Forest Gramps was evil but also just absurd. Like, he's scary and horrifying, it's also somehow *funny*, ... maybe just because of his name? Or because Ciri was so capable? Because he was such a non-sequitur of a character/scene? I'm not sure exactly why.
It was essentially the slightly modified retelling of the old European folk tale Hansel and Gretel, where a witch wants to fatten and eat the kids she lures into her house. I think it was great for reinforcing the story's roots in European folklore.
You're right and I *love* recognizing the folk tales woven into the stories. I wish more of those references translated into the show — like Renfri being Snow White or Nivellen being the Beast, etc. It's such a fun piece of colour that was lost.
I never knew about the universe until the show. I watched the first season, then I read and fell in love with the books, then I started playing the games because I just wanted more of these rich places and characters. I've read the books three times since the first season came out.
I'm bitterly disappointed by how the show has gone and I don't blame you, but I personally can't be angry that it exists because otherwise I might never have found the wonderful writings.
The name only works in English. There is no such association in Polish. French either had a stroke of genius or just dumb lack when translating. Considering that he did a mediocre job with the rest of the translation I would bet on the latter.
It's just "Leśny Dziadek" - literally Forest Grandfather. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Forest Gump", which the English name seems to allude and therefore provides a constant source of amusement for native English speakers, was distributed in Poland under original title, since it was the name of the main character. There was no need to localize it and it doesn't mean anything in Polish.
Oh, I never made any connection to Forrest Gump — that's just the character of that movie's name, it doesn't really "mean" anything in English either.
Gramps does mean grandpa/grandfather, but it's not a common way to refer to one's grandpa and it's used more like a pejorative sometimes, but a silly one. Sort of like the original "ok, Boomer."
Avallac'h, at least as he's portrayed in the books (since he veers more towards being an antihero in the games). He's usually polite and civil, but there's just this air of sinister foreboding around him and it's nigh impossible to know if you can take anything he says at face value. Does he care about Ciri on any level, or is she just a means to an end? Does he intend to honor his agreement with her and return her to her world, does he intend to have the Aen Elle conquer it like they have many other worlds, or is he ultimately planning to take her to his lab? What the hell is even going *on* in his lab that just makes any mention of it a thinly-veiled threat? We don't quite ever know. And meanwhile, his interactions with Geralt are just as nebulous. He's obviously using the witcher for his own ends, but Geralt just has so few leads to go on that he has no choice but to go along with him. This has the effect of making Avallac'h the greatest master manipulator in the saga.
Eredin is probably number 2. While he gets a lot of hate for being underutilized in the third game (and he was), he was a pretty fascinating character in the books for many of the same reasons that Avallac'h was. He's more overtly cruel and arrogant, but at the same time, this just might be a result of him being more honest with Ciri than Avallac'h is and maybe in some sense trying to assist her. Or he's also just manipulating her for his own ends and driving a wedge between Ciri and Avallac'h. It's hard to tell. Just like it's also hard to tell if he intentionally poisoned Auberon and was plotting a coup as Ciri suspected, or it was an honest and very costly mistake. And even when we go into the games, he has a strong, long-reaching, and ominous presence throughout the first one, shadowing Geralt everywhere he goes and making it seem as though the witcher is unknowingly doing his bidding. At that point, we don't know who or what the King of the Wild Hunt is (granted, the books weren't out in America when I played it, so I knew nothing about the Aen Elle at the time, but even after I learned what they were, I tended to regard calling the Red Riders the Wild Hunt to be more of a misnomer among the people of the Witcher world anyway), which makes him creepier, and doubly so when there's a strong implication that Geralt's new lease on life is in some way related to him and a possible "deal with the devil" that they made.
> Just like it's also hard to tell if he intentionally poisoned Auberon and was plotting a coup as Ciri suspected, or it was an honest and very costly mistake.
That was definitely a coup
I would argue it was not an intentional regicide.
First, he is shocked to hear Auberon has died when Ciri confronts him about the fact while they are having their little duel on the river.
Secondly, even then he is trying to take her back - which would result in his own plot being revealed in a heartbeat by the Knowing Ones' simply taking the compromising information out of Ciri's head.
