked over the video a couple posts ago, and what the "You both deserve each other" dialogue choice expands out to (I didn't know because I didn't choose it in game) is "You're right, you're both in the wrong here." Which basically validates the Baron's interpretation of the situation. Which includes that he hit her because she was goading him into it. Which doesn't absolve him entirely of guilt, but also makes her out to be a responsible party in her own beating.

On that note, I think that your conclusion that she was raped is unfounded. The whole point is that they are both terrible people who are terrible for each other. She not only cheated on him, she stole from him, and then kidnapped his child, and then when he got his child back (in a way that even the game admits is unethical) she mentally and physically abused him. It is entirely possible she still slept with him consensually in between bouts of codependant spousal abuse. It is also possible that this was a case of marital rape, but the game does not say that, so to use that as proof of the games sexism is pretty circular.

That might be your view, but it seems hard for me to believe that she could switch so quickly from trying to kill him or herself for a period of 2 years to "I want you to plant a baby in me" to "I cannot bear that vile monster's child". The last of which was must have been a conscious choice made over a long period of time, since there was a lot of setup towards it. As a general rule, when you hate someone to the extent you try to kill them, you generally don't love them all that much.

I also can't condemn her emotional abuse when she's being forced into marriage with a man who murdered someone she loved. She's using literally every means she can to get away from him, I think it's disingenuous to treat this like it's a marriage in which she's a consensual party. By his admission, they were at their best after this incident when she gave up all hope. After two years or rage, attempts at suicide, murder and escape. A bit of a "rough patch" in their relationship.

To me, the game isn't trying to defend the baron, or the wife. It's trying to show an example of how fucked up the world can be, and show a hard situation with no easy solution. Was the baron wrong to murder the dude who his wife cheated on? Yes, and the game says as much. It also makes no qualms about calling him out on his abuse. In addition to that, we are presented all this in a world very different from our own. Now, it's not explicit on details like this, but given the setting, I would expect many parallels to medieval history. Namely, that marriage meant far more back then, and was much harder to get out of. In the modern day, this situation would be far more easily resolved with a divorce and therapy for the baron. In the setting in which we are given, the husband kind of ran out of any semblance of good options when he murdered the lover.

He could probably divorce her given her infidelity, but not only would she likely kill herself, if she didn't she would be guaranteed to live a short life as a beggar, as no one would marry a woman divorced for infidelity. Given the nature of that society, if you are an unmarried woman, you are either a sorceress, or a beggar. So not only does he not want to do that to her because he actually does love her, but he also wants what's best for his daughter. So, he's trapped by his PTSD, his alcoholism, his love for his wife, and what sounds like a shit ton of spousal abuse from her as well.

Even if this was his thought process, this whole scenario ignores the fact that Anna is an also an independent agent who was robbed of all ability to make her own decisions, and all her power. She had no ability to leave, and was stuck in a marriage with a man she loathes. And the husband wasn't just choosing the best choice for her, she had means to survive, as did Tamara. Tamara was pretty well off in Oxenfort, and Anna could have lived with her (Family?) in the fishing village). Beyond all that, when you're in a situation you'd want to kill yourself to get out of, that seems like a risk worth taking.

Here's where I definitely have a difference of opinion. While he's not excused for beating his wife, his wife is not innocent. Her being physically abused does not give her the right to abuse her husband, just as being abused by his wife doesn't give him the right to abuse her. The reason why "you both suck" is the right option, is because they do both suck. Both had options to prevent things from getting so fucked up, and they both had options to change things once they did get fucked up.

Yeah, I just can't get behind this. You say that the Baron had no options, but Anna was utterly powerless in all of this. She had to dabble in pacts with witches to get any semblance of power over her life. The marriage was in an utter state of disrepair, Anna desperately wanted out, but the Baron would not let her. What would you do in her situation? You absolutely despise the man you're married to, they murdered your lover and fed them to dogs, and they won't let you leave by any means. I'm honestly curious, would you be the loving and doting wife that the Baron wants?

Note that when the Baron gives examples of his wife saying exactly the right things to goad him into beating her, he cites examples such as screaming that he robbed her life of love, and that she destroyed the idea of love to her so that she might as well kill her. This is the sort of thing that he would beat her over. This sounds... completely accurate, and more like someone who's in a terrible state of grieving and depression, than someone trying to emotionally abuse someone else. Why is she supposed to slip all this under the rug?

