Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary, the definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.

I’ve taken version from the trailer to the third game but the quote has been permeating Geralt’s entire story in some other variations. Let’s see how it stands.

Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, makes no difference; this part is indeed true. Evil is evil and it really doesn’t matter how big or small it is. Sometimes even a seemingly good act, or an act of evil done in a good interest results in things going the way which would enable something really nasty to happen. How come you say? Well, I’m sure you’ve heard about a concept of “white lie”. A lie told to someone to lower an impact of an event or intentionally misdirect them to “ease the pain”. We all have done this. Now allow me to ask: Was it worth it in the end? Or was the end result only worse once the “victim” found out? Did you actually ease the pain? Or only delayed the inevitable by avoiding the confrontation AND added some salt into the wound by damaging the trust between you and the victim? Think about it. You committed the “lesser evil” in your eyes. But it was evil nonetheless and with potentially dire consequences. Had you chosen the other option which seemed like a greater evil, it may not have been evil at all. Painful, surely, but not evil.

Granted, I’ve chosen an example that is very situational and highly context-dependent but I’ve done so on purpose to highlight that lesser evil may very much become a really big one AND it’s still an evil act.

The degree is arbitrary, the definition’s blurred; yet again on point. For the is no objective evil. Yes, there are acts that are evil in many or almost all contexts and applications but there’s no objective definition. What someone considers evil someone else might not. Or what someone considers a crime against their very core, someone else might see as a minor flaw. Doesn’t it remind you of something? Maybe a cult-like behaviour who always try to preach an objective truth or decry objective evil? Allow me to point at ancient cultures or religions which committed human sacrifices. Is human sacrifice evil? Of course it is by our present day measures. And yet it wasn’t back then. Hell, capital punishment is regarded in majority of places an inhumane and evil nowadays. And yet there are plenty of places where this isn’t a thing and it’s considered sensible.

See where I’m going? Unless you have an objective or at least very highly agreed upon definition of evil, you can’t measure it.

If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all; the part that many people stick to, the story points at so many times and I think quite a lot of people misuse. A little bit of witcher lore; the witcher code enshrines political neutrality of the guild. This means that witchers aren’t allowed to accept work which would benefit someone in a political gain and they’re strongly encouraged not be involved in political conflicts. Geralt is very often confronted with such situations and he highlights this requirement many times.

There’s however one crucial thing when it comes to neutrality: Neutrality DOES NOT mean refusal to act. Neutrality means you don’t act on political motives. You act on something in a certain way because it’s a right thing to do. Hence why Geralt sometimes works in alignment with certain highly influential people or powers not because it’d benefit them or him but because other options are worse. Does this break witcher’s neutrality code? Not necessarily for he’s not bound by anything and he can refuse to cooperate further, with consequences of course. And those consequences, can be dire. Either to him or those caught in the aftermath.

Where am I going with this? In some recent electoral events, quite a lot of people choose the path of “not getting involved” either due to apathy or outright refusal, citing the “I don’t want to choose lesser evil.” The result of their non-involvement however has been, at least in one very prominent case far, far worse than the other option would be. They chose to adhere to the code strictly and that caused more harm than good. Read the quote again: … I’d RATHER not choose at all. Even Geralt admits that there may not be a perfect or even a good choice.

So what would you do in such situation? Well, choose the evil you have the strength to fight or have a much easier time to rally people to go with you. Because if you don’t and someone else choose the greater one, you might find yourself alone in a fight with an adversary you can’t take.

In the end, Geralt’s quote stands really strongly. Just don’t take it at face value and look a little bit deeper.

R.R.A.

#QuestioningTheQuoted

Frank is a relatively quiet character in the game and you get to interact with him a bit more later, closer to the end of the first half of the game. He’s rather cold to your character, not showing much enthusiasm and keeping very strictly professional. However, after one of the story missions, he asks your character to drive him home and starts a conversation during the drive. He points out that the life is starting to weigh heavily on you which leads to picking up some bad habits. As his life lesson progresses, he mentions the following words:

In the end, your best friend will kill you without as much as a blink of an eye.

I’m directly translating the quote from the original version of the first game here instead of the remake where this quote isn’t present. What does it mean? What is Frank pointing out with these words and why have I chosen them? The meaning will become clearer later in the game in which he in fact becomes your target for breaking one of the sacred laws of mafia, the “Omerta” law aka the vow of silence. Once you track him down and you’re about to do the deed after letting him say his goodbyes to the his family, you instead let him go. Upon leaving, he reminds you of the quote, upon which your character reacts:

“In the end, your best friend will kill you.” And this time it was to be me to kill a friend. But I haven’t done so. “Do not do to others that which you don’t wish to be done to you,” or however the saying goes.