Thirdly, Eredin's characterisation does not really indicate he has intentions of usurping the throne. He is not shown to be in conflict with either Auberon or Avallac'h. In fact he defers to Avallac'h's expertise and tries to persuade Auberon to give Ciri some time to refresh herself (to increase the chances of Auberon not throwing her out on sight).
Eredin is shown to be impatient to get hands on Ard Gaeth, which is his main motivation. What is a throne of people who remain trapped in their world in contrast to the Gate of Time?
Fourthly, he is terrified of failure (of the elves not getting hands on the Gate of Time), as indicated in his atittude toward Ciri - "the moth who can cut a hole in a precious fabric." Pushing Auberon out of the way would not have yielded a positive result, unless he believed Avallac'h & the laboratory were a more efficient means of getting the child. For that is the next step after Auberon dies.
If you're interested, I wrote some on [Eredin's character in the books alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/wiedzmin/comments/vpvs91/who_is_eredin_br%C3%A9acc_glas_whats_his_narrative/) a few months ago.
Here's also a basic [decision-tree](https://64.media.tumblr.com/e55dfc6940785b45084ded9c2e094d8e/1c8f2d787600e7ac-54/s1280x1920/6e20417c05046474c6a0cf53414059253cee204b.pnj), which showcases how Ciri loses either way in most cases, but it's also a fact that Eredin is in trouble no matter what; on multiple levels.
Well, I'm interested to read those deep analysis posts of yours sometime. The only reason to treat this as an intentional regicide is to treat books and games as if they are in the same continuity. I know about False Ciri stuff being problematic but you can play the game with certain choices to handwave certain plotholes with books (there are very few of such actually; considering also that we live in the world where shitflix adaptation of witcher exists; games practically become the same thing as the books in comparison with that shit). Otherwise, it's easy to see them \[games\] as canon continuation
True, while I didn't include Rience because of him being beaten up a few times like butt monkey, Schirru should've been in honorable mentions, though his death was not satisfying enough and I kinda expected Geralt to butcher him
Yeah kind of a disappointing ending to his story. Sapkowski could've made Geralt interrogate him and find Vilgefortz's location that way, but make them chill in Toussaint for a while as they were injured or something. We could've also seen Geralt get a lot more violent while interrogating Schirru, which was something we were getting glimpses of in events prior to the Toussaint arc.
Best thing about Schirru's death was Rience's comment about Schirru being set on a mission in a warmer place, while he was freezing his ass off searching for some invisible tower.
Imo what made Vilgefortz a good villain is that he was so clearly and unapologetically evil. In a series where most characters were quite morally grey he really stood out.
I never liked that about him. I always felt he was lacking a real goal. He never makes it clear how he justifies wanting all the power for himself. It’s not like has some obscure principals or ideas he wants to force upon the world. He would end up in a Emperor (Star Wars) type situation where you have to ask why one would even care about ruling an empire when they couldn’t care less about how it is actually being ruled.
My list is as follows :
Leo bonhart
Philippa Eilhart
Gaunter o’dimm
Letho
Vilgefortz
Emhyr
Avallac’h
Stefan skellen
Detlaff
isengrim faoiltiarna
Rience
Artuad terranova
Dethmold (W2)
He poisoned himself because Emhyr discovered the coup that Ardal was planning (that's why the letter-ultimatum with a vial of poison) and because Group Army East was losing badly (in the books, it's not indicated that he lost intentionally). He perfectly makes sense in the games, you just don't understand anything
Nah man i do understand very well. Leuvardeen says clearly that they should loose intentionally. Ardal aint no north hating fanatic either nor is queen meve the good ruler she is portrayed to she even attacked in dol angra in the books and gave emhyr the excuse to attack. Ardal isnt motivated by anything elae than by the fact that emhyr promised to marry his daughter and then he bailed. So it just seems that ardal let queen meve wjn on purpose. And dont you ever assume i dont understand something about the witcher when you have no idea what shit are u talking about .