By the way, thanks for the reply, when I made this topic it's discussions just like these that I was hoping to have. Success has been... mixed.

 

[The Madman]

So since I'm noticing some people in this topic haven't actually played the game or have an incorrect understanding of the events portrayed, here's the story of the Bloody Baron. No guesswork, everything as the game tells it:

-He was a soldier fighting for a nation called Temeria.
-He is injured in battle but survives after being treated by a medic.
-The medic and him fall in love and eventually marry. This is his wife Anna.
-They have a child together, this is their first daughter Tamara.
-The Baron continues as a soldier, but eventually begins to shows signs of PTSD with heavy drinking and wild mood swings.
-His wife becomes unhappy both with his regular absences in war and his issues while at home.
-The wife begins to cheat on the Baron with an old friend while he is away at war.
-She falls in love with the man she's cheating with and announces in a letter she's leaving the Baron and taking their daughter with her.
-The Baron returns from war and discovering his wife's infidelity and absence goes into a rage.
-The Baron finds and kills the wife's lover, violently.
-The wife flies into a rage and begins hitting the Baron, he hits her back for the first time.
-Thus begins the abusive relationship as the Baron is unwilling to let her go and she no longer has anywhere to go.
-The wife, miserable and unhappy, verbally abuses the Baron when he's home and provokes him into a rage where he often hits her.
-A violent cycle is created with their daughter stuck in the middle.
-Eventually Temeria is conquered and the Baron ends up leading a rag-tag group of survivors alongside his wife and child to Velen.
-In Velen the Baron establishes himself as, well, The Bloody Baron and takes control of an abandoned fort.
-No longer a soldier, the Baron begins to dote over his wife and daughter, seemingly eager to re-establish himself in their lives.
-At some point his wife became pregnant for a second time, the Baron is ecstatic thinking this is an opportunity to rebuild.
-His wife is generally unhappy, sometimes resorting to self-harming or attacking the Baron.
-His daughter turns to hardcore religion.
-His drinking problems continue to spiral out of control, fueled by his families unhappiness.
-The wife decides to abort the child, and turns to black magic to do it, making a deal in secret with the Witches of Velen.
-At some point she either regrets or fears the deal she made, as she turns to the Pellar to try and protect herself from the Witches.
-The Pellar gives the wife a magic charm to protect her from the Witches influence.
-Later during a fight between the Baron and his wife the charm is lost.
-The Witches magic takes hold and the wife gives birth to a stillborn child.
-The wife and daughter flee while the Baron is still out of commission from their last fight.
-During their escape the Witches decide to collect payment for their services and send a monster to capture the wife.
-The Baron awakens, finds them gone and the dead child, believes he was the killer and continues his miserable downward spiral.
-The Baron begins to search for his family, putting up posters and sending his men abroad.
-The daughter makes her way to a friend and turns to the Church for help.
-The wife becomes an indebted servant to the Witches and begins to go mad from their cruelty.
-Ciri, Geralts adopted daughter, enters the picture around here and is treated nicely by the Baron before departing.
-Enter Geralt, who is on the trail of Ciri and thus gets involved in this affair when the Baron offers an exchange of information.
-Geralt finds the Barons missing family, leading the Baron to where his wife is being held by the Witches and where they also encounter the daughter who has similar plans, thanks to the aid of her nutty church friends.

Eventually it can end one of two main ways depending on how you played things.

-The wife is driven completely and utterly insane by the actions of the Witches. The Baron, distraught at the realization he helped cause of all this alongside the events leading to this moment, vows to never drink again as he leads his addled wife into the proverbial sunset in the hopes of finding her help.

-The wife dies, albeit not before wishing both her daughter and the Baron farewell. The Baron, overcome with grief from his role in all this and the realization he will never get the happy family he idealized, pays Geralt for his services before returning home and committing suicide.

In both scenario the daughter is led away to join the Church fully and Geralt is given the info he needs to find Ciri. It's also worth noting that with the Baron gone his second in command takes over and becomes a bit of a tyrant, moreso than the Baron was anyway. Raping and looting aplenty with the Baron no longer keeping his ragtag band in check.

No happy endings here.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*snip*

Good summary. The only thing I would recommend adding is that the wife tries to kill the baron and herself on several occasions. I feel like it's important for the context of lots of this discussion.

