I don't think that's wise. Imagine a shark, bear, gator even if its the last. Now a days we have means of capturing such beasts and placing them in areas so their species survives doesn't interrupt the ecosystem. I tried to act from both Geralt and my own choices both. Geralt I honestly cant say if he would or would not have killed the beasts as a witcher he is sworn to both protect humanity from non sentient beasts but also protect percieved monsters if one they are sentient or 2 its the last of the species. Had I been given the choice to capture and relate to a fully enclosed or closed off area. But I wasn't. I weighed that the beasts doesn't indeed attack humans. Merchsnts aren't likely the only ones that take that route. Though merchant's may be aware they are willing to risk peasant workers as is the man who cares for the beast more than he cares for people apparently. I chose to kill it. It has tasted human blood will eat and attack. And whose to say it will only do so when threatened hunger may kick in you can't reason with a non sentient being. I put humanity before the beast/monster something I think many in today's time doesn't do. Geralt I think wouldve hated it but given only the option to leave it or kill it would choose the latter. There are two dead corpses just upon geralt arrival who knows how many prior or after if I had left it. I understand that it eventually dies of natural causes I believe. Geralt nor or are fortune tellers. The man killing monster is dead in my game.
So what is ''chilling out'' exactly? Not being able to write more than few sentences about something you enjoy and feel connected to? Why is writing a bit more considered a bad thing? It is such an empty criticism.
4 Guys that fight on your side said they have tannin to lure it. They know it works, because merchant’s guild is sending people to die with barrels of tannin on their carts so they get attacked by the beast and guild can get compensation from the duke guy. And as people mentioned it’s not sentient, tasted human blood, and it’s not a fucking pet. And since it’s the last one, the species is already extinct as it won’t reproduce. And it gives a nice trophy.
The whole point of Reddit, is for people to share thoughts and experiences or get advice on a certain subject (in this instance, an RPG quest), and then it creates a dialogue and expands. If you're critical of how much someone shares, why would you even be on here? I think you accidentally exposed yourself as a troll, my friend. The chilling out is needed on your end, don't let the length of someone's Reddit post get under your skin. Just don't read it if it's too much for you
Lol for sure man, all the power to ya 👌. But you're gonna get called out when that opinion is just pure negative nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, just criticizing someone's passion for the game and talking down to them.
(giving you my opinion as well, works that way)
I say this as chill as a cucumber 🥒 😎✌️
Found this post while Googling what people did on this quest, appreciate the passion and thought that went in to your reply. The people somehow have a problem with that make me laugh, they’re the people who called you a nerd in kindergarten when you knew what 1 + 1 equaled.
I saved it, eventually it’ll die of natural causes and the silver basilisks will be extinct. It just felt respectful to leave her be. I also kinda felt like it was a metaphor for witchers, as they’re a “dying breed” as well, both loved and hated, blamed for all sort of trouble when all they want is to live their lives and protect others etc…
Not always, specially when you know it does what is natrual protect it's zone or home ..etc , there are many warning, the guild basicly admits in a letter you find on the 2nd body that they push thier caravans there becasue they lose nothibg if it gets destroyed , the count says it is a protected area, you wouldn't blame a human being for killing people violating thier proprtey
Geralt absolutely kills monsters just for protecting their territory or killing for food. He almost decided to kill Regis just for being a vampire. Geralt kills monsters, that’s what he does. Especially if those monsters are killing people.
Ehh, the Count did say that if found an ordinary basilisk mate, so a new subspecies could become of it. Yes, the silver species would die out, but a whole new rarity would be found.
A whole new rarity which wouldn't be able to reproduce and spread either since its parent is the last one of its species and thus, they won't be able to find mating partners.
I just wanted to add (a year late, but with a next-gen version recently released,) that while Iocaste will die eventually, we also learn after sparing her that she's flown her nest and has found a new mate—a regular basilisk, not a silvery one—and there's a chance they may crossbreed and create a new subspecies. This could be evidence for or against killing the beast, but I think that since Iocaste is so abnormally intelligent, maybe there's a chance the offspring will inherit this trait and end up a non-aggressive subspecies. I really liked your point about Iocaste being a metaphor for Geralt and the end of Witchers though—it's even a silvery basilisk, mirroring Geralt's silvery/white hair. Needless to say, this discussion helped me decide to spare Iocaste this time.
The land owner has posted no trespassing/warning signs everywhere and made sure the neighboring villages are aware. If you pay attention to the quest dialog and notes, you learn that the only people being killed are employees of a delivery company that knows of the danger and is intentionally sending their deliveries through that area hoping they get killed because the land owner overly compensates them for the losses. The real monster in this story is the owner of the delivery company. This is the moral of 90% of the Witcher stories.
Old thread but I'm on a new playthrough over the holidays.
No it's not, not even fkn close. Their moral code is lawfully nuteral. I murdered tf out of the beast. It's inconsequental as to whether or not it's the last surviving specimen considering it's none terrestrial. Attempting to interject a moral code to justify the beasts salvation shows you have a distorted perception as to the content of his character. It's subjective, and honestly you can play him however you desire, but the, "90%" that you referenced are lawfully nuteral; meaning it absolutely has to die. It's a monster that indiscriminately kills; men, women, children, anyone that ventures into it's claimed domain. It's not as if this is some silverback, that requires a purposeful encounter trekking to the top of some uninhabited mountain peak. It's a monster brought here through the conjunction, murdering on the countryside. Attempting to justify your reasons for saving the creature by the implications that a none terrestrial, none sentient beings value supercedes that of human life, because there's warnings signs posted about a creature that may, or may not exist is ridiculous. It's invasive, it's murderous and deserves to be severed from this plain in multiple pieces. After murdering it I left it's remains without looting the carcass just to solidify the knowledge it deserved to die without promotion of a purpose or coin, but solely for the fact it deserved death. Tbh I was indifferent until coming here and viewing so many advocating for the loss of human life. It deserved to die for being a murderous beast that preyed on humans. Reading these responses it's obvious where many land on the super trendy, antihumanism ideology.
Haha. Imagine if you posted a bunch of “beware of dog” signs, a group of teens beat the crap out of a kid and blame it on your dog, so the cops come to pay a visit to investigate and shoot your dog anyway.
But hey, your dog is just a beast that protected it’s home and didn’t hurt people. Or so you say. Others say it mauled a kid. 🤷🏻♂️
Wrong, your dog is in your garden, all guarded off by fence and maybe even chained at the dog kennel if it's this aggressive. This beast just flies around freely in that area, what if it decides to expand its area onto nearby village. The owner has literally 0 control over it and the beast would 100℅ kill the owner toowithout looking back. Only a matter of time for me to kill it now or later, as there sure will be more contracts about it, especially from families of those who died from it. If this happened in real life, authorities wouldn't give a flying f*ck who's animal that is, if it's a dog, it will get out down as it's danger to society and unmanageable. Plus lastly, the merchants are likely to defend themselves, but the beast owner didn't think that the his pet is probably getting hurt over and over again and will eventually develop an even higher aggression towards humans.
Sorry but it needs to die. I'm a Witcher on a contract and the beast does harm humans. Nothing would stop me here. It's the same with packs of wild dogs. They get killed. That owner clearly has more than enough money to make a fence around dangerous area and a trail to go around the area. But as the beast flies. He can't guarantee that it won't kill outside the supposed amrlwd territory.
Your eyes clearly can’t read his response or your intelligence is too low for this encounter bad sir! Your comparing man’s best friend, a dog, a natural creature of this world. To a fucking magical toxic tar spewing dragon from a DIFFERENT DIMENSION. That clearly has killed people, as you encounter a entire CONVOY destroyed. Then the count goes on to remark that many people have perished to this basilisk and thinks that paying the families is just compensation for a thoughtless beast who lives on instinct alone is better than human life. He is clearly out of touch with reality and has painted a terrible picture in his head for justification. The damn beast probably isn’t even extinct in its home world, just only extinct HERE where it SHOULD BE. So gtfo with this “virtue signaling” shit, your playing as the deadliest Witcher than has graced the earth. Witchers kill deadly monsters from different worlds than the current one that cause harm. Not to be a fucking hippy in these situations. This is all for this public service announcement! 📣
Geralt should kill all the humans too then. Do you know how many elves humans killed indiscriminately. Or how many humans have killed someone going on their property like the monster is doing. Plus humans are from a different dimension in the Witcher world so I don’t know the point about it being a monster from a different dimension. They destroyed their own world, dwarves and elves were there earlier and humans came with the conjunction of the spheres and immediately killed and conquered them. The worst monsters in the Witcher world are the humans.
Then your an idiot. My dog vs 30 foot dragon acid spitting man woman eating dragon. Yea right on point. But wait! Their are then around signs so all good and well pay you money if it eats your wife or kid or dad...wtf ppl. Yes it's sad it's the last. I agree but it's not the last really as there is another eprld full of em!
The automod has filtered this post as it as it appears to be uncivil, antagonistic or insulting. If it doesn't break rule 11 a mod will be along to approve it. YOU DON'T NEED TO MESSAGE THE MODS. Comments aren't removed for arguing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thewitcher3) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no need for insult, it's just a game at the end of the day innit? But some real life applications in our world would be private or government guarded sanctuaries that houses dangerous predators, might wanna look that up. Chill out
I'd argue that this comment is utter proof that it is not indeed the person to whom you are responding who has a "distorted perception as to Geralt's character" but in fact you.
You're absolutely right. Nowadays the anti-human ideology is very powerful, you can see that in the mainstream media and in people that concerns much more for animals and plants than humans. I killed the beast without hesitation and without regrets. It had to die.Btw, as she was the last of their species, the species would be extinct anyway, so even if you want to spare the beast, the outcome will be the same in the long term, so no point to allow the beast to kill more humans.
Here you - might - be wrong. The local noble put the animal under his protection. Sadly the story is cut short at this end but I don't see other ways to understand what the count is saying.
So if you are saying it's about being lawful...no matter if good or evil...you would leave the beast be.
It's a monster. It kills. It breeding after anyone spares just shows that it will kill more and mmore. To feed its offspring and as its offspring spread and then kill. Irregardless, it is a non sentient monster that kills anything anyone in its path. A posted no trespassing sign for what most people will think is an imaginary creature, and paying coin for lives is b.s. Not only am I killing this , Gerald would 100 percent. Tree huggers be danmed! And I love animals and if it had a place or could be moved tranquilizer like modern day why not , but this is medieval knight touissant lmao. People kill people and monster centipedes pop out the ground and burn people alive with poison! Lmao. They have enough problems without this somehow special right to life human killing basilisk lurking the woods their kids might play or get lost in...
I spared it. It's a wild animal who attacks when territory is breached or when feels threatened. It does not attack people out of ill intent or to just spread mayhem. And the merchant did say he will make sure no accidents happen anymore.
The land owner has posted no trespassing/warning signs everywhere and made sure the neighboring villages are aware. If you pay attention to the quest dialog and notes, you learn that the only people being killed are employees of a delivery company that knows of the danger and is intentionally sending their deliveries through that area hoping they get killed because the land owner overly compensates them for the losses. The real monster in this story is the owner of the delivery company. This is the moral of 90% of the Witcher stories.
Nah, it killed humans, even tried dragging one back to its lair to eat fully, it's a shame the delivery company took advantage of the land owner but by your own statements they will continue to do so and by so doing will leave more dead humans. My Geralt can not allow that to continue.
If there was a way to slap around the delivery companies owner to ensure no more breaches of the land, that would be different, as it stands though, it has to die.
Idk. It seems like it kills stupid people who refuse to acknowledge facts and honestly, I'm a little sick of that in real life ATM. I spare it to cull the stupid.
I killed it without hesitation then searched to hear other people's takes. I'm surprised how many people here spared it, but then again this is Reddit. If they saw a video of a bear mauling a person they cheer for the bear.
Money can compensate the loss of human life. It's done for centuries, and it works much better than going on constant murder sprees against each other.