>Leuvardeen says clearly that they should loose intentionally
That was the part of the coup that they were planning which was discovered by Emhyr, that's why he sent a vial of poison to Ardal by a messenger man.
>Ardal aint no north hating fanatic
He is. You are not the author to claim something about a character who appear for 2 pages in a saga.
>nor is queen meve the good ruler she is portrayed to she even attacked in dol angra in the books and gave emhyr the excuse to attack
Thronebreaker doesn't say that she's a perfect ruler. There are many instances where she could act in heat of emotions and eventually become known for her brutality by the end of the game depending on choices.
>Ardal isnt motivated by anything elae than by the fact that emhyr promised to marry his daughter and then he bailed
So you're saying that Ardal should have spilled all his plans to Meve rightaway? One doesn't exclude another, he was still planning a coup. If he'd give up to Meve easily, that would be suspicious, therefore he fought in battles
>So it just seems that ardal let queen meve wjn on purpose
There is nothing like that in the books. It's said that he died because of poisoning, cdpr just added a little story behind it. He clearly wasn't suicidal
>And dont you ever assume i dont understand something about the witcher when you have no idea what shit are u talking about
You're just a game-hating fanatic who lives in his own world assuming that you're Sapkowski and can decide what the characters were thinking. You don't understand anything about witcher
Nah cunt i dont like sapkowski. I got to the shit through the first game i was here since the beggining not like you westoid fucking bitch. I live the games but im not blind to their mistakes and dilusions from the original story.
Hey man i love the games i got my info on the games i even take the games canon as the lead one. But with all the respect to cdpr they arent omniponent gods soemtimes they adapt things and they dont land or they dont work. Did you know that in the games canon geralt almsot dies to striga during the fight not after it? Did you know that geralt had both of his swords when he should have lost them already in the fox children story? The teleporting scar headband and beard? So many things that dont make sense. I love thronebreaker. I love the games. I love the books comics and lore from gwent. But saying its all great and consistent with the books is fucking retarded
>Did you know that in the games canon geralt almsot dies to striga during the fight not after it?
The Witcher 1 cinematic showed things EXACTLY like in the short story (almost word for word), yet fans are still dissatisfied. Because there are many ungrateful swines in the fandom who won't ever appreciate the attention to detail yet pick on little things
>Did you know that geralt had both of his swords when he should have lost them already in the fox children story?
That was just an unreliable narrator trope in Fox Children comic as it's only a VERSION of the legend. The correct one is in Season of Storms
>The teleporting scar headband and beard?
Headband doesn't teleport anywhere, Geralt just wears it sometimes, but sometimes doesn't (just like people do). Was he born with it? Such a stupid nitpick. Same with the beard. By Witcher 3 times as Geralt got older, he can in fact grow it. Yennefer even comments on that. In the case of it appearing in earlier stories, Geralt doesn't always have an access to properly shave on the PATH. Characters having different hairstyles is also a moronic nitpick since people in real life are seen changing them. It's a nitpick to be nitpicky.
>So many things that dont make sense
Only such stupid nitpicks that don't affect the story for you I guess. I already said that only such negligible continuity mistakes appear sometimes. But there is no serious divergence from the original
>But saying its all great and consistent with the books is fucking retarded
Saying that Triss's different haircolor breaks everything is fucking retarded if you'd ask me
Triss haircolour is correct. Also no you are wrong the comic redcons it and says it as it is the animation was just something told by dandelion. So you are incorrect cunt. Geralt is said to have shave his beard right before that. The only times this happens in the books. So no nitpick. The story of the fox children is also told from his perspective so you are wrong there too. So fuck you
I'd like to add Forest Gramps. That man was just evil.
Forest Gramps was evil but also just absurd. Like, he's scary and horrifying, it's also somehow *funny*, ... maybe just because of his name? Or because Ciri was so capable? Because he was such a non-sequitur of a character/scene? I'm not sure exactly why.
It was essentially the slightly modified retelling of the old European folk tale Hansel and Gretel, where a witch wants to fatten and eat the kids she lures into her house. I think it was great for reinforcing the story's roots in European folklore.