Would you mind if I linked to your post in the OP? I feel like it'd be a useful reference for people coming into this thread.

 

[The Madman]

Good summary. The only thing I would recommend adding is that the wife tries to kill the baron and herself on several occasions. I feel like it's important for the context of lots of this discussion.

Would you mind if I linked to your post in the OP? I feel like it'd be a useful reference for people coming into this thread.

Go for it. I edited my post to make your notes a bit more clear.

 

[Joccaren]

I looked over the video a couple posts ago, and what the "You both deserve each other" dialogue choice expands out to (I didn't know because I didn't choose it in game) is "You're right, you're both in the wrong here." Which basically validates the Baron's interpretation of the situation. Which includes that he hit her because she was goading him into it. Which doesn't absolve him entirely of guilt, but also makes her out to be a responsible party in her own beating.

And this is where I find we disagree on the interpretation a bit. It isn't making her a responsible party in her own beating, its saying that they both royally fucked up. It isn't saying that justifies the Baron's beating of her, its saying that she has made her own mistakes. She isn't only a victim, she's also a perpetrator. The Baron is still in the wrong, and its quite telling that no matter what option you pick you still say this, its just in one option you acknowledge that he knows he's in the wrong too, and that his wife isn't an innocent little sunflower either.

I also can't condemn her emotional abuse when she's being forced into marriage with a man who murdered someone she loved. She's using literally every means she can to get away from him, I think it's disingenuous to treat this like it's a marriage in which she's a consensual party. By his admission, they were at their best after this incident when she gave up all hope. After two years or rage, attempts at suicide, murder and escape. A bit of a "rough patch" in their relationship.

Its also the best of her options. Her 'escape' is madness with the witches of the marsh, or starvation and death out in the wilds. Maybe if she's lucky she could be a whore and sell herself to make a living. This ain't the modern world, she stands no chance on her own as a normal woman. Were she a sorceress... Maybe. But she's not. She isn't even at the very least childless. She has a child, and few men in that day and age would want to take on the burden of both.

As for absolving her of her faults because of trauma, the same can be said of the Baron. He had PTSD, and she knew it. Her response? Oh, best dig the knife in as deep I can. She literally picked the worst set of actions she could have out of spite, before and after the flip out. She is a horrible person as much as the Baron is. The Baron beats her, and she beats the Baron, and psychologically abuses him. He at least tries to make things better. Seriously, neither are remotely redeemable or the victim here. Both contributed to their own situation, and both were horrible people to the others in their life.

And sadly, neither of them can really be blamed. Both suffered trauma, and were mostly reacting to that trauma. They just both picked the worst ways to do it.

Even if this was his thought process, this whole scenario ignores the fact that Anna is an also an independent agent who was robbed of all ability to make her own decisions, and all her power. She had no ability to leave, and was stuck in a marriage with a man she loathes. And the husband wasn't just choosing the best choice for her, she had means to survive, as did Tamara. Tamara was pretty well off in Oxenfort, and Anna could have lived with her (Family?) in the fishing village). Beyond all that, when you're in a situation you'd want to kill yourself to get out of, that seems like a risk worth taking.

The game shows you how at times she regretted her decision of basically trading her life for escape and a stillborn. At times, she has hope. At other times, she doesn't. Honestly, both Anna and the Baron are pretty mentally unstable in this story.
Tamara was pretty well off... After becoming devoutly religious and selling her body and soul to the church to be its enforcer. The Baron also didn't necessarily know that they would be accepted by the church, so from his point of view that idea doesn't count.
Family in the fishing village also isn't the most viable solution. Famine and starvation are a real thing, especially during war. Let alone the risks of bandits and raids, if her fishing village family could even support both her and her daughter [Unlikely], she would still be in more danger, and at high risk of suicide, outside.
And outside the Baron's point of view, I get the feeling she probably would have abused her family as well were she to be living with them. Both her and the Baron were mentally unstable, her trauma was causing her to lash out at those around her, I believe outside of Tamara. It would have made life very difficult for her family at the very least.
And again, this is assuming she can, on her own, get through all the drowners and nekkers and forest beasts to get to that village. Pretty unlikely.