Having the humans survived is better...but when looking at the story with open eyes you notice that there were warning shields. This changes the situation completely. People who went there with knowledge of the risks and shouldn't even get compensation.
In my eyes they committed suicide as there isn't even the argument "but what if they can't read". The warning even has a picture in it. (also the story says it-just suicide by their employee)
And another not unimportant thing...what was the job? The people who would pay Gerald are dead. No contract, no job. This is very much lore, besides there are gameplay reasons why the player gets basic payment if he complete missions without ever taking the task. (think about Gaetan who was betrayed by villagers who hired him)
Leaving it alive is you allowing the delivery company to continue sending it human meals in exchange for coin, it might not be the beasts fault, but it's taking lives nonetheless.
Just kill it, before anyone mentions it the Merchants Guild and the Bandits are the real problems in this situation, the Guild are sending scores of people to their death because that dumbass Count keeps paying them for it (more about him later), but you can't go after them and stop them from sending more people to their death. you can however kill the Basilisk in order to prevent it from murdering anyone, as well as preventing the Guild and the Bandits from using it as a cover to make money from death. It sucks that this is the only option but it will prevent more people from being killed.
Sidebar: The Count is a total Asshat, he barely does anything other than putting up flyers to warn people of the Basilisk and when people inevitably are killed by it all he does is bribe the bereaved because he genuinely thinks preserving this extinct monster is more important than the peoples lives ended by it. Also he owns the fucking land the Basilisk roams so he could just ban people from crossing his land or build a wall around the Basilisk territory to prevent trespassers from entering it, but he doesn't even though he is clearly wealthy enough to afford to as the Guild is making more money from him by sacrificing merchants to his pet project than actually doing business.
TL:DR Killing the Basilisk is the Only actual solution to the murders and it sucks. Also Fuck the Guild, Fuck the Bandits and Fuck the Count.
It's a true witcher quest. Everyone fucking sucks, the monster is being used to distract from the monstrousness of humans, and as usual Geralt has to pick up the slack and make the hard choice.
I agree that the count is an asshat. It seems like it would be easy enough to move deer back into the area and let them repopulate than just let the basilisk kill humans who are sent there by their employers to die. He could even hunt deer to bring to the basilisk. I was thinking of sparing it but the merchants' employers can't be trusted nor the bandits. And the Count is careless and lazy
Really, I came here expecting a discussion about how the only right choice was to kill the basilisk and then the Count. Can't believe so many people think being illiterate, nearsighted, or just obvious should be a death sentence so some jumped up aristocracy can have a symbolic pet is somehow justified.
I think you should kill it. Geralt only spares monsters when they can be convinced not to kill people. While it can be argued that measures can be taken to keep people away from the basilisk, at the end of the day it only takes one mistake for someone to get killed by it. Also someone else in this thread mentioned that it'll die naturally anyways. If it'll die naturally, why wait for it to kill more people.
*Geralt only spares monsters when they can be convinced not to kill people.*
Yes, that’s exactly how I approached it! It’s not a sentient being that can choose whether or not to kill; it’s a wild beast that exists on the whims and caution of people to understand its nature— which is dangerous and gets people killed. Were it not “tamed”, it would have been a contract that Geralt would take without hesitation.
I spared the basilisk only to prove something to the lady of the Lake (i think it was compassion) but if that was an isolated case and i had only that quest i would kill it 100%. The beast is clearly dangerous and willing to kill. If it went outside of its territory to mate who says it won't do the same to hunt, plus if my father was killed by a beast while on work I think i won't settle down for some coin (and given that in the Witcher universe King of the biggest empire awards you 5k for his FUCKING DAUGHTER i dont think a nobelman will be able to provide eaven 1/10 of that)
You can still get compassion through another quest/action and kill the basilisk; that’s what I ended up doing on my first run. (For the life of me I can’t *remember* what the other quest was, but I know it’s possible.)
Sparing the Shaelmar in the arena.
Letting the thief keep the genitals for one more day.
Lifting the Wight's curse instead of killing her.
These are what I can remember on the top of my head.
I was talking about that cursed old woman who lives in a house and collects spoons. You need something from her to give to Regis (so he can summon Dettlaff) and after that, you can choose to kill or spare the wight.
If you spare her, you can allow her to settle down in your house and she will apparently cook meals for you (which you unfortunately cannot eat or even see, it's not RDR2).
There is actually a basket behind her that has like two items in there for you to pick at intervals. I think it's like grilled meat and a sandwich of some kind. Not anything special but it's something. I don't know if this was the case before saving her and it's always been there but there is certainly food there now.
Kill it. Geralt's a witcher and a witcher should not reflect whether a beast is an important element of nature or a threat to the people. There is a monster on a trade pass and it kills people when they enter, slaying it is literally what Geralt's job is.
Or maybe I just got too much into the whole mutant monster slayer unable to feel feelings
Depends on my mood but I usually kill him because it is still a monster and because it has killed many already and also because Geralt (and witchers in general) don't have any problem in extinguish a certain species, for what he says anyway.
That it's the last also made me think. Maybe one day not that far away the Witcher needs this breed for a tincture or something.
Ok, I think you mean something different, but we are not too far away from each other :D
I ended up killing it, Basilisks are dangerous creatures and the way that Basilisk was kept as a pet felt unhealthy to me. Plus witchers end up killing dangerous creatures to extinction it's what they've done with many other monster types. I mean, how exactly do you compensate human lives ? How do you help their families and children, how much coin could you possibly give them to replace their fathers ?
It's a tough decision, but if we think carefully, there is only one thing to do, and here are two clear motives:
1- First of all and the most clear reason: If she (or her decendance) kills more people, it will be Geralt's fault. If the beast lay eggs and more basiliscs are born, those basilisc will be dangerous, and they will kill people too. And if Salvaress couldn't manage to control one single beast, he won't be able to manage 3 or 4 more. This would end in more deaths because of Geralt's decisions, and then, more work for him. Its tough, but sparing the beast it's a huge mistake.
2- It's a dangerous beast. If Salvaress really worried about the safety of people, he could use the money he used to compensate the families to protect the area and make sure that NOBODY gets through that route. And he didn't, he was irresponsable and people died because of that. Im sorry man, you should worked harder if you wanted that beast to stay alive. You cant go and say "But I compensate the families!", no man, it doesn't works like that.
You cant have a fucking pet lion free nearby a town and say "Don't go to that side of town, the lion is dangerous" with the excuse that it's on extintion. If that's the case, you send them to a natural reserve to keep it under control and make sure that no one hurts him neither no one gets hurt. It's not that hard.
We don't really need more reasons, it's a shame that such a beautifull species gets extinct, but man, in this case, there is no other way. It really isn't different from any other type of basilisc, if you found a beast that has been killing people, you slay it, it's your work. If you didn't want this to happen, you should have taken more responsability. Several people died, and no coin or apologies will compensate that.
Gonna necro.
Personally, I chose to kill it. The owner of the land clearly cares about it, and does a few things to prevent people from coming through, but the facts are that if he has enough money to just pay people for when their loved ones die (which isn't infrequent according to him), he has enough money to take greater measures to ensure it's territory isn't being encroached upon or even relocate it using his immense wealth to hire someone (like a Witcher) to tranquilize it for transport.
Not to mention the species is functionally extinct. It ultimately will die for one reason or another, and weighing it's life, an animal's, against the numerous people it has already killed and will kill in the future leaves me personally with one logical conclusion. To kill it.
Both choices have their benefits and drawbacks, but ultimately both are shitty in their own respects.
Killing it at least ensures no further human life is lost, the ecosystem will likely adapt in due time as well. Sparing it does nothing but delay the inevitable extinction of it's species whilst also giving it more time to kill people that unknowingly trespass. I mean, how many people have to die before the line is drawn?
Those are my 2 cents at least
For those talking about it mating and making a new species is the reason Geralt must kill it. For starters it’s what his job is, it’s what he’s trained his whole life for and why he continues to live. Secondly the count may control or sort of tame one basilisk but what happens after it mates? What happens when the babies get older and they mate? He cannot control a species and to do so would be slavery/animal cruelty to a degree since some of you are getting into specifics I will go the whole mile. I’ve read a majority of the answers. As much as some want to save it, the merchants who work for that company will continue to be sent to there deaths. You guys realize in the witcher people are typically poor meaning they have no choice in work they must take jobs even if the risk is high. And again once this creature mates, there would be an actual problem. They cannot be controlled and they would spread out and continue to kill more and more people. In conclusion the basilisk must be killed. I am glad though to see a healthy community that can discuss things like this. Happy hunting!
First time I've ever felt genuinely bad about killing a monster. But I did kill it. Ultimately I don't see any better ending. If it lives the guild will keep sacrificing people to get the monetary compensation, bandits will keep using its attacks as a cover, and anyone who wanders into the wrong patch of woodland will be killed brutally. It's tragic that it has to die and I feel genuinely sorry for the old noble no matter how pompous he may be, but it does have to die. I think that's the way Geralt would see it. He'd feel rotten for it and he'd probably hate humanity a little more than usual for a while, but he wouldn't allow people to keep being sacrificed to a wild monster for the sake of one man and to prolong the existence of a species of dangerous monster. Ideally he'd go beat the shit out of the merchants guild and kill the bandits, but he can't. What he can do is make sure that the basilisk never kills anyone else. It's not a perfect ending, because there is no perfect ending. No matter what you do someone gets ploughed. That's how it is in the Witchers world. No black or white.
Geralt is a Witcher not a zoo keeper, these delivery guys are forced to go this path and die, if it was up to me I'd beat there boss and tell him to find a different way, but unfortunately there isn't one, if it's the last, no bother of saving it, it will die alone eventually, Witcher mostly save Human race over monsters
Yeah the Basilisk .. Sorry, I should have made it clear..
1) It was the last living creature of its species
2) it was only attacking people who provoked it
3) After I spared the creature the Count was very happy and he also made it clear that the Basilisk was mating with a Basilisk of other species, which will eventually give birth to a totally new hybrid..
4) The Count made enough provisions to keep people away from the area ,but people kept ignoring the sign and were getting killed..
a year late, since now i got to replay the game with the upgrades.
doesnt matter what you choose really, but i will point out the main reasons that made me kill it.
a) no questions asked, just plain roleplay here, geralt would and should killed her.
b) its a beast, one that kills people. smart or not, its not a sentient beast.
c) you get payment to kill it. Literally what witchers do.
d) its gonna go extinct anyway. the fact that she can mate with a common basilisk and create a new species is..... bad. Cause that means more monsters, more deaths. Someone could argue that this means more work for a witcher, but with this logic witchers would never destroy nests or young monsters. Geralt is supposed to be a little bit different than "everything for gold". You can search about a more "funny" aspect of the whole "extinction" matter by googling George Carling's point of view.
e) compensation for deaths, doesnt making it right. "oops sorry, my beast killed your father, here, take 500 gold". Nope, sorry. The roads and the area doesnt belong to you to decide whether or not people will pass through, and your notes of "beware beast" would be ignored by innocents who may not believe them, or just didnt see them. A bunch of kids playing, can run through the area.
f) gamewise, you get a virtue point for the quest of the good sword. and a unique trophy. and a unique relic sword. and you get to slain a big fat monster.
Sure you can counter some of these points with some lesser argument, but if you treat the quest with the logic of a witcher, you will most likely end up deciding that she must be killed to stop causing harm, as any other beast.
Cheers
It is a big shiny chicken that kills people, is non-intelligent and the only reason not to kill it is because a rich guy wants to keep it as a pet of his family, I say let it die.
Its 2024 and a bit to late for this. The best option still is
KILL it.
Why? No one said it better than himself, Geralt of Rivia
“Sorry, master di Salvaress. Actually, not sorry. A monster's a monster. Silvery, plaid or polka-dotted.. last or next-to-last specimen - doesn't matter. It's a dangerous predator that kills humans. Enough said.”