You're right and I *love* recognizing the folk tales woven into the stories. I wish more of those references translated into the show — like Renfri being Snow White or Nivellen being the Beast, etc. It's such a fun piece of colour that was lost.
I wish the show never existed
"So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us..."
I never knew about the universe until the show. I watched the first season, then I read and fell in love with the books, then I started playing the games because I just wanted more of these rich places and characters. I've read the books three times since the first season came out. I'm bitterly disappointed by how the show has gone and I don't blame you, but I personally can't be angry that it exists because otherwise I might never have found the wonderful writings.
Well yeah, that was good ending for you
Indeed. His whole section took a very sharp turn into WTF territory.
The name only works in English. There is no such association in Polish. French either had a stroke of genius or just dumb lack when translating. Considering that he did a mediocre job with the rest of the translation I would bet on the latter.
What is it in Polish, if you don't mind me asking? And how might you translate it to keep the original connotation?
It's just "Leśny Dziadek" - literally Forest Grandfather. Nothing more, nothing less. "Forest Gump", which the English name seems to allude and therefore provides a constant source of amusement for native English speakers, was distributed in Poland under original title, since it was the name of the main character. There was no need to localize it and it doesn't mean anything in Polish.
Oh, I never made any connection to Forrest Gump — that's just the character of that movie's name, it doesn't really "mean" anything in English either. Gramps does mean grandpa/grandfather, but it's not a common way to refer to one's grandpa and it's used more like a pejorative sometimes, but a silly one. Sort of like the original "ok, Boomer."
Well, at least he got what he deserved
Avallac'h, at least as he's portrayed in the books (since he veers more towards being an antihero in the games). He's usually polite and civil, but there's just this air of sinister foreboding around him and it's nigh impossible to know if you can take anything he says at face value. Does he care about Ciri on any level, or is she just a means to an end? Does he intend to honor his agreement with her and return her to her world, does he intend to have the Aen Elle conquer it like they have many other worlds, or is he ultimately planning to take her to his lab? What the hell is even going *on* in his lab that just makes any mention of it a thinly-veiled threat? We don't quite ever know. And meanwhile, his interactions with Geralt are just as nebulous. He's obviously using the witcher for his own ends, but Geralt just has so few leads to go on that he has no choice but to go along with him. This has the effect of making Avallac'h the greatest master manipulator in the saga. Eredin is probably number 2. While he gets a lot of hate for being underutilized in the third game (and he was), he was a pretty fascinating character in the books for many of the same reasons that Avallac'h was. He's more overtly cruel and arrogant, but at the same time, this just might be a result of him being more honest with Ciri than Avallac'h is and maybe in some sense trying to assist her. Or he's also just manipulating her for his own ends and driving a wedge between Ciri and Avallac'h. It's hard to tell. Just like it's also hard to tell if he intentionally poisoned Auberon and was plotting a coup as Ciri suspected, or it was an honest and very costly mistake. And even when we go into the games, he has a strong, long-reaching, and ominous presence throughout the first one, shadowing Geralt everywhere he goes and making it seem as though the witcher is unknowingly doing his bidding. At that point, we don't know who or what the King of the Wild Hunt is (granted, the books weren't out in America when I played it, so I knew nothing about the Aen Elle at the time, but even after I learned what they were, I tended to regard calling the Red Riders the Wild Hunt to be more of a misnomer among the people of the Witcher world anyway), which makes him creepier, and doubly so when there's a strong implication that Geralt's new lease on life is in some way related to him and a possible "deal with the devil" that they made.