Yeah, I just can't get behind this. You say that the Baron had no options, but Anna was utterly powerless in all of this. She had to dabble in pacts with witches to get any semblance of power over her life. The marriage was in an utter state of disrepair, Anna desperately wanted out, but the Baron would not let her. What would you do in her situation? You absolutely despise the man you're married to, they murdered your lover and fed them to dogs, and they won't let you leave by any means. I'm honestly curious, would you be the loving and doting wife that the Baron wants?

Ok, let me try this. You're being held hostage by ISIS, and you can't escape. Would you yell and scream abuse at them until they shoot you?
No. She made a bad situation worse. Eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. You don't need to be the loving doting wife, you just need to not hurl abuse and shit at your partner.
And yeah, she tried to kill herself. The Baron is at his wits end to, on the verge of doing so. Note when he loses Anna, he kills himself. Both are trying to escape killing themselves. Both have suffered serious trauma, the Baron at war and Anna at home. If anything, the Baron is more sympathetic here for wanting to make amends for what he knows were bad actions. Anna simply wants to dig the dagger deeper and cause as much pain as she can when going out... Except when she decides she actually doesn't. Her moods are up and down - as shown by the fact she tried to avoid the stillbirth and Witch contract by going to the Pellar. I think at times she realised that she could have a much better life than she was leading, but at other times the trauma and stress got to her - same as it did the Baron.

I mean, not that you'd expect someone to do this, but Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for years and had no control over his life. Did he plot the downfall of the white man, and come to power to persecute and punish them? No, he sat peacefully, and campaigned for equality and peace. He made the most of his situation. Even those who didn't manage the success that he did, even when wrongly imprisoned, many make the most of the lives they can. Anna didn't. Yeah, trauma, but she made the worst possible choices in her life afterwards. Kind of reminiscent of the Baron himself, who made really bad choices after suffering trauma.

Note that when the Baron gives examples of his wife saying exactly the right things to goad him into beating her, he cites examples such as screaming that he robbed her life of love, and that she destroyed the idea of love to her so that she might as well kill her. This is the sort of thing that he would beat her over. This sounds... completely accurate, and more like someone who's in a terrible state of grieving and depression, than someone trying to emotionally abuse someone else. Why is she supposed to slip all this under the rug?

Honestly, we need a lot more information that just this. His family and his love for them is very important to the Baron. It IS his life. Note, that when he loses his family, he kills himself. That's how important it is to him.
I don't know whether early on the Baron tried to help Anna through the grief and pain, but from the regret he's shown, I'd say he probably did. Anna threw it back in his face and, knowing how much he cared about her and her happiness, made a deliberate point of pointing out to him how much he hurt her there. As you note, this is 2 years later. Yeah, some trauma lasts for ages, but continuing those exact same lines for 2-3 years is... unlikely. Especially if he has tried to help her through it. It makes it seem she didn't want help, just to keep hurting as a means of catharsis. Hell, even if it was just grieving, surely after 2-3 years your common sense would tell you "This sends him into a fit, don't do it". In doing it, she was intentionally sending him into that fit - she had 2 years experience to go off.

Note that paraphrasing is also a thing. You can word things like the Baron did, or she could have worded it a lot more viscously. And regardless of the merit in words, when they're mired in hate they hurt.

Basically, its a case of two mentally ill people living together and abusing the shit out of each other. Its just not pretty, and you're not given the option to vindicate anyone but his wife, even if it is before you find out all the information.


I also fail to see how, even if you're right, this is sexist. It would be sexist if it said this is only this way because she's a girl, but say we flipped it around: The Baron's wife went off to war, Baron cheated on her, she killed his wife and abused him for years, and the most we can say is she shouldn't have given him the option to cheat. Would that be sexist against guys? Hell, honestly it sounds sexist against girls because they should just be good wives and not go away and let their husbands cheat. Ignoring that, no, it doesn't sound sexist.
Its potentially victim blaming, but I don't see it as sexist. Its not making any statement about gender, its simply examining a situation with two people who abused each other, and Geralt is giving his opinion on that.

 

[Clockwerkman]

As far as I've seen into the game, they don't seem to be pulling much of an unreliable narrator thing here. If there's a major theme in this game where we're supposed to be seeing everything that happens through Geralt's skewed interpretation and doubting if that's how events really unfolded, I don't really see it. The Baron's an unreliable narrator, for sure, but I'm really not seeing it for Geralt in the regular events of the game. Even if it was, this seems like a really weird place for them to pull that unreliable narrator business to imply that something different actually happened.