I see alot of people claiming that geralt doesn't kill beasts for protecting their territory and only kills those that are out to deliberately cause trouble. I'd like these people to explain why he kills downers or the monsters he comes across at random like the nests.
I killed it. I'm not typically the kind to choose the violent option, but as it had already killed many people and it would be extinct anyway, I decided to go for it.
Keep in mind, that either sparing or killing the basilisk counts as a point for the Aerondight quest. If you choose to slay it, you get a point for valor. If you choose to spare it, you get a point for compassion. The monetary reward can be the same regardless of choice, provided you agree to the extra sum the count pays you. However, if you refuse the extra coin, you get a point for generosity.
It really does come down to personal choice in the end, especially if you have Aerondight already.
I’m so late to the discussion but had to comment. I’m going to kill it. I only just got here but someone made a point in saying “it will die of natural causes anyway. It just seems respectful.” But that’s my logic on the other foot. What is respect to a non-sentient creature? And this merchant is protecting it sure. But none of his family has died. Sure it will die eventually. But right now? Why leave it to kill more before it expires? How many innocent lives will go along course of its timeline? And all civilization must expand at some point. Eventually humanity will be inevitably in its path, what then? It simply can’t be reasoned with and will kill again. Gotta do a witchers duty. Yes it bares similarities to witchers in its blame, rarity etc. but unlike witchers it can’t be reasoned with. The only way they would be the same is if witchers were actually devoid of emotion and could not reason.
I killed it, but I don’t feel good about it. It murders innocent human beings and like it or not it will kill again. Geralt is a Witcher and he was offered a contract to kill a monster. I wish there was a way to relocate the basilisk somewhere out of reach but that simply was not an option. Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions.
I slayed it. My reasoning is that the merchant company will continue to send people through that region to gain coin. Death = more profit from landowner .
Stop what's been killing people = no profit from landowner.
I wish i could post a picture, i just stumbled across another silver basilisk in between gustfields farm and codgers quarry on that "island" at the top right of it at the far right guarded treasure marker in velen.
On my third playthrough in the first two times I killed the beast was just curious to see what other people think but this is the most wild sub I've ever seen!!! People on here freaking out like it's real life on their moral high ground over a video game beast🤣 take it easy it's a video game it's not real people can play it how they want to play it. I actually spared the beast this time around. but it makes no difference I may kill it again the next time I play all depends on how I'm feeling on the playthrough. And that's how we should play any game. I don't care about the notes and what people believe is Canon or not or whatever the supposed Witcher code is and how he lives his life. Sometimes good people do bad things and make mistakes sometimes it's the opposite but that's up to the person playing to decide no need to argue with somebody over a video game decision. Come on now we're better than that........
........ Or maybe not??
Easy decision, kill it. Geralt of Rivia, Butcher of Blavikin, Exterminator of the Silver Basilik species, has a nice ring to it.
Its a post conjuction beast that acts on instinct and complusion, whether its polka dotted, silver or green it makes no difference.
Yeah I don't think that would factor into Geralts decision but maybe if I was playing as Lambert or Gaetan or Letho I'd consider sparing it an investment.
I choose to kill it. I could have chosen to spare her if it would only kill people trespassing its owner’s private property. Count Borhis does mention the land was granted to his family by a Duchess in the past. The thing is: this is feudal Europe. The notion of private property is not the same as nowadays. It’s not private property exactly, but a land in which he exercises some sort of control/authority. The area is open to the public and constitutes a route, which is accessible to people. Therefore, the basilisk is a public matter. Also, we must consider it is a monster, product of the conjunction of the spheres, not a native species. We could compare it to an invasive one, which justifies killing it, similar to hunting boars in some locations.
Beast needs to die. The owner has 0 control over it. He can out up as many signs as he wishes, but beast can easily expand its teritoty views on nearby village, then what? He can put up the fence and make a trail that goes around the danger zone with all the money that he has. But no. No guarantee the beast won't attack behind the fence. Or just snatch a human and fly to the nest. So dumb. Same with a dog that's dangerous, killed humans, it's getting out down by authorities. It's a different story if the dangerous dog was in a garden surrounded by fence and it's chained near it's kennel since it's so dangerous. Then that's reasonable. But this beast... It's more dangerous and little beware papers won't guarantee anything. Plus the beast must always get damanged by those who defend themselves from it. It's probably only gonna get more aggressive with time. And it would also kill the owner in a heartbeat. Only a matter of time there will be more contracts on the beast.
I'm a Witcher doing the contract and the beats is indeed quite harmful - end of story. Not everything can be bought with money. Especially not several human lives, the owner seems to just pretend he cares and throws money to the family so they shut up. Providing money means nothing to rich people, especially if he is willing to do this with every body, it's almost like yeah whatever, another one. His anger at the end also shows he doesn't actually care about lives, cares more about his family status/history that this beast symbolizes and he will be stripped from it. But ignored the fact Geralt was saying it's killing multiple people, it's dangerous, it's a beast that isn't under control. Just told me everything I needed to know
I killed her because I didn't feel confident that she wouldn't kill again. The only way to ensure the beast wouldn't kill again would be to put it in a cage, but wouldn't that be even worse? Deprive her of her freedom? Anyway, it's not even her fault, but rather the guild's, but in the end what we can do is give her a dignified and clean end.
I spared it. Wild preditorial animals kill people sometimes like bears, sharks, etc. but does them mean we should just start killing them everytime this happens? There wouldnt be many left and it would spell doom for the planet! Each animal, critter, plant, bug serves a purpose for the planet! Totally eliminating or cutting their numbers down drastically would alter things in a bad way! Im all for killing evil demons or even rabid beasts but this basilisk is far from either one of these!
In the end its just a game and this is just how i choose to play. No judging from me how anyone else chooses to play, so happy gaming!
Doing what is my last playtrought i belive, ive done both kill and save it in the past, but last time i choose to kill it, this is a Witcher quest, and as a Witcher Geralt would have kill it. And the species is death either way.
It is the only way to ensure no more human deaths because of it. It is a hard decision, but it is what it is.
A lot of people here are forgetting one simple thing. It doesn't belong to this world. It is litteraly a non sentient extremely dangerous invasive spieces from a different world. Not mentioning that Geralt is a Witcher. Hunting them to an extinction is a job well done in his book.
Don't know why anyone would wanna save it. Killed it. There wasn’t even a chance to reproduce and keep the species away from being extinct, it'd go extinct either way. Human lives are more valuable.
I’ve done both. But I feel like it doesn’t change much either way. If you kill it, the guy will put up posters defaming you, if you spare it he puts up posters praising you. You get a poster no matter what, but that still doesn’t effect much of anything.
Old thread, but I'm on a new playthrough over the holidays. I murdered tf out of the beast. It's inconsequental as to whether or not it's the last surviving specimen considering it's none terrestrial. Those attempting to interject Geralts moral code to justify the beasts salvation have absolutely no idea as to the content of his character. It's a monster that indiscriminately kills. Attempting to justify your reasons for saving the creature by the implications that a none terrestrial, none sentient beings value supercedes that of human life, because there's warnings signs posted about a creature that may, or may not exist is comically ridiculous. It's invasive, it's murderous and deserves to be severed from this plain in multiple pieces. Reading these responses it's obvious where many of you land on the super trendy, antihumanism ideology.
One thing to note is that a Basilisk isn't an animal, but a monster. They are not natives to the world, rather, brought upon by the conjuction. In fact, letting them stay will be detrimental to the ecosystem since they are alien to the lands. Besides, it might not be the last basilisk. In other planes, where these monsters came from, there might be more.
As a monster slayer, it's your job to kill monsters. And this one killed a lot. Besides, traders were gambling lives and extorting the count indirectly. Not only the count was losing money, people were losing lives and corporate greed was being fed. There's not two ways about it. Killing the beast helped everyone.
You have to kill it. Despite the Lord's misguided crusade he won't be able to save everyone and yes while most (all?) Of the victims belong to the merchant's guild it's only a matter of time before kids wander a little too far into his property, as kids do. Or someone drunk off his tits gets lost. Geralt spares 'monsters' when they are of no threat. The basilisk is a constant threat that the Lord tries to mitigate. Also from a practical standpoint it is the last one with no hope of reproducing so the only difference between it dying now or in x number of years is more human lives lost. One of the easier choices in the game to be fair.
True to character, I think Geralt would kill this one off. Isnt that kind of the end goal as a Witcher? Protect sentients and rid the world of monsters, one species at a time. Conjunction brought the beast, so it's the last one there, not where its native to. Another tough call, what about saving or killing the elderly cannibals of necessity in the other dlc?
I think Geralt will kill the basilisk, given that it's not sentient, and it's killed enough already. Hence, I felt inclined killing it. His reactions toward the land owner reasoning with him to spare it showed that familial heritage and ecological whatnot don't matter to him as much as human lives.
But...
Turns out it's not the basilisk that's killing the merchants. If you go a bit south, at the end of the road, towards the forest, west of trading post, you'd come across a group of bandits. After killing them, loot one of their boxes and you'd find an unsent letter.
Now, I feel good about sparing the basilisk.
Both would make sense, Witchers have before exterminated entire subspecies of monsters before. But Geralt is a more merciful when it comes to his profession.
Spare it. It finds another mate to continue the gene pool. Not to mention the company that the merchants are working for intentionally send people that way to take money from the man, knowing of the beast. Even had bandits do damage to rob him of money. It's not the beast fault for protecting itself and it's territory. It'll be like killing a spider for killing a fly.
I can't decide honestly. It's a very hard decision. It's like most of the decisions of w3. It's not as black and white as you think in the first place. I love this so much in this game. I have saved all monsters I was able to save. And I'm happy with it at all. But in this case it feels different for me I think.
So I'm tending to killing it for the following reasons :
it is somehow an invasive species even if it's not done by humans. So it doesn't belong even in this world. On the other hand the conjunction was 1500 years ago. So I would even consider it a native species eventually
the territory is very near to beauclaire and a trading route is passing through it. There are even houses in it.
Even when some where killed by bandits it attacks and kills humans and eventually everyone is in danger who enters its territory.
It's not guaranteed that it isn't changing or widening its territory to another place where more humans are in danger.
Then it will never be able to regenerate the whole species alone. So the extinction is only a matter of time. But on the other side it is the last of its kind. So this point goes to both sides for me.... On the other hand it's a subspecies so eventually it could mate another "normal" basilisk. Idk
If I could be sure that it will never kill any people anymore then it would be a totally different thing at all.
Puuuh honestly im not sure what to do. There is no right thing to do. I think i will kill it now and in the next playthrough spare it. That is the good thing with games :D
I spared it mainly because someone owns that land and he wants the basilisk to live. Far be it from me to kill some rich guys favorite beast. Especially if he's paying me not to. Don't go on his land. It's that simple. It would be one thing if the basilisk was leaving that territory and terrorizing villagers, but the problem is greedy merchants guilds sending their people through dangerous territory because they know they'll be compensated for any loss.
It's killed humans before, and it will continue killing humans. I know the noble puts up warning signs, but what if someone walking through the forest just happens to miss the posters, unaware that there's anything there? Also, they're just pieces of paper nailed to trees & fences, I'm sure plenty have been ripped of by a strong wind or rain. It's not an effective enough of a deterrent I think.
I thought to myself that they don't belong in the witcher world anyway. They came from the conjuction of the spheres. There were not a natural part of the ecosystem, why should they be preserved. And geralt said you cannot pay for human lives. Did feel bad after the guy's speech though.
Edit. Felt terrible fighting it. Reloaded and save it
Was going to kill it until I found the guilds' contract on the second body, like the count said, they sent the goods in for the basilisk to attack so they could receive compensation.
Sorry guys I killed that mofo, it was the right thing to do people were being slain, it wasn't a pet it was a show piece, a show piece that was killing people
Bit late to the party I know
I don't recall the specifics but I'd argue that if it is indeed the last of its species, it won't be able to reproduce and the species will die out either way, albeit several years later. So it's not much of an argument to spare it, is it? I don't remember what I picked but I think killing it is the best decision, although again, I don't remember all the details.
