-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why is the Bloody Baron storyline in The Witcher 3 so praised? [Spoilers]
- Thread starter cabelhigh
- Start date
1. The game is definitely very critical of the Baron, and Geralt can absolutely condemn him.
2. The storyline is not about justifying his actions, it's about showing him as a real person, instead of a generic villain, with a complex relationship that led him to do horrible (and unjustifiable) things like how it happens with many relationships in real life.
3. Geralt is not a white knight hero, he is a Witcher that is willing to part in negotiations with the vile persons as long as that aligns with his goals.
2. The storyline is not about justifying his actions, it's about showing him as a real person, instead of a generic villain, with a complex relationship that led him to do horrible (and unjustifiable) things like how it happens with many relationships in real life.
3. Geralt is not a white knight hero, he is a Witcher that is willing to part in negotiations with the vile persons as long as that aligns with his goals.
Its popularity has been blown out of proportion, but it shows a pretty decent portrayal of what an abuser can realistically be instead of a mere caricature. People are complicated, and this arsehole has his own motives and convictions about what he did and why, yet it's never presented in a sympathetic light and you get to tell him off repeatedly, or at least respond to him as dispassionately and coldly as can be. Besides that, the quest became popular because it tackles themes like domestic violence, abortion, suicide, etc. pretty straightforwardly, not just because of the character himself.
"We want bad people to be more complex and interesting"
*Bad people made complex*
"Okay not that much"
It was praised because it was an amazing quest line with depth and character development, something most open world games similar to it don't have. I don't think that would be any different if released today.
I think players that want complex villains want someone who at the day is evil, you can see their point, but you just want to feel justified and to be the white knight that defeats the problem, expecting a happily ever after in the aftermath.
They try to make players sympathetic to whoreson junior?
I think you're trolling now.
Very well said.
It seems like part of OP's issue with the story was that they didn't feel the player was given enough agency to condemn the Baron. In other mediums, the reader/watcher has no agency at all. I wonder if this story would bother the OP as much if it was a movie?
Feel like people should read what the writers have to say about it
OP
OP
Jesus christ, what the fuck. Fuck off with this shit.
Wanting TW3 to show more perspective from other characters beyond just the abuser != David Cages exploitative shlock.
That is a point of view that is certainly valid, especially since you seemingly didn't manage to grasp what the game was actually showing you.
OP
OP
the witcher 3 is much, much more than this one quest. you seem to want *only* that
You get the daughter's perspective. She slanders and condemns him.
This is but one quest. And you get plenty of perspective of the baron from his family and from other people around Velen.
People sure are running away with a narrative in here, dismissing people who disagree out of hand and—ironically, for people who talk up complexity—caricaturing them as being "unable to handle nuance," rather than simply being critical of a portrayal.
Sure, the Bloody Baron isn't a one-dimensional character, in that he shows a capacity to be both decent and terrible. Yes, that's "realistic," and yes, there are many abusive relationships that are very similar to his in real life.
Where people are coming from is a difference of interpretation, especially taken with TW3's other myriad examples of sexism/misogyny/male power fantasy & gaze. Geralt can be cold and disapproving to the Baron about some of his abuses, but the questline is still fundamentally told from the Baron's perspective, in such a way that is meant to engender empathy for him, the murderous abuser—while the victim, his wife, is given no voice or perspective, because she's been conveniently rendered insane (or, in the Baron's words, "hysterical").
Then, to end the quest, either (1) the Baron kills himself after his wife conveniently dies, or (2) they both live and the writing contorts itself into a pretzel to allow the Baron to take his wife away, rather than allowing her to go with their daughter, whom she originally tried to escape from him with because of his routine violence.
Nothing at all has been resolved from the perspective of the women, and the Baron is shown to lack comprehension of anything he did wrong, because he still tries to justify it all... and yet he is rewarded this happier ending, because the religious zealot who entraps the daughter against her will (which the Baron—a militaristic man—does nothing about) says "he sees the change in the Baron's eyes" (even though they've never met before).