Unreliable narrator was perhaps the wrong choice of words. By that I mean, I think Geralt's view of morality and his moral decision making are not necessarily the same as the viewers. I disagree with the guy from before, as I do think Geralt does what he thinks is right more often than not, but I do think he is intended to be a member of the society in which he exists, with all that entails, albeit a progressive one.

I didn't choose the answer that I thought was sexist, I chose the answer that I thought wasn't, and came to realize that it was the "wrong" choice. You can bypass that section and just not listen to the Baron's side, and sure, you'll condemn him as the sole guilty party, but I find it telling that if Geralt knows the full details, that side becomes invalid. Given that, it seems like the only reason he condoned the actions before was because he didn't know the whole story.

I looked over the video a couple posts ago, and what the "You both deserve each other" dialogue choice expands out to (I didn't know because I didn't choose it in game) is "You're right, you're both in the wrong here." Which basically validates the Baron's interpretation of the situation. Which includes that he hit her because she was goading him into it. Which doesn't absolve him entirely of guilt, but also makes her out to be a responsible party in her own beating.

There's an important distinction between "you are in the wrong" and "you are responsible for". That I think, is the hangup here. If the baron is to be believed, Anna went out of her way to torment a mentally ill individual. My take on the situation is that Anna hated the baron more than she cared about being "free". Partially for the reasons I talked about before, but also because she could have escaped at any point in the past after her lover was killed. We know this, because the baron was described as constantly drunk, and she did escape when she needed to (won't say why she did,because spoilers). From this, I draw the conclusion that she did purposefully goad him into beating her. She did it because after her lover died, all she had left was her hate for her husband, and she knew that goading him into it while he was drunk was one of the best ways to torment him.

On the other hand, the baron is DEFINITELY an unreliable narrator, so it's possible that he was projecting. That being said, the bits with Ciri, as well as information you get later makes me think that he's at least not outright lying.

I also can't condemn her emotional abuse when she's being forced into marriage with a man who murdered someone she loved. She's using literally every means she can to get away from him, I think it's disingenuous to treat this like it's a marriage in which she's a consensual party. By his admission, they were at their best after this incident when she gave up all hope. After two years or rage, attempts at suicide, murder and escape. A bit of a "rough patch" in their relationship.

I definitely still can. A moral imperative shouldn't change based on circumstance. I could and do see it as a mitigating factor, but we wouldn't say she would be justified in murdering him, so why would it be okay to torture him?

On that note though, my thoughts on the whole concept of abuse are not settled. For example, if a man uses "fighting words" on another, the other guy (depending on jurisdiction of course) could be totally legally justified in throwing a punch. If we are all on the topic of sexism, why would that change if it was a woman? Or in the context of marriage?

I definitely see and get the difference in power dynamic, but I still don't think that justifies abuse, or disqualifies the anger of the baron. I'm not saying I think he's absolved of any guilt by the way. I think that responding with violence is worst of all possible options in every circumstance, hence my stance that they both suck.

Even if this was his thought process, this whole scenario ignores the fact that Anna is an also an independent agent who was robbed of all ability to make her own decisions, and all her power. She had no ability to leave, and was stuck in a marriage with a man she loathes. And the husband wasn't just choosing the best choice for her, she had means to survive, as did Tamara. Tamara was pretty well off in Oxenfort, and Anna could have lived with her (Family?) in the fishing village). Beyond all that, when you're in a situation you'd want to kill yourself to get out of, that seems like a risk worth taking.

Here's where I definitely have a difference of opinion. While he's not excused for beating his wife, his wife is not innocent. Her being physically abused does not give her the right to abuse her husband, just as being abused by his wife doesn't give him the right to abuse her. The reason why "you both suck" is the right option, is because they do both suck. Both had options to prevent things from getting so fucked up, and they both had options to change things once they did get fucked up.

Yeah, I just can't get behind this. You say that the Baron had no options, but Anna was utterly powerless in all of this. She had to dabble in pacts with witches to get any semblance of power over her life. The marriage was in an utter state of disrepair, Anna desperately wanted out, but the Baron would not let her. What would you do in her situation? You absolutely despise the man you're married to, they murdered your lover and fed them to dogs, and they won't let you leave by any means. I'm honestly curious, would you be the loving and doting wife that the Baron wants?