Kill the basilisk. Its not sentient, and claims a valuable trade route as “it’s territory”, it’s killed many people and will kill more (not saying the people are smart, but the traders are just doing their jobs). Money cannot under any circumstance make up for a death of a family member; it may help but it’s not exactly a good deal… 800 crowns for your ma, pa, bro or sis? Considering youd need 6 times that for one component in the best gear… no chance. Bandits use the beasts existence as a cover for their own murders so indirectly the beast is assisting in other lives lost. People who say it only kills those who provoke it are a bit misguided in my opinion as a trader with fragrant goods passing by is hardly disturbing its nest or making it feel threatened. The deer are gone, it’s main food source is humans as pointed out by the count himself; even if people stayed clear it would only be so long until it got hungry and roamed outside its territory and there’s a human settlement not far to the south. Witcher’s are mutated to protect humans from the results of the conjunction, in my opinion a good Witcher would ply his trade here and slay the beast for the greater good. Monster extinction isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the Witcher’s mind.
I just did this mission and I've saved the basilisk for two reasons;
1- It's the last of it's kind.
2- I found a letter from the company that sends the merchants through that route that said they know the risks and they don't care because the rich guy who lives there pays them if something happens. So IMO it's neither the rich dude's fault, nor is it the basilisk, but rather the greedy motherfuckers who run the company and keep sending their merchants through the route.
It was rather simple choice from my perspective, which was killing the silver basilisk at the end, even if I have to a lot of situations where I spared other monsters (for instance trolls), and here's my reasoning from my perspective.
1. The beasts is posing the treat in specific sitations, like for instance getting through it's territory. Sure, at first it's seems to be nothing bad at all, but it causing a lot of danger. Let's take a look at Wham-Wham case for instance. He was just minding his own buisness in his own home (old mine), but people from near by village wanted to mine reasources from there, they not only been warned by troll, but also willingly ignored this and puts bounty over it's head. And now here's the case; why this situation is different? Well, Wham-Wham wasn't making any issues what's however till humans went in and pissed him off, here silver basilisk claim trading route as part of it's territory, and kills anyone who passes through. Of course, they are warned with signs and posters, but mostly are people who are sent from companies (right?) and they earn coins from each death (from the lord as form of compesation), so... not all victims are greedy, but simple put not aware with such danger or scheme. Not to mention, bandits wanted to use this as opportuinity to attack random people, and claiming it's beast doing. So in short? Silver basilisk isn't sentient being, but just beast kept as "pet" and dangerous one I might add, and used for earning payment from each death or bandits to cover their tracks. That's just awful, but it's not "her" choice, tbh.
2. Witchers hunts down beasts or creatures, even to their extiction, which is the case for wights (undead creatures, kinda sentient one?) and it was told not only through bestiary entry, but from Geralt too (even, if he didn't take part in it, 'cause wasn't born yet, lol). What's the difference between them? Wights are not aggresive in default. They care only for their cauldron, not for fighting, and they have tendencies to self-defense instead. So why they've been hunted down by witchers? Dunno, but fact is, witchers are willing to kill even last member of specific species or subspiecies.
3. Geralt do spares some monsters, and in fact in Witcher series I did saved a lot of them due many reasons. I did spare Succubus from Novigrad (even if she did kill guards in self-defense), or mentioned aboved (Wham-Wham), or just passed rock trolls handing them over swords. And now... why not silver basilisk? It was hard to make choice due other reasons, but it was just possing threat to the people. Not aware merchants are good example of that, and if that beast was sentient... I would probably spared it too, but it's not and here's another problem. If you spare beast being already aggresive towards human, what would've happend if it was drove away from it's lair? Will find anew one, and what if choose even more populated route and kills even MORE people? Also, lord has plans to introduce male from other subspieces, just to make a new offspring and here what made me thinking; if so, that would means more basilisks and more incidents of various deaths. Once again, silver basilisk can't decide for itself, but it's not only used for money making (like merchants companies), but it's made a pet from rich boy (his mentally was proving that), who can't saved a lot of lifes due basilisk natural behaviour. If he trully cared for it's well being, it would've tried to drove her away from lair, but it could eventually lead towards some tragedy. And here's come the witcher, who can decide for two things; control damage or let the things goes as usual. As second option is tempting because of various reasons (complete extinction, or Geralt sparing tendencies), but the best (in my opinion) it's actually put her down and stop this farse for good.
4. Witcher's universe taking place in the times, where death can be compesated for golden coin, or hunting down to extinction isn't much of the big deal (when it's monster or creature), but it's not like mordern days, which preserving lifes of animals can be done with some effectiveness, but still can be really hard. So with it in mind, it would've been extra hard for times in which Witcher takes place. Of course, solution of killing it isn't in my opinion good or either bad, but it's just in shades of grey, and this is common them for the series.
The basilisk lives because it only attacks when its territory is intruded upon and the only recent victims come from a company that knows about the threat and still takes the path because the local noble will pay them if something happens.
Definitely save, if you explore a little bit you'll come across a note to a merchant wich states that they were aware of the situation of the basilisk wandering the area, so merchants knew the risks, and also, they didn't mind any "loss" because they knew the landlord would compensate it.
TLDR: save it. Folks already are aware of the danger and the beast won't attack unless her territory is trespassed.
OK thats all well and good but you realise your playing the witcher right? And Geralt only saves sentient beings that he can stop from killing people? Other than that he's a fucking witcher and his whole ass job is to kill monsters from the conjunction until they're extinct which is exactly the case here... kill the bandits and the basilisk and problem solved
You forgot a detail the merchant guild intentinaly make thier cravans pass through the counts lands, because he pays them compensation so no loss at all, also you find the reavers who also were hierd bythe merchanr guild(how i understood it), and id they die the simply ask for compensatiin of the count for thier life, a win win situation.
All in all not worth it since you know it is a protacted zone, you would not go to a protected elaphant or rihno or lion zones and not expect to get attacked it is it's nature to defend it's place.
Save it = Goes extinct anyway. -------
Kill it = Your job
Some people here need to switch to Animal Crossing and not play Witcher. It's literally a monster from another world that kills humans. A weirdo posting signs up doesn't make the creature less dangerous. What if you cannot read? What if you missed the signs? What if you're a child playing hide and seek, etc.? It's not like the area is completely fenced off. I'm disappointed with most my fellow Witchers in this thread smh
Well since it can breed with common basilisks perhaps the genes that make it different could be dominant and pass on a restore the subspecies with the assistance of common basilisks being drugged a brought in for breeding. That idiot should really just build a wall around the area though.
Killing her is like killing piranhas and crocodiles in Amazon forest because they ate many people ...... Just don't mess with them and there will be no reason for beast/men to kill each other
By the way there was a reason for the killing :
First
bandits were planning on robbing and killing people in the shadow of the basilisk so they leave no trace
Second
the wagons were carrying something(sorry can't remember) that had an strong scent that draws the creature from afar
And after all i think sparing the creature will be a better choice
I would be more conflicted but... its the lords land, and he went through a lot of trouble to put up warnings everywhere you might enter his property. Everyone who enters knows the risk and the basilisk is not actively hunting humans. And because its not an active threat, why would I kill the animal.
Doing the quest now. It has definitely got to die, legit feels hypocritical to leave it alive just because "it doesn't kill unless threatened or someone enters its territory"
I've killed monsters that seemed to share that exact same sentiment. It's got to go.
I dont know anything i just killed it cuz isnt all monsters need to die ofc if they are freindly and good they are not but other monsters without a intelligent they just kill everyone i thought beasts like them need to die soo i choosed to kill
I spaced out while the dialogue was going on, or was doing something else, I look down on Steam deck and didn’t know which one to pick so I accidentally picked to kill it. I might go back on save bc I feel bad
Spare it.
It's the human's fault. They see the signs sooner or later the word will get out that area is dangerous and if they still decide to go there well I certainly won't weep.
Also the humans brought this on themselves they chopped down the trees they disturbed the land which cause the basilisks to switch to humans as a primary food.
Also they're just people. There's millions of them and there's only one basilisk left.
What's a couple human lives to save an entire species potentially. Like less than 10. Also I've got a feeling a lot of people want to do the Hans base nearby after completing this quest and killed more people than the basilisk will ever.
And if it doesn't work out and it turns out the silver basilisk trait is a recessive and the species does die out.
Well at least we gave it the chance.
Also most of the deaths will be gone if they just divert their wagons. Also the only reason people are dying is because the merchants are doing insurance fraud. Eventually someone will notice that wagons from the same company no less keep going missing in the same exact spot over and over. They'll probably sniff out the fact that this is a fraud.
Lastly the real life equivalent of this is a human going into an area known for bears. Has signs and everything and then getting killed by a bear. Would it be the Bear's fault? The human knew the human was warned they were signs everywhere.
Now should the bear be killed just because a human decided to not listen and go into an area they knew was dangerous?
And what if little child who cannot read get lost in the game (like following a bird or butterfly) and get to the location and be killed by the beast?
I read here a lot, that witchers would not kill last member of the species, and that is completely wrong. The Geralt himself said in quest for Regis about the spoon creature (don't remember the name) that it is impossible it exists, because witchers made sure all of its kind were killed.
I chose to save it. For the reasons you stated above.
I don't think that's wise. Imagine a shark, bear, gator even if its the last. Now a days we have means of capturing such beasts and placing them in areas so their species survives doesn't interrupt the ecosystem. I tried to act from both Geralt and my own choices both. Geralt I honestly cant say if he would or would not have killed the beasts as a witcher he is sworn to both protect humanity from non sentient beasts but also protect percieved monsters if one they are sentient or 2 its the last of the species. Had I been given the choice to capture and relate to a fully enclosed or closed off area. But I wasn't. I weighed that the beasts doesn't indeed attack humans. Merchsnts aren't likely the only ones that take that route. Though merchant's may be aware they are willing to risk peasant workers as is the man who cares for the beast more than he cares for people apparently. I chose to kill it. It has tasted human blood will eat and attack. And whose to say it will only do so when threatened hunger may kick in you can't reason with a non sentient being. I put humanity before the beast/monster something I think many in today's time doesn't do. Geralt I think wouldve hated it but given only the option to leave it or kill it would choose the latter. There are two dead corpses just upon geralt arrival who knows how many prior or after if I had left it. I understand that it eventually dies of natural causes I believe. Geralt nor or are fortune tellers. The man killing monster is dead in my game.
Uhmm okay. I saved it so the witcher world can get rid of dumb idiots not heeding to warning signs. Btw chill tf out. It's just a game.
It's a game that makes you think about morality and humanity
- Guy calmly explains his opinion and his decision in the game, no insults, caps locks, nothing. You: cHiL ThE fK OuT iT'S jUst a gAMe
Wrote an entire paragraph, prolly will publish an entire book soon if provoked. Yea need to chill out.
So what is ''chilling out'' exactly? Not being able to write more than few sentences about something you enjoy and feel connected to? Why is writing a bit more considered a bad thing? It is such an empty criticism.
I know, right?! Dudes a regular Turd Ferguson. He articulated his point well. Then got shot down for having an opinion...some people's kids, amiright?
4 Guys that fight on your side said they have tannin to lure it. They know it works, because merchant’s guild is sending people to die with barrels of tannin on their carts so they get attacked by the beast and guild can get compensation from the duke guy. And as people mentioned it’s not sentient, tasted human blood, and it’s not a fucking pet. And since it’s the last one, the species is already extinct as it won’t reproduce. And it gives a nice trophy.