Sorry, but there's poor writing in the quest, and it's not some high standard of nuanced, realistic moral ambiguity. It absolutely tries to be redemptive of the Baron, while not earning that at all.
Sure, the Bloody Baron isn't a one-dimensional character, in that he shows a capacity to be both decent and terrible. Yes, that's "realistic," and yes, there are many abusive relationships that are very similar to his in real life.
Where people are coming from is a difference of interpretation, especially taken with TW3's other myriad examples of sexism/misogyny/male power fantasy & gaze. Geralt can be cold and disapproving to the Baron about some of his abuses, but the questline is still fundamentally told from the Baron's perspective, in such a way that is meant to engender empathy for him, the murderous abuser—while the victim, his wife, is given no voice or perspective, because she's been conveniently rendered insane (or, in the Baron's words, "hysterical").
Then, to end the quest, either (1) the Baron kills himself after his wife conveniently dies, or (2) they both live and the writing contorts itself into a pretzel to allow the Baron to take his wife away, rather than allowing her to go with their daughter, whom she originally tried to escape from him with because of his routine violence.
Nothing at all has been resolved from the perspective of the women, and the Baron is shown to lack comprehension of anything he did wrong, because he still tries to justify it all... and yet he is rewarded this happier ending, because the religious zealot who entraps the daughter against her will (which the Baron—a militaristic man—does nothing about) says "he sees the change in the Baron's eyes" (even though they've never met before).
Sorry, but there's poor writing in the quest, and it's not some high standard of nuanced, realistic moral ambiguity. It absolutely tries to be redemptive of the Baron, while not earning that at all.
Agree with these, and more to the point, if you played the previous entries, you strongly get the impression that Geralts view of humanity already assumes the worst. The scenarios he gets in basically gives you several layers of evil and the general evil tend to come from humans.
I really find writing of this game to be of high caliber and it really puts a mirror up in terms of peoples perspective when they play the title and recall the events. Considering this is the third game in the series and there is a running them about humanity in all three, I find it fascinating people still think of anything in this game pointing towards redemption for the baron.
EDIT: Case in point going back to review ending and cutscene.
I think posters like the OP and people who agree probably wished for Geralt to take a harder stance. But in the same game (blood and wine exp) he has blanket condemnation for humans as stated he was ashamed to admit he was human.
Last edited:
It's been a long time, but my impression was that because the Baron wasn't cartoonishly evil but rather flawed and horrible in a fairly human way he had at least a slim possibility for redemption. Not for free, however, and Geralt always had the opportunity to criticize the flimsy excuses and self-justifications he created for abusing his family.
All the same, it's far more likely that he'll tragically fall into the same sort of behavior patterns yet again, if left unchecked, unless he's literally forced to change by circumstances above and beyond what little we got to see. Even the "happiest" ending wasn't free from ambiguity. The questline, in my experience, left it all open for the player to extrapolate further.
All the same, it's far more likely that he'll tragically fall into the same sort of behavior patterns yet again, if left unchecked, unless he's literally forced to change by circumstances above and beyond what little we got to see. Even the "happiest" ending wasn't free from ambiguity. The questline, in my experience, left it all open for the player to extrapolate further.
OP
OP
100,000% percent this! Thank you for being able to write this out with more clarity than I ever could.
OP, I just want to say I was thinking of making this exact same topic over the past week. The Baron is a completely unredeemable abuser and the game never ever let's you take that stance. You're supposed to sympathize with this evil man just because he was nice to Ciri once and now feels sad after he's lost everything? Every deadbeat in history goes down the performative self pity route once they've been found out. Not going to buy it, sorry.
I honestly didn't think it was that great a storyline tbh. People pretend it's the magnum-opus of side quest storytelling, even praising Bloody Baron as "the best character in a video game" or something along those lines...
Bloody Baron was okay, to me. I was far more invested in Carnal Sins and that Lord of Undrik sidequest with the giant on the island...