See, I don't agree that she was robbed of all her agency, for the reasons stated above. In addition you are correct, she could have moved back in with her family, or had her family help her get away. She had options the entire time, and didn't use them. I suppose you could argue that fear prevented her, or that the baron was lying about everything,but given that his testimony, the part with Ciri, and things with the quest resolution are all the game gives us on the situation, I would tend towards believing that Anna was not so powerless.

As far as what I would do in her situation? Well for starters, I wouldn't cheat on him for three years, then steal from him and kidnap his daughter. Assuming I already had, and the lover already got dead? I would attempt to get a divorce, if that universe has them. If not, I'd run away and leave the daughter with him. It was pretty well established that he never touched a hair on his daughters head, so I know she'd be safe, and better off with him than with me.

Note that when the Baron gives examples of his wife saying exactly the right things to goad him into beating her, he cites examples such as screaming that he robbed her life of love, and that she destroyed the idea of love to her so that she might as well kill her. This is the sort of thing that he would beat her over. This sounds... completely accurate, and more like someone who's in a terrible state of grieving and depression, than someone trying to emotionally abuse someone else. Why is she supposed to slip all this under the rug?

By the way, thanks for the reply, when I made this topic it's discussions just like these that I was hoping to have. Success has been... mixed.

I got more the impression that she said things far more hurtful than that. I'd point to his experience with Ciri that he doesn't have a hair trigger that bad. I guess it's kind of up for interpretation. That being said, that it's so up to interpretation makes me bring it full circle to point out that the game itself doesn't strike me as sexist.

No problem! I love having discussions like this. I've studied philosophy for quite some time, so I find conversations like this to be very entertaining. It can take me a lot of typing before I figure out what I want to say, but I like to think I make a cogent point or two in all the pages of text Thanks for being so level headed in return! I know how easy it can be to lose your cool in a discussion, much less one on the internet.

 

[Amaror]

This isn't just about one line being poorly written, this is what that line says about how this scenario was intended to be viewed. And it's well beyond just that one line, it's just that one line I think gives the best impression of the take they had on the situation. After the whole truth came out, they didn't see it any way besides "They're both at fault". If they had, they'd have found a justification that they themselves didn't think was bull for the second dialogue option.

They certainly weren't trying to portray domestic abuse as totally justified and noble, but the way things come across they were trying to portray the situation in the way that Politrukk interpreted it. That through cheating on him, and verbally abusing him, she brought it upon herself. Maybe slightly less harsh

Which again, is purely your interpretation based on a single line of dialogue. I always love it when people are psychic enough to know exactly what the developers were thinking during development based on a single line of dialogue or some similar bs.
You are saying that geralts "You are still at fault" line is indefensible. I don't think so. In the context of the conversation the bloody baron had just brought up the following arguments to his defense:
. She had cheated on me and was trying to leave me
. That lead to a situation were I killed her lover
. That lead to many more situations were she tried to kill me, forcing me to beat her in self-defense.
That's a line of reasoning which puts the cheating part on the top of the chain of events. The argumentation is that if the wife hadn't cheated on him, none of the other horrible stuff would have happened. The majourity of horrible events was still performed by the bloody baron, but this line of reasoning puts the wife as the source of all the horrible things that happened after.
Now geralts argument is that the bloody baron is also at fault for his cheating wife, since he was not a good husband from his alcohol abuse and was always away on long campaigns. While not a really good reason to damn someone in and of itself, this puts the bloody baron as the cause for his cheating wife. Meaning that, in the end, the bloody baron is the source for the chain of horrible events happening. This absolves his wife for causing the chain of horrible events and puts the vast majourity of the blame back on him.

I just want to express how much I hate discussions like this. This is the reason why we get so many cooky-cutter, black-and white, good vs. evil stories from AAA titles nowadays. Because as soon as you make something morally ambiguous you have discussions like this popping up, calling the developers sexist, racist or whatever other -ist is in at the moment. You say that you generally like how three-dimensional the bloody baron character is, but at the same time you make massive stretches into convincing youself what the developers MUST have thought during development and what the CLEARLY only right dialogue choice in this situation must be in order to cry sexism.

 

[Clockwerkman]

Seriously, neither are remotely redeemable or the victim here. Both contributed to their own situation, and both were horrible people to the others in their life.