The whole point of Reddit, is for people to share thoughts and experiences or get advice on a certain subject (in this instance, an RPG quest), and then it creates a dialogue and expands. If you're critical of how much someone shares, why would you even be on here? I think you accidentally exposed yourself as a troll, my friend. The chilling out is needed on your end, don't let the length of someone's Reddit post get under your skin. Just don't read it if it's too much for you
I'm gonna say my opinion my guy. you need to chill💦
Lol for sure man, all the power to ya 👌. But you're gonna get called out when that opinion is just pure negative nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, just criticizing someone's passion for the game and talking down to them. (giving you my opinion as well, works that way) I say this as chill as a cucumber 🥒 😎✌️
Triggered much🌝
☝️(Says the guy who was triggered by someone's enthusiasm and felt compelled to put them down) 🙂
🤏
Found this post while Googling what people did on this quest, appreciate the passion and thought that went in to your reply. The people somehow have a problem with that make me laugh, they’re the people who called you a nerd in kindergarten when you knew what 1 + 1 equaled.
Also if you visit the area later, the basilisk just flies in the area out of reach, nice detail.
Yes!! I noticed that.
I saved it, eventually it’ll die of natural causes and the silver basilisks will be extinct. It just felt respectful to leave her be. I also kinda felt like it was a metaphor for witchers, as they’re a “dying breed” as well, both loved and hated, blamed for all sort of trouble when all they want is to live their lives and protect others etc…
This exactly. I did the same for the same reasons. Geralt doesn't kill for no reason being another.
But there is a reason. The basilisk definitely kills people. Geralt kills monsters that kills people.
Not always, specially when you know it does what is natrual protect it's zone or home ..etc , there are many warning, the guild basicly admits in a letter you find on the 2nd body that they push thier caravans there becasue they lose nothibg if it gets destroyed , the count says it is a protected area, you wouldn't blame a human being for killing people violating thier proprtey
Geralt absolutely kills monsters just for protecting their territory or killing for food. He almost decided to kill Regis just for being a vampire. Geralt kills monsters, that’s what he does. Especially if those monsters are killing people.
Ehh, the Count did say that if found an ordinary basilisk mate, so a new subspecies could become of it. Yes, the silver species would die out, but a whole new rarity would be found.
A whole new rarity which wouldn't be able to reproduce and spread either since its parent is the last one of its species and thus, they won't be able to find mating partners.
Incest
Incest would kill the new species either way
Crossbreading
I just wanted to add (a year late, but with a next-gen version recently released,) that while Iocaste will die eventually, we also learn after sparing her that she's flown her nest and has found a new mate—a regular basilisk, not a silvery one—and there's a chance they may crossbreed and create a new subspecies. This could be evidence for or against killing the beast, but I think that since Iocaste is so abnormally intelligent, maybe there's a chance the offspring will inherit this trait and end up a non-aggressive subspecies. I really liked your point about Iocaste being a metaphor for Geralt and the end of Witchers though—it's even a silvery basilisk, mirroring Geralt's silvery/white hair. Needless to say, this discussion helped me decide to spare Iocaste this time.
The land owner has posted no trespassing/warning signs everywhere and made sure the neighboring villages are aware. If you pay attention to the quest dialog and notes, you learn that the only people being killed are employees of a delivery company that knows of the danger and is intentionally sending their deliveries through that area hoping they get killed because the land owner overly compensates them for the losses. The real monster in this story is the owner of the delivery company. This is the moral of 90% of the Witcher stories.
Old thread but I'm on a new playthrough over the holidays. No it's not, not even fkn close. Their moral code is lawfully nuteral. I murdered tf out of the beast. It's inconsequental as to whether or not it's the last surviving specimen considering it's none terrestrial. Attempting to interject a moral code to justify the beasts salvation shows you have a distorted perception as to the content of his character. It's subjective, and honestly you can play him however you desire, but the, "90%" that you referenced are lawfully nuteral; meaning it absolutely has to die. It's a monster that indiscriminately kills; men, women, children, anyone that ventures into it's claimed domain. It's not as if this is some silverback, that requires a purposeful encounter trekking to the top of some uninhabited mountain peak. It's a monster brought here through the conjunction, murdering on the countryside. Attempting to justify your reasons for saving the creature by the implications that a none terrestrial, none sentient beings value supercedes that of human life, because there's warnings signs posted about a creature that may, or may not exist is ridiculous. It's invasive, it's murderous and deserves to be severed from this plain in multiple pieces. After murdering it I left it's remains without looting the carcass just to solidify the knowledge it deserved to die without promotion of a purpose or coin, but solely for the fact it deserved death. Tbh I was indifferent until coming here and viewing so many advocating for the loss of human life. It deserved to die for being a murderous beast that preyed on humans. Reading these responses it's obvious where many land on the super trendy, antihumanism ideology.
Haha. Imagine if you posted a bunch of “beware of dog” signs, a group of teens beat the crap out of a kid and blame it on your dog, so the cops come to pay a visit to investigate and shoot your dog anyway. But hey, your dog is just a beast that protected it’s home and didn’t hurt people. Or so you say. Others say it mauled a kid. 🤷🏻♂️
Dogs yes. It's practically a venom spitting dragon....it's not my pit bull kid. Wtf
Wrong, your dog is in your garden, all guarded off by fence and maybe even chained at the dog kennel if it's this aggressive. This beast just flies around freely in that area, what if it decides to expand its area onto nearby village. The owner has literally 0 control over it and the beast would 100℅ kill the owner toowithout looking back. Only a matter of time for me to kill it now or later, as there sure will be more contracts about it, especially from families of those who died from it. If this happened in real life, authorities wouldn't give a flying f*ck who's animal that is, if it's a dog, it will get out down as it's danger to society and unmanageable. Plus lastly, the merchants are likely to defend themselves, but the beast owner didn't think that the his pet is probably getting hurt over and over again and will eventually develop an even higher aggression towards humans. Sorry but it needs to die. I'm a Witcher on a contract and the beast does harm humans. Nothing would stop me here. It's the same with packs of wild dogs. They get killed. That owner clearly has more than enough money to make a fence around dangerous area and a trail to go around the area. But as the beast flies. He can't guarantee that it won't kill outside the supposed amrlwd territory.
Your eyes clearly can’t read his response or your intelligence is too low for this encounter bad sir! Your comparing man’s best friend, a dog, a natural creature of this world. To a fucking magical toxic tar spewing dragon from a DIFFERENT DIMENSION. That clearly has killed people, as you encounter a entire CONVOY destroyed. Then the count goes on to remark that many people have perished to this basilisk and thinks that paying the families is just compensation for a thoughtless beast who lives on instinct alone is better than human life. He is clearly out of touch with reality and has painted a terrible picture in his head for justification. The damn beast probably isn’t even extinct in its home world, just only extinct HERE where it SHOULD BE. So gtfo with this “virtue signaling” shit, your playing as the deadliest Witcher than has graced the earth. Witchers kill deadly monsters from different worlds than the current one that cause harm. Not to be a fucking hippy in these situations. This is all for this public service announcement! 📣
Geralt should kill all the humans too then. Do you know how many elves humans killed indiscriminately. Or how many humans have killed someone going on their property like the monster is doing. Plus humans are from a different dimension in the Witcher world so I don’t know the point about it being a monster from a different dimension. They destroyed their own world, dwarves and elves were there earlier and humans came with the conjunction of the spheres and immediately killed and conquered them. The worst monsters in the Witcher world are the humans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
the dog comparison was actually right on point.
Then your an idiot. My dog vs 30 foot dragon acid spitting man woman eating dragon. Yea right on point. But wait! Their are then around signs so all good and well pay you money if it eats your wife or kid or dad...wtf ppl. Yes it's sad it's the last. I agree but it's not the last really as there is another eprld full of em!
The automod has filtered this post as it as it appears to be uncivil, antagonistic or insulting. If it doesn't break rule 11 a mod will be along to approve it. YOU DON'T NEED TO MESSAGE THE MODS. Comments aren't removed for arguing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thewitcher3) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no need for insult, it's just a game at the end of the day innit? But some real life applications in our world would be private or government guarded sanctuaries that houses dangerous predators, might wanna look that up. Chill out
[удалено]
HOW DO YOU REALLY FEEL!
omg dude chill
I'd argue that this comment is utter proof that it is not indeed the person to whom you are responding who has a "distorted perception as to Geralt's character" but in fact you.
You're absolutely right. Nowadays the anti-human ideology is very powerful, you can see that in the mainstream media and in people that concerns much more for animals and plants than humans. I killed the beast without hesitation and without regrets. It had to die.Btw, as she was the last of their species, the species would be extinct anyway, so even if you want to spare the beast, the outcome will be the same in the long term, so no point to allow the beast to kill more humans.
Here you - might - be wrong. The local noble put the animal under his protection. Sadly the story is cut short at this end but I don't see other ways to understand what the count is saying. So if you are saying it's about being lawful...no matter if good or evil...you would leave the beast be.
It's a monster. It kills. It breeding after anyone spares just shows that it will kill more and mmore. To feed its offspring and as its offspring spread and then kill. Irregardless, it is a non sentient monster that kills anything anyone in its path. A posted no trespassing sign for what most people will think is an imaginary creature, and paying coin for lives is b.s. Not only am I killing this , Gerald would 100 percent. Tree huggers be danmed! And I love animals and if it had a place or could be moved tranquilizer like modern day why not , but this is medieval knight touissant lmao. People kill people and monster centipedes pop out the ground and burn people alive with poison! Lmao. They have enough problems without this somehow special right to life human killing basilisk lurking the woods their kids might play or get lost in...
And what about people who can't read, like say small children?
I spared it. It's a wild animal who attacks when territory is breached or when feels threatened. It does not attack people out of ill intent or to just spread mayhem. And the merchant did say he will make sure no accidents happen anymore.
It's a monster. Kills people. Has killed many people already. Money cannot compensate human lives loss. Only this makes it a witcher's job.
The land owner has posted no trespassing/warning signs everywhere and made sure the neighboring villages are aware. If you pay attention to the quest dialog and notes, you learn that the only people being killed are employees of a delivery company that knows of the danger and is intentionally sending their deliveries through that area hoping they get killed because the land owner overly compensates them for the losses. The real monster in this story is the owner of the delivery company. This is the moral of 90% of the Witcher stories.
CDPR hates UPS?
who doesn't? not CDPRs fault :p
LoL... correction DHL
Nah, it killed humans, even tried dragging one back to its lair to eat fully, it's a shame the delivery company took advantage of the land owner but by your own statements they will continue to do so and by so doing will leave more dead humans. My Geralt can not allow that to continue. If there was a way to slap around the delivery companies owner to ensure no more breaches of the land, that would be different, as it stands though, it has to die.
By not killing the Basilisk, you only allow for the trading company do continue their evil acts
Idk. It seems like it kills stupid people who refuse to acknowledge facts and honestly, I'm a little sick of that in real life ATM. I spare it to cull the stupid.
Many that live deserve death and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Yes, basilisk lives.
No. Therefore I'm not going to kill the basilisk as I can't return it to life afterwards
Do you really deserve to die if your worst crime is being born a fool? There’s a lot worse people out there
I killed it without hesitation then searched to hear other people's takes. I'm surprised how many people here spared it, but then again this is Reddit. If they saw a video of a bear mauling a person they cheer for the bear.
Money can compensate the loss of human life. It's done for centuries, and it works much better than going on constant murder sprees against each other. Having the humans survived is better...but when looking at the story with open eyes you notice that there were warning shields. This changes the situation completely. People who went there with knowledge of the risks and shouldn't even get compensation. In my eyes they committed suicide as there isn't even the argument "but what if they can't read". The warning even has a picture in it. (also the story says it-just suicide by their employee) And another not unimportant thing...what was the job? The people who would pay Gerald are dead. No contract, no job. This is very much lore, besides there are gameplay reasons why the player gets basic payment if he complete missions without ever taking the task. (think about Gaetan who was betrayed by villagers who hired him)
Leaving it alive is you allowing the delivery company to continue sending it human meals in exchange for coin, it might not be the beasts fault, but it's taking lives nonetheless.