Bloody Baron was okay, to me. I was far more invested in Carnal Sins and that Lord of Undrik sidequest with the giant on the island...
It's a good, memorable quest. Also, a lot of people played TW3. It was a big mainstream hit. So, compared to most other mainstream games, which usually have shitty, bland stories, this was a nice change of pace bc it was actually a good, fleshed-out quest.
Yep. Usually villain bad, good guy good and there is no layers to him.
It was showing that even sick horrible people have reasons in their head, things don't just happen. He was a horrible player but a great developed character because they showed that depth
There is absolutely no attempt by the writing or the plotting of the game to be redemptive of the Baron, and if you think there is you're not understanding the text. The Baron wants redemption, yes, and the player can choose to have Geralt sympathize with him to some degree if they really want to for some reason, but that's not the same thing as the overall text pushing the idea or theme that he should get that. The Baron wants redemption and his family back, but what he needs is to own up to his monstrous character and acknowledge the pain he's caused those closest to him. This is basic character conflict, and in fact it's almost baseline character writing 101, but it's surprisingly rare in games, especially addressing the subject matter the Bloody Baron quest does. It's not perfect but the notion that the quest is supporting redeeming the Baron is utterly ludicrous, especially considering the fact that there's no way to do that. The "good" ending results in his death and the saving of the children, and the opposite choices results in him trying a pathetic and desperate solution to the problems he created while his daughter continues to reject and condemn him.
OP
OP
I think you missed the point of Disclaimers post. It's as much about the FRAMING of the barons story and who gets to tell it than how its written and what the outcomes are.
It should also be noted that the Baron is a focus also because he is a regional power. His whatever empathy he might draw out also falls into stark contrast of the kinds of awful men that he leads. The player isn't just asked to evaluate his "wholesomeness" based on his words alone, but to contextualise it with who he associates and with what he does.
However even there it isn't particularly, clear cut. The man is a tyrant, but he also holds the leash on his men, which as demonstrated after he is gone, completely terrorise the region.
The narrative value of the Baron isn't whether you're supposed to empathize with him, but with how such a man portrays himself to others.
However even there it isn't particularly, clear cut. The man is a tyrant, but he also holds the leash on his men, which as demonstrated after he is gone, completely terrorise the region.
The narrative value of the Baron isn't whether you're supposed to empathize with him, but with how such a man portrays himself to others.
You can't stop some shitty people from being shitty in real life so why should that also be the case in all games?
Guy is going to pursue his wife no matter what, and the only thing that stops that is her death. That's how some people are whether we like it or not.
As for why Geralt doesn't go out of his way to change that beyond chastising the Baron? He's a Witcher. It isn't in his interest to solve civil disputes. The only reason you get involved at all is because it's the only way the Baron will give up any information about Ciri.
OP
OP
Ummmm did you read Disclaimer's post? They point out why there are some flaws in it.
I did. I disagree with the flaws they presented and don't really think it has anything to do with the framing of the story and engaging with it through the baron's perspective
just because it's not a happy or redemptive story or even a revenge story it doesn't mean that it's bad
you seem to be arguing against the merit of the story based on what your expectations for a good outcome would be and not what the story itself is
2015 does not feel like a "time" ago to me, but maybe I'm alone in that.
I thought the quest was overall good, it had an unexpected amount of emotions tied up in a character that didn't initially seem like they would be important.
However by and large I think Witcher 3 is underscrutinized in its tone of writing. I felt some awkwardness throughout the game, which may be a translation of voice direction issue as well, but there's just times when the writing seems to wobble uncomfortably between different moods that it doesn't seem completely aware of.
Sorry it's kinda vague. I don't remember the exact dialogues in the Baron questline just the plot-details, which I thought were okay, but I remember thinking some of the dialogue between Geralt and Baron and Ciri and Baron felt a little weird.