I agree with everything in your post, except the above. I think

Spoiler

The ending where you let him seek the wise man in the mountains shows hope for redemption for both of them. Whether or not they get that redemption is one thing, but I don't think they're irredeemable.

I think the above is a great point or supporting TW3 as immensely more humanist than sexist.

Seriously though, your post was really on point. You said everything I meant to in a really clear and concise way

 

[DementedSheep]

I looked over the video a couple posts ago, and what the "You both deserve each other" dialogue choice expands out to (I didn't know because I didn't choose it in game) is "You're right, you're both in the wrong here." Which basically validates the Baron's interpretation of the situation. Which includes that he hit her because she was goading him into it. Which doesn't absolve him entirely of guilt, but also makes her out to be a responsible party in her own beating.

And this is where I find we disagree on the interpretation a bit. It isn't making her a responsible party in her own beating, its saying that they both royally fucked up. It isn't saying that justifies the Baron's beating of her, its saying that she has made her own mistakes. She isn't only a victim, she's also a perpetrator. The Baron is still in the wrong, and its quite telling that no matter what option you pick you still say this, its just in one option you acknowledge that he knows he's in the wrong too, and that his wife isn't an innocent little sunflower either.

I also can't condemn her emotional abuse when she's being forced into marriage with a man who murdered someone she loved. She's using literally every means she can to get away from him, I think it's disingenuous to treat this like it's a marriage in which she's a consensual party. By his admission, they were at their best after this incident when she gave up all hope. After two years or rage, attempts at suicide, murder and escape. A bit of a "rough patch" in their relationship.

Its also the best of her options. Her 'escape' is madness with the witches of the marsh, or starvation and death out in the wilds. Maybe if she's lucky she could be a whore and sell herself to make a living. This ain't the modern world, she stands no chance on her own as a normal woman. Were she a sorceress... Maybe. But she's not. She isn't even at the very least childless. She has a child, and few men in that day and age would want to take on the burden of both.

As for absolving her of her faults because of trauma, the same can be said of the Baron. He had PTSD, and she knew it. Her response? Oh, best dig the knife in as deep I can. She literally picked the worst set of actions she could have out of spite, before and after the flip out. She is a horrible person as much as the Baron is. The Baron beats her, and she beats the Baron, and psychologically abuses him. He at least tries to make things better. Seriously, neither are remotely redeemable or the victim here. Both contributed to their own situation, and both were horrible people to the others in their life.

And sadly, neither of them can really be blamed. Both suffered trauma, and were mostly reacting to that trauma. They just both picked the worst ways to do it.

Even if this was his thought process, this whole scenario ignores the fact that Anna is an also an independent agent who was robbed of all ability to make her own decisions, and all her power. She had no ability to leave, and was stuck in a marriage with a man she loathes. And the husband wasn't just choosing the best choice for her, she had means to survive, as did Tamara. Tamara was pretty well off in Oxenfort, and Anna could have lived with her (Family?) in the fishing village). Beyond all that, when you're in a situation you'd want to kill yourself to get out of, that seems like a risk worth taking.

The game shows you how at times she regretted her decision of basically trading her life for escape and a stillborn. At times, she has hope. At other times, she doesn't. Honestly, both Anna and the Baron are pretty mentally unstable in this story.
Tamara was pretty well off... After becoming devoutly religious and selling her body and soul to the church to be its enforcer. The Baron also didn't necessarily know that they would be accepted by the church, so from his point of view that idea doesn't count.
Family in the fishing village also isn't the most viable solution. Famine and starvation are a real thing, especially during war. Let alone the risks of bandits and raids, if her fishing village family could even support both her and her daughter [Unlikely], she would still be in more danger, and at high risk of suicide, outside.
And outside the Baron's point of view, I get the feeling she probably would have abused her family as well were she to be living with them. Both her and the Baron were mentally unstable, her trauma was causing her to lash out at those around her, I believe outside of Tamara. It would have made life very difficult for her family at the very least.
And again, this is assuming she can, on her own, get through all the drowners and nekkers and forest beasts to get to that village. Pretty unlikely.

Yeah, I just can't get behind this. You say that the Baron had no options, but Anna was utterly powerless in all of this. She had to dabble in pacts with witches to get any semblance of power over her life. The marriage was in an utter state of disrepair, Anna desperately wanted out, but the Baron would not let her. What would you do in her situation? You absolutely despise the man you're married to, they murdered your lover and fed them to dogs, and they won't let you leave by any means. I'm honestly curious, would you be the loving and doting wife that the Baron wants?