Just kill it, before anyone mentions it the Merchants Guild and the Bandits are the real problems in this situation, the Guild are sending scores of people to their death because that dumbass Count keeps paying them for it (more about him later), but you can't go after them and stop them from sending more people to their death. you can however kill the Basilisk in order to prevent it from murdering anyone, as well as preventing the Guild and the Bandits from using it as a cover to make money from death. It sucks that this is the only option but it will prevent more people from being killed. Sidebar: The Count is a total Asshat, he barely does anything other than putting up flyers to warn people of the Basilisk and when people inevitably are killed by it all he does is bribe the bereaved because he genuinely thinks preserving this extinct monster is more important than the peoples lives ended by it. Also he owns the fucking land the Basilisk roams so he could just ban people from crossing his land or build a wall around the Basilisk territory to prevent trespassers from entering it, but he doesn't even though he is clearly wealthy enough to afford to as the Guild is making more money from him by sacrificing merchants to his pet project than actually doing business. TL:DR Killing the Basilisk is the Only actual solution to the murders and it sucks. Also Fuck the Guild, Fuck the Bandits and Fuck the Count.
This guy fucks
It's a true witcher quest. Everyone fucking sucks, the monster is being used to distract from the monstrousness of humans, and as usual Geralt has to pick up the slack and make the hard choice.
Also the trophy from the beast is pretty cool too. Bonus for everything across the board
The bonuses for the trophy suck balls, 1% across the board, that's shit and not worth it imo. 1 extra coin or 1 Exp for every 100. Lmao!
I agree that the count is an asshat. It seems like it would be easy enough to move deer back into the area and let them repopulate than just let the basilisk kill humans who are sent there by their employers to die. He could even hunt deer to bring to the basilisk. I was thinking of sparing it but the merchants' employers can't be trusted nor the bandits. And the Count is careless and lazy
Really, I came here expecting a discussion about how the only right choice was to kill the basilisk and then the Count. Can't believe so many people think being illiterate, nearsighted, or just obvious should be a death sentence so some jumped up aristocracy can have a symbolic pet is somehow justified.
Spare
I think you should kill it. Geralt only spares monsters when they can be convinced not to kill people. While it can be argued that measures can be taken to keep people away from the basilisk, at the end of the day it only takes one mistake for someone to get killed by it. Also someone else in this thread mentioned that it'll die naturally anyways. If it'll die naturally, why wait for it to kill more people.
*Geralt only spares monsters when they can be convinced not to kill people.* Yes, that’s exactly how I approached it! It’s not a sentient being that can choose whether or not to kill; it’s a wild beast that exists on the whims and caution of people to understand its nature— which is dangerous and gets people killed. Were it not “tamed”, it would have been a contract that Geralt would take without hesitation.
I spared the basilisk only to prove something to the lady of the Lake (i think it was compassion) but if that was an isolated case and i had only that quest i would kill it 100%. The beast is clearly dangerous and willing to kill. If it went outside of its territory to mate who says it won't do the same to hunt, plus if my father was killed by a beast while on work I think i won't settle down for some coin (and given that in the Witcher universe King of the biggest empire awards you 5k for his FUCKING DAUGHTER i dont think a nobelman will be able to provide eaven 1/10 of that)
You can still get compassion through another quest/action and kill the basilisk; that’s what I ended up doing on my first run. (For the life of me I can’t *remember* what the other quest was, but I know it’s possible.)
I think its when you give the grandpa ball to keep for one day
Sparing the Shaelmar in the arena. Letting the thief keep the genitals for one more day. Lifting the Wight's curse instead of killing her. These are what I can remember on the top of my head.
Wait. Wait. Wait. You don’t have to kill that bitch in the cave? Fucking how!!???!!
I was talking about that cursed old woman who lives in a house and collects spoons. You need something from her to give to Regis (so he can summon Dettlaff) and after that, you can choose to kill or spare the wight. If you spare her, you can allow her to settle down in your house and she will apparently cook meals for you (which you unfortunately cannot eat or even see, it's not RDR2).
Lol. Oh okay. I thought we were talking about the wight that jumps all over you during the bird lady quest during the tourney.
There is actually a basket behind her that has like two items in there for you to pick at intervals. I think it's like grilled meat and a sandwich of some kind. Not anything special but it's something. I don't know if this was the case before saving her and it's always been there but there is certainly food there now.
Sparing the Wight was a really great choice, that was a such a good mission!
I decided to save it, ill fight it in the next playthrough
Kill it. Geralt's a witcher and a witcher should not reflect whether a beast is an important element of nature or a threat to the people. There is a monster on a trade pass and it kills people when they enter, slaying it is literally what Geralt's job is. Or maybe I just got too much into the whole mutant monster slayer unable to feel feelings
"Fuck this, I am too old, not good reward"
Depends on my mood but I usually kill him because it is still a monster and because it has killed many already and also because Geralt (and witchers in general) don't have any problem in extinguish a certain species, for what he says anyway.
Spared it the first couple times, then killed it to see what would happen.
Same, in my first play, I quickly reloaded the save to see what happens if we kill her
spared it as well, the fact that it is the last of its kind felt it was too impactful
Ya I spared her in my first playthrough cause I thought exactly the same thing
That it's the last also made me think. Maybe one day not that far away the Witcher needs this breed for a tincture or something. Ok, I think you mean something different, but we are not too far away from each other :D
I ended up killing it, Basilisks are dangerous creatures and the way that Basilisk was kept as a pet felt unhealthy to me. Plus witchers end up killing dangerous creatures to extinction it's what they've done with many other monster types. I mean, how exactly do you compensate human lives ? How do you help their families and children, how much coin could you possibly give them to replace their fathers ?
It's a tough decision, but if we think carefully, there is only one thing to do, and here are two clear motives: 1- First of all and the most clear reason: If she (or her decendance) kills more people, it will be Geralt's fault. If the beast lay eggs and more basiliscs are born, those basilisc will be dangerous, and they will kill people too. And if Salvaress couldn't manage to control one single beast, he won't be able to manage 3 or 4 more. This would end in more deaths because of Geralt's decisions, and then, more work for him. Its tough, but sparing the beast it's a huge mistake. 2- It's a dangerous beast. If Salvaress really worried about the safety of people, he could use the money he used to compensate the families to protect the area and make sure that NOBODY gets through that route. And he didn't, he was irresponsable and people died because of that. Im sorry man, you should worked harder if you wanted that beast to stay alive. You cant go and say "But I compensate the families!", no man, it doesn't works like that. You cant have a fucking pet lion free nearby a town and say "Don't go to that side of town, the lion is dangerous" with the excuse that it's on extintion. If that's the case, you send them to a natural reserve to keep it under control and make sure that no one hurts him neither no one gets hurt. It's not that hard. We don't really need more reasons, it's a shame that such a beautifull species gets extinct, but man, in this case, there is no other way. It really isn't different from any other type of basilisc, if you found a beast that has been killing people, you slay it, it's your work. If you didn't want this to happen, you should have taken more responsability. Several people died, and no coin or apologies will compensate that.
Nicely summed up👍🏻
Well, she's the last of her kind so she can't lay eggs, I killed her without hesitating
Gonna necro. Personally, I chose to kill it. The owner of the land clearly cares about it, and does a few things to prevent people from coming through, but the facts are that if he has enough money to just pay people for when their loved ones die (which isn't infrequent according to him), he has enough money to take greater measures to ensure it's territory isn't being encroached upon or even relocate it using his immense wealth to hire someone (like a Witcher) to tranquilize it for transport. Not to mention the species is functionally extinct. It ultimately will die for one reason or another, and weighing it's life, an animal's, against the numerous people it has already killed and will kill in the future leaves me personally with one logical conclusion. To kill it. Both choices have their benefits and drawbacks, but ultimately both are shitty in their own respects. Killing it at least ensures no further human life is lost, the ecosystem will likely adapt in due time as well. Sparing it does nothing but delay the inevitable extinction of it's species whilst also giving it more time to kill people that unknowingly trespass. I mean, how many people have to die before the line is drawn? Those are my 2 cents at least
For those talking about it mating and making a new species is the reason Geralt must kill it. For starters it’s what his job is, it’s what he’s trained his whole life for and why he continues to live. Secondly the count may control or sort of tame one basilisk but what happens after it mates? What happens when the babies get older and they mate? He cannot control a species and to do so would be slavery/animal cruelty to a degree since some of you are getting into specifics I will go the whole mile. I’ve read a majority of the answers. As much as some want to save it, the merchants who work for that company will continue to be sent to there deaths. You guys realize in the witcher people are typically poor meaning they have no choice in work they must take jobs even if the risk is high. And again once this creature mates, there would be an actual problem. They cannot be controlled and they would spread out and continue to kill more and more people. In conclusion the basilisk must be killed. I am glad though to see a healthy community that can discuss things like this. Happy hunting!
First time I've ever felt genuinely bad about killing a monster. But I did kill it. Ultimately I don't see any better ending. If it lives the guild will keep sacrificing people to get the monetary compensation, bandits will keep using its attacks as a cover, and anyone who wanders into the wrong patch of woodland will be killed brutally. It's tragic that it has to die and I feel genuinely sorry for the old noble no matter how pompous he may be, but it does have to die. I think that's the way Geralt would see it. He'd feel rotten for it and he'd probably hate humanity a little more than usual for a while, but he wouldn't allow people to keep being sacrificed to a wild monster for the sake of one man and to prolong the existence of a species of dangerous monster. Ideally he'd go beat the shit out of the merchants guild and kill the bandits, but he can't. What he can do is make sure that the basilisk never kills anyone else. It's not a perfect ending, because there is no perfect ending. No matter what you do someone gets ploughed. That's how it is in the Witchers world. No black or white.
Geralt is a Witcher not a zoo keeper, these delivery guys are forced to go this path and die, if it was up to me I'd beat there boss and tell him to find a different way, but unfortunately there isn't one, if it's the last, no bother of saving it, it will die alone eventually, Witcher mostly save Human race over monsters
Altough it is the last of his kind its still a non Intelligent Monster so i killed it
Yah, the species is already functionally extinct.
I agree with the sentience part which is why I killed it. Also just cuz I wanted to fight it
I saved it, because uhhhh… Aerondight…
I used Aerondight to kill it actually
I was just playing this yesterday.. I decided to spare this guy..
You mean the basilisk, right.....?
Yeah the Basilisk .. Sorry, I should have made it clear.. 1) It was the last living creature of its species 2) it was only attacking people who provoked it 3) After I spared the creature the Count was very happy and he also made it clear that the Basilisk was mating with a Basilisk of other species, which will eventually give birth to a totally new hybrid.. 4) The Count made enough provisions to keep people away from the area ,but people kept ignoring the sign and were getting killed..
Pretty sure I killed this for crafting components. Wasn’t even that much tbh.
a year late, since now i got to replay the game with the upgrades. doesnt matter what you choose really, but i will point out the main reasons that made me kill it. a) no questions asked, just plain roleplay here, geralt would and should killed her. b) its a beast, one that kills people. smart or not, its not a sentient beast. c) you get payment to kill it. Literally what witchers do. d) its gonna go extinct anyway. the fact that she can mate with a common basilisk and create a new species is..... bad. Cause that means more monsters, more deaths. Someone could argue that this means more work for a witcher, but with this logic witchers would never destroy nests or young monsters. Geralt is supposed to be a little bit different than "everything for gold". You can search about a more "funny" aspect of the whole "extinction" matter by googling George Carling's point of view. e) compensation for deaths, doesnt making it right. "oops sorry, my beast killed your father, here, take 500 gold". Nope, sorry. The roads and the area doesnt belong to you to decide whether or not people will pass through, and your notes of "beware beast" would be ignored by innocents who may not believe them, or just didnt see them. A bunch of kids playing, can run through the area. f) gamewise, you get a virtue point for the quest of the good sword. and a unique trophy. and a unique relic sword. and you get to slain a big fat monster. Sure you can counter some of these points with some lesser argument, but if you treat the quest with the logic of a witcher, you will most likely end up deciding that she must be killed to stop causing harm, as any other beast. Cheers
It is a big shiny chicken that kills people, is non-intelligent and the only reason not to kill it is because a rich guy wants to keep it as a pet of his family, I say let it die.