Plot-wise there are things like the tree and things like Uma I think are pretty banal plot-devices the game gets away with but the tree is sorta okay because it is a plot about a bewitching and it needed that kind of stuff. As for the social issues presented here, I don't see an issue. Of course if a game fails to portray such things realistically it can become offensive, but I didn't feel anything was abrasively done here. If something was off it's because it's tackling bold themes and not going all the way, not because it offensively picked a heavy subject and goofed around with it like other bad writers will do.
Yeah, Ciri see's them as an almost Robin Hood-like band of merry men whilst Geralt see's the drunken wife beater leading a band who rape and pillage. It shows that each character has a totally different experience with the same group of people and judges them accordingly.
I think the overall confusion in this thread for some is that they're just too used to games that wrap their plot points up all neatly and the player "earns" a happy ending by choosing blatantly obvious correct choices.
Yup, Disclaimer lays out some good observations, but I don't agree with their conclusion that the story is poorly written.
Not getting a complete perspective from everyone involved is not bad writing.
Victims being left without resolution is not bad writing. An abuser staying a terrible person or being rewarded with a "happier ending" is not bad writing.
I'm not saying that The Witcher 3 is perfect, or that the writing is flawless, but I feel like the poor writing accusations muddy the water of the original post, which had nothing to say about the writing quality.
Felt like the first time your choices actually mattered in the game and boy did they did. Also I think it just because of how matured and in depth it was for a "side-mission".
I found it a good questline mostly because the outcomes actually pretty fleshed out, in addition to fleshing out the characters involved, including the Baron.
I never got the idea that the questline "redeemed" him in any serious way, only show that he had a shred of humanity. I don't expect any games to go 1:1 with my personal philosophies and ethics and I found the Baron well enough written despite disliking him as a person. Gave some realism to the Baron in making his sociopathy believable.
Yeah, that's basically it. In this game, you are playing Geralt, a pre-established character that has his own philosophies and motivations. The sort of guy that deals with petty warlords for a variety of reasons. In this case, he only really wanted information and played along primarily to that end.
I never got the idea that the questline "redeemed" him in any serious way, only show that he had a shred of humanity. I don't expect any games to go 1:1 with my personal philosophies and ethics and I found the Baron well enough written despite disliking him as a person. Gave some realism to the Baron in making his sociopathy believable.
Yeah, that's basically it. In this game, you are playing Geralt, a pre-established character that has his own philosophies and motivations. The sort of guy that deals with petty warlords for a variety of reasons. In this case, he only really wanted information and played along primarily to that end.
I didn't conclude that. I said "there's poor writing in the quest," not that everything within the quest was poorly written.
Specifically, I was referring to the hamfisted potential ending where the Baron takes his wife, Anna (who is only in the state she's in because she fled his abuse), and not only does Geralt acquiesce (even after having gotten all the information about Ciri, even after potentially having disapproved of the Baron's actions), not only does the religious zealot randomly vouch for the Baron (a man he doesn't know), but the daughter, Tamara, also eventually acquiesces despite having joined in her mother's flight, disbelieving the Baron's claims of change, and initially wanting to take her herself.
That strains credulity, and is, to me, sloppy and unearned writing. I interpret it to come from a place of wanting to redeem the Baron with a second chance at caring for his wife... who still has no voice or agency... in a way that also writes out the agency of Tamara.
Don't recall saying that it was? I was pointing out how that helped to cultivate a certain tone I found distasteful—one that often permeates the entire game from what I've played so far.
It's a great game, and broadly tells good stories with compelling characters, but its foundation as a straight male power fantasy (at the expense of women) with a camera that operates by male gaze (at the expense of women) with frequent sexist/misogynistic elements to its writing (at the expense of women) is admittedly exasperating at times.
On a side note, these constant expressions that "oh people who are critical of it clearly just wanted a hunky dory happy ending and should maybe just play something else" are extraordinarily disingenuous, because naw. Tragedy's fine. Bad endings are fine. Earn them.
And then it swerves AGAIN when you find out that he IS actually quite shite.
Even then it's still quite different for how video game villains are typically handled.