…

How the game ends, I’ll leave out for you to find out (small spoiler, I’ll be looking at that part later too for the main character says something quite poignant too).

Back to Frank’s quote however. What he says points to the really ugly way how the relationships work in that environment. The “friendships” in mafia aren’t really friendships when you think about them but more like business partnerships. The cooperation of all the member for “our cause” manages to uphold the status quo of the “benevolent” leader treating their subjects well on the outside while using them as tools for henious crimes. You fail? You’re cast aside and removed. And who will remove you? You guessed it, your best friend. Why? So you feel the pain of betrayal. You betrayed the “family” so now you’ll feel the hurt being betrayed by someone you trusted the most. At the same time, this works as a test of loyalty for the “executioner” because they can either “play by the rules” and do the act or show mercy, which however puts them at the same position as the “renegade”. Because you let a threat run free, putting the family in danger which makes you a liability.

Now, how does this apply to our world in general? Luckily it’s not in the cut-throat manner, unless you’re dealing in this kind of business in which case you already have far bigger problems. But look around you and tell me, do you feel that you can trust people? Or does it feel like your best friend will “kill you” for personal benefit? That every relationship is nothing more than a convenience than a genuine connection? Wouldn’t it better to change it if it’s so? In the end, Frank’s quote stands far too well than we’d like to in today’s world. And world would be a far better place if it wasn’t.

R.R.A.

#QuestioningTheQuoted

SPOILER ALERT FOR THE GAME MASS EFFECT 3

A little intro first into who Javik is. He’s the last surviving member of the Protheans, a precursor race to Terrans and other “younger races” of the trilogy. In the game, he’s awoken from stasis after 50000 years to not only witness the evolution of those who his race was “cultivating” but also the fact that the same threat that exterminated his civilisation has returned. You take him on your ship for questioning and when you engage in the dialog with him (he learns your language through touch, an ability which is natural to his race and how he learns about his surroundings), he says the following:

Stand in the ashes of trillions of dead and ask them if honor matters. The silence is your answer.

With this quote he argues your opinion that you should still maintain certain level of honour when fighting your enemy, otherwise you’re no better. Now comes the question, does the honour hold? Or is Javik right and “Victory at any cost” is the right approach when fighting an overwhelming force?

Let’s look at Javik’s background first. When he was born, the war for survival was already in full swing and his race was losing horribly. Moreover, those who have fallen or were captured were transformed into monstrosities, barely resembling their original species and used against their own. Another thing, as Javik’s title suggests, he’s been specifically bred and raised to be, as he states, “an embodiment of vengeance”. Thus, it makes sense that his worldview would be much narrower than a view of someone who could resolve many situations in comparably more peaceful times before the full scale war for survival broke out.

But as we progress through the game, Javik’s views soften. While still ruthless, he begins to observe that maybe his extremely direct approach isn’t always the correct one. That maybe there is a hidden cost that can’t be seen at the face value and rears its ugly head when you want it the least. He even sees the merit in the diversity and willing cooperation of all the races that are around instead of adherence to the singular doctrine of his empire, which ironically became one of its crippling weaknesses.

So, does his “Victory at any cost” viewpoint stand? In my opinion, it doesn’t. Why? Because it doesn’t see past its own goal. It sees the present task of “defeat the immediate and overwhelming threat” but doesn’t see anything past that. It almost boils down into “Victory for the sake of victory” or maybe a more familiar “Scorched earth” approach; burn everything down, no matter the losses.

But then what? How do you build something out of nothing? Moreover, how do you explain your actions to those who come after you or those you’re supposed to raise as your successors? Can you look into their eyes and tell them “Yes, we destroyed them in the most ruthless way you can imagine”? What kind of successor will rise when they’re taught that nothing matters when it comes to victory? Does it sound familiar? Are you finding someone in this mindset? Maybe you see some of the present day’s arrogant leaders, consumed by their self-perceived superiority. Or maybe you see people angry at all the injustices caused by our corrupt and inhumane systems and the “burn down everything” is their only desire. And while their motivations and paths may be divergent, there are unsettling parallels. Because both end up with only ashes to rule over and both will reach the most bitter of ends.

So, does honour in fight matter? Yes, it does. Not just for your own sake, but mostly for those who are to come after you. Because those ashes will become the foundation for the new world. And if you build that world on hatred, it’s already destined to fail. So, Javik, my answer to your quote is:

And by burying the ashes of your warriors under the ashes of your enemy, you bury that which made you who you were, replacing them by seeds of hate. And those who’d come after you, would’ve become far worse than the Reapers (name for the race that caused the demise of Protheans). So yes, honour does matter. Because it’s our children that will ask how we survived. And they don’t deserve to be moulded into monsters.

R.R.A.

#QuestioningTheQuoted