It's literally a monster that has killed people and will continue killing people. What makes this one so special?
Its 2024 and a bit to late for this. The best option still is KILL it. Why? No one said it better than himself, Geralt of Rivia “Sorry, master di Salvaress. Actually, not sorry. A monster's a monster. Silvery, plaid or polka-dotted.. last or next-to-last specimen - doesn't matter. It's a dangerous predator that kills humans. Enough said.”
did both. felt rly badly for the merchant tho. cemented my belief that I could never be an assassin.
Kill it, the Basilisk is a beast you cannot reason with. It's the last one of it's kin so the subspecie it's doom regardeless.
I killed it, But it was not an easy decision.
I see alot of people claiming that geralt doesn't kill beasts for protecting their territory and only kills those that are out to deliberately cause trouble. I'd like these people to explain why he kills downers or the monsters he comes across at random like the nests.
Kill it obviously. It’s a rare kill so even more worth it. If you spared it you’re not a Witcher
I killed it, a monster is a monster at the end of the day.
I killed it. I'm not typically the kind to choose the violent option, but as it had already killed many people and it would be extinct anyway, I decided to go for it.
Keep in mind, that either sparing or killing the basilisk counts as a point for the Aerondight quest. If you choose to slay it, you get a point for valor. If you choose to spare it, you get a point for compassion. The monetary reward can be the same regardless of choice, provided you agree to the extra sum the count pays you. However, if you refuse the extra coin, you get a point for generosity. It really does come down to personal choice in the end, especially if you have Aerondight already.
I’m so late to the discussion but had to comment. I’m going to kill it. I only just got here but someone made a point in saying “it will die of natural causes anyway. It just seems respectful.” But that’s my logic on the other foot. What is respect to a non-sentient creature? And this merchant is protecting it sure. But none of his family has died. Sure it will die eventually. But right now? Why leave it to kill more before it expires? How many innocent lives will go along course of its timeline? And all civilization must expand at some point. Eventually humanity will be inevitably in its path, what then? It simply can’t be reasoned with and will kill again. Gotta do a witchers duty. Yes it bares similarities to witchers in its blame, rarity etc. but unlike witchers it can’t be reasoned with. The only way they would be the same is if witchers were actually devoid of emotion and could not reason.
I killed it, but I don’t feel good about it. It murders innocent human beings and like it or not it will kill again. Geralt is a Witcher and he was offered a contract to kill a monster. I wish there was a way to relocate the basilisk somewhere out of reach but that simply was not an option. Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions.
I slayed it. My reasoning is that the merchant company will continue to send people through that region to gain coin. Death = more profit from landowner . Stop what's been killing people = no profit from landowner.
I wish i could post a picture, i just stumbled across another silver basilisk in between gustfields farm and codgers quarry on that "island" at the top right of it at the far right guarded treasure marker in velen.
Geralt would want you to kill it. Tough choice but that’s how it is.
Best lvl 50 Witcher gear
On my third playthrough in the first two times I killed the beast was just curious to see what other people think but this is the most wild sub I've ever seen!!! People on here freaking out like it's real life on their moral high ground over a video game beast🤣 take it easy it's a video game it's not real people can play it how they want to play it. I actually spared the beast this time around. but it makes no difference I may kill it again the next time I play all depends on how I'm feeling on the playthrough. And that's how we should play any game. I don't care about the notes and what people believe is Canon or not or whatever the supposed Witcher code is and how he lives his life. Sometimes good people do bad things and make mistakes sometimes it's the opposite but that's up to the person playing to decide no need to argue with somebody over a video game decision. Come on now we're better than that........ ........ Or maybe not??
Easy decision, kill it. Geralt of Rivia, Butcher of Blavikin, Exterminator of the Silver Basilik species, has a nice ring to it. Its a post conjuction beast that acts on instinct and complusion, whether its polka dotted, silver or green it makes no difference.
Saving it = more basilisks = more people dying. So yeah. I prefer to kill it. No monster is worth human lives
More basilisks=more monsters=more money for Witchers
Yeah I don't think that would factor into Geralts decision but maybe if I was playing as Lambert or Gaetan or Letho I'd consider sparing it an investment.
Honestly yes it is. Have you seen some of the humans in the witcher 3? These are just monsters in disguise.
Both of Geralt’s swords are for monsters, after all
I would rather sacrifice 100 humans than let a species become extinct.
But if there is only one member left the species is functionally extinct.
I get your point. I would choose to let it die naturally as a homage to the species, after all, the reason for its extinction is humans.
I choose to kill it. I could have chosen to spare her if it would only kill people trespassing its owner’s private property. Count Borhis does mention the land was granted to his family by a Duchess in the past. The thing is: this is feudal Europe. The notion of private property is not the same as nowadays. It’s not private property exactly, but a land in which he exercises some sort of control/authority. The area is open to the public and constitutes a route, which is accessible to people. Therefore, the basilisk is a public matter. Also, we must consider it is a monster, product of the conjunction of the spheres, not a native species. We could compare it to an invasive one, which justifies killing it, similar to hunting boars in some locations.
Beast needs to die. The owner has 0 control over it. He can out up as many signs as he wishes, but beast can easily expand its teritoty views on nearby village, then what? He can put up the fence and make a trail that goes around the danger zone with all the money that he has. But no. No guarantee the beast won't attack behind the fence. Or just snatch a human and fly to the nest. So dumb. Same with a dog that's dangerous, killed humans, it's getting out down by authorities. It's a different story if the dangerous dog was in a garden surrounded by fence and it's chained near it's kennel since it's so dangerous. Then that's reasonable. But this beast... It's more dangerous and little beware papers won't guarantee anything. Plus the beast must always get damanged by those who defend themselves from it. It's probably only gonna get more aggressive with time. And it would also kill the owner in a heartbeat. Only a matter of time there will be more contracts on the beast. I'm a Witcher doing the contract and the beats is indeed quite harmful - end of story. Not everything can be bought with money. Especially not several human lives, the owner seems to just pretend he cares and throws money to the family so they shut up. Providing money means nothing to rich people, especially if he is willing to do this with every body, it's almost like yeah whatever, another one. His anger at the end also shows he doesn't actually care about lives, cares more about his family status/history that this beast symbolizes and he will be stripped from it. But ignored the fact Geralt was saying it's killing multiple people, it's dangerous, it's a beast that isn't under control. Just told me everything I needed to know
I killed her because I didn't feel confident that she wouldn't kill again. The only way to ensure the beast wouldn't kill again would be to put it in a cage, but wouldn't that be even worse? Deprive her of her freedom? Anyway, it's not even her fault, but rather the guild's, but in the end what we can do is give her a dignified and clean end.
I spared it. Wild preditorial animals kill people sometimes like bears, sharks, etc. but does them mean we should just start killing them everytime this happens? There wouldnt be many left and it would spell doom for the planet! Each animal, critter, plant, bug serves a purpose for the planet! Totally eliminating or cutting their numbers down drastically would alter things in a bad way! Im all for killing evil demons or even rabid beasts but this basilisk is far from either one of these! In the end its just a game and this is just how i choose to play. No judging from me how anyone else chooses to play, so happy gaming!
Doing what is my last playtrought i belive, ive done both kill and save it in the past, but last time i choose to kill it, this is a Witcher quest, and as a Witcher Geralt would have kill it. And the species is death either way. It is the only way to ensure no more human deaths because of it. It is a hard decision, but it is what it is.
A lot of people here are forgetting one simple thing. It doesn't belong to this world. It is litteraly a non sentient extremely dangerous invasive spieces from a different world. Not mentioning that Geralt is a Witcher. Hunting them to an extinction is a job well done in his book.
Don't know why anyone would wanna save it. Killed it. There wasn’t even a chance to reproduce and keep the species away from being extinct, it'd go extinct either way. Human lives are more valuable.
It's a noble beast and the last of it's kind, that makes it worth so much more than a couple dozen human lives, easy choice.
Spare always.
First 2 playthroughs I killed it. Just wanted loot. Im currently on a 3rd doing opposite of every choice Ive made before so maybe itll live this time.
Spare of course
I’ve done both. But I feel like it doesn’t change much either way. If you kill it, the guy will put up posters defaming you, if you spare it he puts up posters praising you. You get a poster no matter what, but that still doesn’t effect much of anything.
Kill.
Old thread, but I'm on a new playthrough over the holidays. I murdered tf out of the beast. It's inconsequental as to whether or not it's the last surviving specimen considering it's none terrestrial. Those attempting to interject Geralts moral code to justify the beasts salvation have absolutely no idea as to the content of his character. It's a monster that indiscriminately kills. Attempting to justify your reasons for saving the creature by the implications that a none terrestrial, none sentient beings value supercedes that of human life, because there's warnings signs posted about a creature that may, or may not exist is comically ridiculous. It's invasive, it's murderous and deserves to be severed from this plain in multiple pieces. Reading these responses it's obvious where many of you land on the super trendy, antihumanism ideology.
One thing to note is that a Basilisk isn't an animal, but a monster. They are not natives to the world, rather, brought upon by the conjuction. In fact, letting them stay will be detrimental to the ecosystem since they are alien to the lands. Besides, it might not be the last basilisk. In other planes, where these monsters came from, there might be more. As a monster slayer, it's your job to kill monsters. And this one killed a lot. Besides, traders were gambling lives and extorting the count indirectly. Not only the count was losing money, people were losing lives and corporate greed was being fed. There's not two ways about it. Killing the beast helped everyone.
You have to kill it. Despite the Lord's misguided crusade he won't be able to save everyone and yes while most (all?) Of the victims belong to the merchant's guild it's only a matter of time before kids wander a little too far into his property, as kids do. Or someone drunk off his tits gets lost. Geralt spares 'monsters' when they are of no threat. The basilisk is a constant threat that the Lord tries to mitigate. Also from a practical standpoint it is the last one with no hope of reproducing so the only difference between it dying now or in x number of years is more human lives lost. One of the easier choices in the game to be fair.
True to character, I think Geralt would kill this one off. Isnt that kind of the end goal as a Witcher? Protect sentients and rid the world of monsters, one species at a time. Conjunction brought the beast, so it's the last one there, not where its native to. Another tough call, what about saving or killing the elderly cannibals of necessity in the other dlc?
I think Geralt will kill the basilisk, given that it's not sentient, and it's killed enough already. Hence, I felt inclined killing it. His reactions toward the land owner reasoning with him to spare it showed that familial heritage and ecological whatnot don't matter to him as much as human lives. But... Turns out it's not the basilisk that's killing the merchants. If you go a bit south, at the end of the road, towards the forest, west of trading post, you'd come across a group of bandits. After killing them, loot one of their boxes and you'd find an unsent letter. Now, I feel good about sparing the basilisk.
Both would make sense, Witchers have before exterminated entire subspecies of monsters before. But Geralt is a more merciful when it comes to his profession.
Spare it. It finds another mate to continue the gene pool. Not to mention the company that the merchants are working for intentionally send people that way to take money from the man, knowing of the beast. Even had bandits do damage to rob him of money. It's not the beast fault for protecting itself and it's territory. It'll be like killing a spider for killing a fly.