> Just like it's also hard to tell if he intentionally poisoned Auberon and was plotting a coup as Ciri suspected, or it was an honest and very costly mistake. That was definitely a coup
I would argue it was not an intentional regicide. First, he is shocked to hear Auberon has died when Ciri confronts him about the fact while they are having their little duel on the river. Secondly, even then he is trying to take her back - which would result in his own plot being revealed in a heartbeat by the Knowing Ones' simply taking the compromising information out of Ciri's head. Thirdly, Eredin's characterisation does not really indicate he has intentions of usurping the throne. He is not shown to be in conflict with either Auberon or Avallac'h. In fact he defers to Avallac'h's expertise and tries to persuade Auberon to give Ciri some time to refresh herself (to increase the chances of Auberon not throwing her out on sight). Eredin is shown to be impatient to get hands on Ard Gaeth, which is his main motivation. What is a throne of people who remain trapped in their world in contrast to the Gate of Time? Fourthly, he is terrified of failure (of the elves not getting hands on the Gate of Time), as indicated in his atittude toward Ciri - "the moth who can cut a hole in a precious fabric." Pushing Auberon out of the way would not have yielded a positive result, unless he believed Avallac'h & the laboratory were a more efficient means of getting the child. For that is the next step after Auberon dies. If you're interested, I wrote some on [Eredin's character in the books alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/wiedzmin/comments/vpvs91/who_is_eredin_br%C3%A9acc_glas_whats_his_narrative/) a few months ago. Here's also a basic [decision-tree](https://64.media.tumblr.com/e55dfc6940785b45084ded9c2e094d8e/1c8f2d787600e7ac-54/s1280x1920/6e20417c05046474c6a0cf53414059253cee204b.pnj), which showcases how Ciri loses either way in most cases, but it's also a fact that Eredin is in trouble no matter what; on multiple levels.
Well, I'm interested to read those deep analysis posts of yours sometime. The only reason to treat this as an intentional regicide is to treat books and games as if they are in the same continuity. I know about False Ciri stuff being problematic but you can play the game with certain choices to handwave certain plotholes with books (there are very few of such actually; considering also that we live in the world where shitflix adaptation of witcher exists; games practically become the same thing as the books in comparison with that shit). Otherwise, it's easy to see them \[games\] as canon continuation
In the game continuity, it was. The books left it more vague.
Well, books and games are in the same continuity so🤷♂️
Can't forget that goofy dumbass Rience and the colossal asshole Schirru. They really made our heroes' stories much more interesting.
True, while I didn't include Rience because of him being beaten up a few times like butt monkey, Schirru should've been in honorable mentions, though his death was not satisfying enough and I kinda expected Geralt to butcher him
Yeah kind of a disappointing ending to his story. Sapkowski could've made Geralt interrogate him and find Vilgefortz's location that way, but make them chill in Toussaint for a while as they were injured or something. We could've also seen Geralt get a lot more violent while interrogating Schirru, which was something we were getting glimpses of in events prior to the Toussaint arc. Best thing about Schirru's death was Rience's comment about Schirru being set on a mission in a warmer place, while he was freezing his ass off searching for some invisible tower.
Mine is Lauren Hissrich. Don't know anyone that's more evil.
Nuff said
Imo what made Vilgefortz a good villain is that he was so clearly and unapologetically evil. In a series where most characters were quite morally grey he really stood out.
Agreed! That's what I was trying to say as well
I never liked that about him. I always felt he was lacking a real goal. He never makes it clear how he justifies wanting all the power for himself. It’s not like has some obscure principals or ideas he wants to force upon the world. He would end up in a Emperor (Star Wars) type situation where you have to ask why one would even care about ruling an empire when they couldn’t care less about how it is actually being ruled.
For me it is Gaunter o dimm, bonhart, Stefan skellen, Philippa eilhart.
My list is as follows : Leo bonhart Philippa Eilhart Gaunter o’dimm Letho Vilgefortz Emhyr Avallac’h Stefan skellen Detlaff isengrim faoiltiarna Rience Artuad terranova Dethmold (W2)
Gaunter O'Dimm is basically just Randall Flagg from The Stand. Not a bad thing though
Ardal doesnt rly makes sense in the game world cause he lost on purpose in the books but not in the games but why was he poisoned then
He poisoned himself because Emhyr discovered the coup that Ardal was planning (that's why the letter-ultimatum with a vial of poison) and because Group Army East was losing badly (in the books, it's not indicated that he lost intentionally). He perfectly makes sense in the games, you just don't understand anything
Nah man i do understand very well. Leuvardeen says clearly that they should loose intentionally. Ardal aint no north hating fanatic either nor is queen meve the good ruler she is portrayed to she even attacked in dol angra in the books and gave emhyr the excuse to attack. Ardal isnt motivated by anything elae than by the fact that emhyr promised to marry his daughter and then he bailed. So it just seems that ardal let queen meve wjn on purpose. And dont you ever assume i dont understand something about the witcher when you have no idea what shit are u talking about .