Ok, let me try this. You're being held hostage by ISIS, and you can't escape. Would you yell and scream abuse at them until they shoot you?
No. She made a bad situation worse. Eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. You don't need to be the loving doting wife, you just need to not hurl abuse and shit at your partner.
And yeah, she tried to kill herself. The Baron is at his wits end to, on the verge of doing so. Note when he loses Anna, he kills himself. Both are trying to escape killing themselves. Both have suffered serious trauma, the Baron at war and Anna at home. If anything, the Baron is more sympathetic here for wanting to make amends for what he knows were bad actions. Anna simply wants to dig the dagger deeper and cause as much pain as she can when going out... Except when she decides she actually doesn't. Her moods are up and down - as shown by the fact she tried to avoid the stillbirth and Witch contract by going to the Pellar. I think at times she realised that she could have a much better life than she was leading, but at other times the trauma and stress got to her - same as it did the Baron.

I mean, not that you'd expect someone to do this, but Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for years and had no control over his life. Did he plot the downfall of the white man, and come to power to persecute and punish them? No, he sat peacefully, and campaigned for equality and peace. He made the most of his situation. Even those who didn't manage the success that he did, even when wrongly imprisoned, many make the most of the lives they can. Anna didn't. Yeah, trauma, but she made the worst possible choices in her life afterwards. Kind of reminiscent of the Baron himself, who made really bad choices after suffering trauma.

Note that when the Baron gives examples of his wife saying exactly the right things to goad him into beating her, he cites examples such as screaming that he robbed her life of love, and that she destroyed the idea of love to her so that she might as well kill her. This is the sort of thing that he would beat her over. This sounds... completely accurate, and more like someone who's in a terrible state of grieving and depression, than someone trying to emotionally abuse someone else. Why is she supposed to slip all this under the rug?

Honestly, we need a lot more information that just this. His family and his love for them is very important to the Baron. It IS his life. Note, that when he loses his family, he kills himself. That's how important it is to him.
I don't know whether early on the Baron tried to help Anna through the grief and pain, but from the regret he's shown, I'd say he probably did. Anna threw it back in his face and, knowing how much he cared about her and her happiness, made a deliberate point of pointing out to him how much he hurt her there. As you note, this is 2 years later. Yeah, some trauma lasts for ages, but continuing those exact same lines for 2-3 years is... unlikely. Especially if he has tried to help her through it. It makes it seem she didn't want help, just to keep hurting as a means of catharsis. Hell, even if it was just grieving, surely after 2-3 years your common sense would tell you "This sends him into a fit, don't do it". In doing it, she was intentionally sending him into that fit - she had 2 years experience to go off.

Note that paraphrasing is also a thing. You can word things like the Baron did, or she could have worded it a lot more viscously. And regardless of the merit in words, when they're mired in hate they hurt.

Basically, its a case of two mentally ill people living together and abusing the shit out of each other. Its just not pretty, and you're not given the option to vindicate anyone but his wife, even if it is before you find out all the information.


I also fail to see how, even if you're right, this is sexist. It would be sexist if it said this is only this way because she's a girl, but say we flipped it around: The Baron's wife went off to war, Baron cheated on her, she killed his wife and abused him for years, and the most we can say is she shouldn't have given him the option to cheat. Would that be sexist against guys? Hell, honestly it sounds sexist against girls because they should just be good wives and not go away and let their husbands cheat. Ignoring that, no, it doesn't sound sexist.
Its potentially victim blaming, but I don't see it as sexist. Its not making any statement about gender, its simply examining a situation with two people who abused each other, and Geralt is giving his opinion on that.

FFS, he killed someone who was her friend and who she was in love with at the time and yet you seem think she should be over that because it's been a few years. Of course she's not going to be over it, especially not after being forced to live with the murderer. Tried to help her through the grief and she threw back in his face? No shit, if someone murders you're partner or a close relative are you going to graciously accept their help? I doubt it unless you're the most submissive and non confrontational person in existence. Considering he's calls her behaviour "hysteria" (with with the way it is said and the time setting he probably means the historical version of hysteria ie: it's her womb that's the issue) I doubt his "help" would have been positive even if wasn't the source of the problem.