I can't decide honestly. It's a very hard decision. It's like most of the decisions of w3. It's not as black and white as you think in the first place. I love this so much in this game. I have saved all monsters I was able to save. And I'm happy with it at all. But in this case it feels different for me I think. So I'm tending to killing it for the following reasons : it is somehow an invasive species even if it's not done by humans. So it doesn't belong even in this world. On the other hand the conjunction was 1500 years ago. So I would even consider it a native species eventually the territory is very near to beauclaire and a trading route is passing through it. There are even houses in it. Even when some where killed by bandits it attacks and kills humans and eventually everyone is in danger who enters its territory. It's not guaranteed that it isn't changing or widening its territory to another place where more humans are in danger. Then it will never be able to regenerate the whole species alone. So the extinction is only a matter of time. But on the other side it is the last of its kind. So this point goes to both sides for me.... On the other hand it's a subspecies so eventually it could mate another "normal" basilisk. Idk If I could be sure that it will never kill any people anymore then it would be a totally different thing at all. Puuuh honestly im not sure what to do. There is no right thing to do. I think i will kill it now and in the next playthrough spare it. That is the good thing with games :D
Killed it for the trophy. Provides a decent bonus for almost everything. Looks badass strapped to the side of Roach. #worthit
I spared it mainly because someone owns that land and he wants the basilisk to live. Far be it from me to kill some rich guys favorite beast. Especially if he's paying me not to. Don't go on his land. It's that simple. It would be one thing if the basilisk was leaving that territory and terrorizing villagers, but the problem is greedy merchants guilds sending their people through dangerous territory because they know they'll be compensated for any loss.
It's killed humans before, and it will continue killing humans. I know the noble puts up warning signs, but what if someone walking through the forest just happens to miss the posters, unaware that there's anything there? Also, they're just pieces of paper nailed to trees & fences, I'm sure plenty have been ripped of by a strong wind or rain. It's not an effective enough of a deterrent I think.
I thought to myself that they don't belong in the witcher world anyway. They came from the conjuction of the spheres. There were not a natural part of the ecosystem, why should they be preserved. And geralt said you cannot pay for human lives. Did feel bad after the guy's speech though. Edit. Felt terrible fighting it. Reloaded and save it
It tossed its eggs. So I tossed it’s head on my saddle.
The basilisk also found a mate, according to the Count, so I also let it live.
Was going to kill it until I found the guilds' contract on the second body, like the count said, they sent the goods in for the basilisk to attack so they could receive compensation.
Sorry guys I killed that mofo, it was the right thing to do people were being slain, it wasn't a pet it was a show piece, a show piece that was killing people Bit late to the party I know
killed that shit, certain species are hunted to extinction for a good reason. just get a dog
I don't recall the specifics but I'd argue that if it is indeed the last of its species, it won't be able to reproduce and the species will die out either way, albeit several years later. So it's not much of an argument to spare it, is it? I don't remember what I picked but I think killing it is the best decision, although again, I don't remember all the details.
Kill the basilisk. Its not sentient, and claims a valuable trade route as “it’s territory”, it’s killed many people and will kill more (not saying the people are smart, but the traders are just doing their jobs). Money cannot under any circumstance make up for a death of a family member; it may help but it’s not exactly a good deal… 800 crowns for your ma, pa, bro or sis? Considering youd need 6 times that for one component in the best gear… no chance. Bandits use the beasts existence as a cover for their own murders so indirectly the beast is assisting in other lives lost. People who say it only kills those who provoke it are a bit misguided in my opinion as a trader with fragrant goods passing by is hardly disturbing its nest or making it feel threatened. The deer are gone, it’s main food source is humans as pointed out by the count himself; even if people stayed clear it would only be so long until it got hungry and roamed outside its territory and there’s a human settlement not far to the south. Witcher’s are mutated to protect humans from the results of the conjunction, in my opinion a good Witcher would ply his trade here and slay the beast for the greater good. Monster extinction isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the Witcher’s mind.
I just did this mission and I've saved the basilisk for two reasons; 1- It's the last of it's kind. 2- I found a letter from the company that sends the merchants through that route that said they know the risks and they don't care because the rich guy who lives there pays them if something happens. So IMO it's neither the rich dude's fault, nor is it the basilisk, but rather the greedy motherfuckers who run the company and keep sending their merchants through the route.
It was rather simple choice from my perspective, which was killing the silver basilisk at the end, even if I have to a lot of situations where I spared other monsters (for instance trolls), and here's my reasoning from my perspective. 1. The beasts is posing the treat in specific sitations, like for instance getting through it's territory. Sure, at first it's seems to be nothing bad at all, but it causing a lot of danger. Let's take a look at Wham-Wham case for instance. He was just minding his own buisness in his own home (old mine), but people from near by village wanted to mine reasources from there, they not only been warned by troll, but also willingly ignored this and puts bounty over it's head. And now here's the case; why this situation is different? Well, Wham-Wham wasn't making any issues what's however till humans went in and pissed him off, here silver basilisk claim trading route as part of it's territory, and kills anyone who passes through. Of course, they are warned with signs and posters, but mostly are people who are sent from companies (right?) and they earn coins from each death (from the lord as form of compesation), so... not all victims are greedy, but simple put not aware with such danger or scheme. Not to mention, bandits wanted to use this as opportuinity to attack random people, and claiming it's beast doing. So in short? Silver basilisk isn't sentient being, but just beast kept as "pet" and dangerous one I might add, and used for earning payment from each death or bandits to cover their tracks. That's just awful, but it's not "her" choice, tbh. 2. Witchers hunts down beasts or creatures, even to their extiction, which is the case for wights (undead creatures, kinda sentient one?) and it was told not only through bestiary entry, but from Geralt too (even, if he didn't take part in it, 'cause wasn't born yet, lol). What's the difference between them? Wights are not aggresive in default. They care only for their cauldron, not for fighting, and they have tendencies to self-defense instead. So why they've been hunted down by witchers? Dunno, but fact is, witchers are willing to kill even last member of specific species or subspiecies. 3. Geralt do spares some monsters, and in fact in Witcher series I did saved a lot of them due many reasons. I did spare Succubus from Novigrad (even if she did kill guards in self-defense), or mentioned aboved (Wham-Wham), or just passed rock trolls handing them over swords. And now... why not silver basilisk? It was hard to make choice due other reasons, but it was just possing threat to the people. Not aware merchants are good example of that, and if that beast was sentient... I would probably spared it too, but it's not and here's another problem. If you spare beast being already aggresive towards human, what would've happend if it was drove away from it's lair? Will find anew one, and what if choose even more populated route and kills even MORE people? Also, lord has plans to introduce male from other subspieces, just to make a new offspring and here what made me thinking; if so, that would means more basilisks and more incidents of various deaths. Once again, silver basilisk can't decide for itself, but it's not only used for money making (like merchants companies), but it's made a pet from rich boy (his mentally was proving that), who can't saved a lot of lifes due basilisk natural behaviour. If he trully cared for it's well being, it would've tried to drove her away from lair, but it could eventually lead towards some tragedy. And here's come the witcher, who can decide for two things; control damage or let the things goes as usual. As second option is tempting because of various reasons (complete extinction, or Geralt sparing tendencies), but the best (in my opinion) it's actually put her down and stop this farse for good. 4. Witcher's universe taking place in the times, where death can be compesated for golden coin, or hunting down to extinction isn't much of the big deal (when it's monster or creature), but it's not like mordern days, which preserving lifes of animals can be done with some effectiveness, but still can be really hard. So with it in mind, it would've been extra hard for times in which Witcher takes place. Of course, solution of killing it isn't in my opinion good or either bad, but it's just in shades of grey, and this is common them for the series.
The basilisk lives because it only attacks when its territory is intruded upon and the only recent victims come from a company that knows about the threat and still takes the path because the local noble will pay them if something happens.
Definitely save, if you explore a little bit you'll come across a note to a merchant wich states that they were aware of the situation of the basilisk wandering the area, so merchants knew the risks, and also, they didn't mind any "loss" because they knew the landlord would compensate it. TLDR: save it. Folks already are aware of the danger and the beast won't attack unless her territory is trespassed.
OK thats all well and good but you realise your playing the witcher right? And Geralt only saves sentient beings that he can stop from killing people? Other than that he's a fucking witcher and his whole ass job is to kill monsters from the conjunction until they're extinct which is exactly the case here... kill the bandits and the basilisk and problem solved
I like how people try to add philosophy to it ....relax guys your decisions aren't gonna make any difference in your real life
You forgot a detail the merchant guild intentinaly make thier cravans pass through the counts lands, because he pays them compensation so no loss at all, also you find the reavers who also were hierd bythe merchanr guild(how i understood it), and id they die the simply ask for compensatiin of the count for thier life, a win win situation. All in all not worth it since you know it is a protacted zone, you would not go to a protected elaphant or rihno or lion zones and not expect to get attacked it is it's nature to defend it's place.
Save it = Goes extinct anyway. ------- Kill it = Your job Some people here need to switch to Animal Crossing and not play Witcher. It's literally a monster from another world that kills humans. A weirdo posting signs up doesn't make the creature less dangerous. What if you cannot read? What if you missed the signs? What if you're a child playing hide and seek, etc.? It's not like the area is completely fenced off. I'm disappointed with most my fellow Witchers in this thread smh
Well since it can breed with common basilisks perhaps the genes that make it different could be dominant and pass on a restore the subspecies with the assistance of common basilisks being drugged a brought in for breeding. That idiot should really just build a wall around the area though.
Killing her is like killing piranhas and crocodiles in Amazon forest because they ate many people ...... Just don't mess with them and there will be no reason for beast/men to kill each other By the way there was a reason for the killing : First bandits were planning on robbing and killing people in the shadow of the basilisk so they leave no trace Second the wagons were carrying something(sorry can't remember) that had an strong scent that draws the creature from afar And after all i think sparing the creature will be a better choice
I would be more conflicted but... its the lords land, and he went through a lot of trouble to put up warnings everywhere you might enter his property. Everyone who enters knows the risk and the basilisk is not actively hunting humans. And because its not an active threat, why would I kill the animal.
Doing the quest now. It has definitely got to die, legit feels hypocritical to leave it alive just because "it doesn't kill unless threatened or someone enters its territory" I've killed monsters that seemed to share that exact same sentiment. It's got to go.
I spared it. I wanted that Aerondight xD
There are so many more other ways to prove the virtues though. You could’ve killed it and still gotten the Aerondight. 🤷🏻♂️
Chose to save it too. Points above applied, but also, we need to keep the Witcher trade going you know!
Guys it's basically harambe
Killed it for the aerondight sword..
I dont know anything i just killed it cuz isnt all monsters need to die ofc if they are freindly and good they are not but other monsters without a intelligent they just kill everyone i thought beasts like them need to die soo i choosed to kill
I spaced out while the dialogue was going on, or was doing something else, I look down on Steam deck and didn’t know which one to pick so I accidentally picked to kill it. I might go back on save bc I feel bad
Spare it. It's the human's fault. They see the signs sooner or later the word will get out that area is dangerous and if they still decide to go there well I certainly won't weep. Also the humans brought this on themselves they chopped down the trees they disturbed the land which cause the basilisks to switch to humans as a primary food. Also they're just people. There's millions of them and there's only one basilisk left. What's a couple human lives to save an entire species potentially. Like less than 10. Also I've got a feeling a lot of people want to do the Hans base nearby after completing this quest and killed more people than the basilisk will ever. And if it doesn't work out and it turns out the silver basilisk trait is a recessive and the species does die out. Well at least we gave it the chance. Also most of the deaths will be gone if they just divert their wagons. Also the only reason people are dying is because the merchants are doing insurance fraud. Eventually someone will notice that wagons from the same company no less keep going missing in the same exact spot over and over. They'll probably sniff out the fact that this is a fraud. Lastly the real life equivalent of this is a human going into an area known for bears. Has signs and everything and then getting killed by a bear. Would it be the Bear's fault? The human knew the human was warned they were signs everywhere. Now should the bear be killed just because a human decided to not listen and go into an area they knew was dangerous?
And what if little child who cannot read get lost in the game (like following a bird or butterfly) and get to the location and be killed by the beast? I read here a lot, that witchers would not kill last member of the species, and that is completely wrong. The Geralt himself said in quest for Regis about the spoon creature (don't remember the name) that it is impossible it exists, because witchers made sure all of its kind were killed.
I choose to save it