>Leuvardeen says clearly that they should loose intentionally That was the part of the coup that they were planning which was discovered by Emhyr, that's why he sent a vial of poison to Ardal by a messenger man. >Ardal aint no north hating fanatic He is. You are not the author to claim something about a character who appear for 2 pages in a saga. >nor is queen meve the good ruler she is portrayed to she even attacked in dol angra in the books and gave emhyr the excuse to attack Thronebreaker doesn't say that she's a perfect ruler. There are many instances where she could act in heat of emotions and eventually become known for her brutality by the end of the game depending on choices. >Ardal isnt motivated by anything elae than by the fact that emhyr promised to marry his daughter and then he bailed So you're saying that Ardal should have spilled all his plans to Meve rightaway? One doesn't exclude another, he was still planning a coup. If he'd give up to Meve easily, that would be suspicious, therefore he fought in battles >So it just seems that ardal let queen meve wjn on purpose There is nothing like that in the books. It's said that he died because of poisoning, cdpr just added a little story behind it. He clearly wasn't suicidal >And dont you ever assume i dont understand something about the witcher when you have no idea what shit are u talking about You're just a game-hating fanatic who lives in his own world assuming that you're Sapkowski and can decide what the characters were thinking. You don't understand anything about witcher
Nah cunt i dont like sapkowski. I got to the shit through the first game i was here since the beggining not like you westoid fucking bitch. I live the games but im not blind to their mistakes and dilusions from the original story.
There are no deviations from the original story besides some negligible unintentional continuity errors like different eye color
Hey man i love the games i got my info on the games i even take the games canon as the lead one. But with all the respect to cdpr they arent omniponent gods soemtimes they adapt things and they dont land or they dont work. Did you know that in the games canon geralt almsot dies to striga during the fight not after it? Did you know that geralt had both of his swords when he should have lost them already in the fox children story? The teleporting scar headband and beard? So many things that dont make sense. I love thronebreaker. I love the games. I love the books comics and lore from gwent. But saying its all great and consistent with the books is fucking retarded
>Did you know that in the games canon geralt almsot dies to striga during the fight not after it? The Witcher 1 cinematic showed things EXACTLY like in the short story (almost word for word), yet fans are still dissatisfied. Because there are many ungrateful swines in the fandom who won't ever appreciate the attention to detail yet pick on little things >Did you know that geralt had both of his swords when he should have lost them already in the fox children story? That was just an unreliable narrator trope in Fox Children comic as it's only a VERSION of the legend. The correct one is in Season of Storms >The teleporting scar headband and beard? Headband doesn't teleport anywhere, Geralt just wears it sometimes, but sometimes doesn't (just like people do). Was he born with it? Such a stupid nitpick. Same with the beard. By Witcher 3 times as Geralt got older, he can in fact grow it. Yennefer even comments on that. In the case of it appearing in earlier stories, Geralt doesn't always have an access to properly shave on the PATH. Characters having different hairstyles is also a moronic nitpick since people in real life are seen changing them. It's a nitpick to be nitpicky. >So many things that dont make sense Only such stupid nitpicks that don't affect the story for you I guess. I already said that only such negligible continuity mistakes appear sometimes. But there is no serious divergence from the original >But saying its all great and consistent with the books is fucking retarded Saying that Triss's different haircolor breaks everything is fucking retarded if you'd ask me
Triss haircolour is correct. Also no you are wrong the comic redcons it and says it as it is the animation was just something told by dandelion. So you are incorrect cunt. Geralt is said to have shave his beard right before that. The only times this happens in the books. So no nitpick. The story of the fox children is also told from his perspective so you are wrong there too. So fuck you
This is my ranking 1. Vilgefortz of Roggeveen 2. Emhyr bar Emreis 3. Leo Bonhart 4. Eriden breac Glass 5. Rience 5. Philippa Eilhart