The Witcher: Creating Empathy for Monsters

The story of The Witcher is a profound challenge to how our need to see ourselves as a good person, is at the cause of creating the very monsters we fear the most.

“The Worst monsters are the ones we create”

Whether you experience the story of The Witcher through the books, video games, or series, the experience feels uniquely relevant and personal. It feels this way, because this world is in many ways a mirror to our own.

The main character, Geralt, is a witcher. A man who can be hired to kill monsters, usually consisting of a variety of magical creatures. Witchers are generally looked down upon, as a kind of undignified knights. The premise of the story seems somewhat straight forward, yet instead of simply building a narrative around the spectacle of watching a man killing all sorts of creatures, the story utilises this setting as an exploration of morality. For while the themes of the story might seem clear on the surface, they reveal themselves to be a challenge to our own sense of righteousness and ultimately seek to inspire empathy and deeper understanding in the real world.

“What about your sword? I heard witchers carry two — a silver blade for monsters and steel for humans… -Both are for monsters.”

If there is one need we all share, it is to be seen as “good” by others. We seek this, since this is a requirement for being accepted into the society we current have. The problem is that by upholding “goodness” as a primary virtue, we necessarily create a category for evil. We can only be good in comparison to something else that is not good. At face value this might seem like an obvious and necessary way of living, yet it also leaves us open for immense manipulation and control. This is because we mostly tend to accept the categories of good and evil that our social group holds, and looking out at the world, it seems that this is a cause of immense polarisation and violence.

For which war has not been fought so far, where both sides believed themselves to be good and right, and considered their opponents to be monstrous and evil? It is the essential prerequisite for war, that a polarity between good and evil is upheld. Thus, whoever is in control of the narrative of what is to be considered good and evil, wields the power to turn people against others.

In the first episode of the series, Geralt faces a difficult choice between aiding either Stregobor, the local mage, or Renfri, a woman seeking vengeance against Stregobor, after he had her exiled and raped. Geralt, who has fallen in love with Renfri, urges her to leave the town and start anew somewhere else, yet this fails to convince her to abandon her quest for revenge. Her plan is to slaughter the townsfolk until Stregobor, duty-bound to defend the city, will emerge from his tower. He nonetheless doesn’t, and Geralt is forced to choose between allowing Renfri to kill the townsfolk or stopping her. He chooses the latter, leading to her death. Right thereafter, Stregobor emerges only to be confronted by Geralt, while surrounded by the petrified townsfolk, who have gathered in the market.

Geralt confronts Stregobor for both his mistreatment of Renfri and his willingness to allow the townsfolk to die, yet the confrontation turns out quite differently to what Geralt expected. Stregobor manages to reframe to situation, so as to portray Geralt as a monster. To tell a narrative of a violent monster rampant in the streets, killing whomever he wants. The fearful townsfolk swallow this story immediately, and begin to stone Geralt, who leaves the place with the nickname “Butcherer”.

It took so little effort from Stregobor to turn the townsfolk against Geralt, because he understood what notions of good and evil that they held, and merely adapted that story to the situation, and thereby framed Geralt as evil. Their need for a scapegoat, made them so ripe for manipulation, that a few words from Stregobor was all it took for the people to begin casting stones at the man who had just saved their lives.

There is a parallel here to the real world, in how narratives can shape our outlook. Take the case of Edward Snowden, who almost a decade ago, while working for the NSA, decided to release information to the public, about how we are essentially under limitless surveillance. Nonetheless, he has been forced into exile, as much of the media and especially the government was quick to condemn his actions. He was framed as a spy who had put the lives of soldiers and national security at risk, and thus had to be prosecuted accordingly. None of the allegations where proven to be true, and Snowden truly did release the information out of his own sense of integrity. Nonetheless he still lives in exile, still under the persecution of the US government, and even many citizens. Snowden, like Geralt, chose his integrity above being seen as good, and paid a similar price.

In the third episode of the series, Geralt is hired to kill a ravaging monster. He investigates the matter, and soon discovers that what he is facing can hardly be considered monstrous. He learns that the King ruling in the region, Foltest, had a daughter with his sister, who was also in a relationship with a local Lord. Out of spite and jealousy, the Lord decided to curse King Foltest, yet the curse took effect on the unborn child instead of its father. The monster is in fact a cursed child, which has become monstrous because of acts carried out by others. A quite clear reflection of the earlier mentioned sentence: “The worst monsters are the ones we create”. Geralt learns from the Lord who cast the curse, that he will have to keep the creature out of its crypt until dawn, in order to lift the curse. And after allowing the creature to kill the lord, this is what he attempts.

Having learned the reality of his task, Geralt decides instead to risk his life, in an effort to lift the curse from the child, instead of merely killing it, and after almost being killed himself, manages to succeed. Instead of merely accepting the premise of the creature being an evil monster, Geralt attempts to understand what caused its being, and for this reason is able to help it.

Of course, this doesn’t exactly make for a useful narrative for the king, and instead it is declared that Lord Ostrit gave his life in the slaying of the monster. The very same Lord, who had cast the curse, in honour of whom a statue is now being erected. Geralt could with much more ease, simply have slain the creature, which would have granted him recognition and gratitude from the nearby population. Instead he chooses to follow his own sense of integrity, and ends up becoming the only reason that this cursed child now has a second chance at life.

What is essential to understand in all of this, is that the monster is truly just a child, cursed to a monstrous existence by the very people that should have protected her. Nonetheless, her danger to others is the only aspect that is focused upon, which in several ways mirrors the real life case of Aileen Wuornos who killed several men. Aileen was from an early age routinely raped and abused. Her life was a living hell from the day she was born, as the people around her who should have protected and cared for her, abused her horrifically. The first time she killed a man was in self-defence, while working as a prostitute, and it led her to kill several other men who had hired her, before being sentenced to death. And while her actions aren’t justified, it takes immense amounts of ignorance to deny that she did what she did because of her horrific childhood. She was treated so badly, that she was almost deterministically sentenced to become a “monster”. She, like the girl Geralt helped, was the way she was, because of what had been done to her.

Further exploration of this theme is found in the sixth episode, as Geralt is hired as part of a group heading out to kill a dragon, that allegedly has attacked a local army. Geralt refuses to participate in killing the dragon, but joins because Yennefer, a woman he is in love with, is part of the expedition. Besides Yennefer, the party consists of several groups of individuals, one of whom is knight and upcoming ruler. Soon after embarking on this journey, the party stumbles upon a sickly-wolflike, bipedal, creature. Geralt immediately identifies the creature and states that it simply starving and suggests feeding it. His sentence is barely finished before the knight draws his sword and cuts down the creature, after which, he declares the whole event a great victory.

It is completely clear in the situation that the violence that was enacted was not only completely unnecessary, but also served only as an egotistical elevation of the knights pride. An attempt to prove himself superior, by grasping the smallest chance of destroying anything that could even be considered slightly scary and therefore deemed evil. It is a similar logic to that used in the real world to justify trophy-hunting, bull-fighting, and other means of senseless violence. An attempt to actively deem something evil, so as to portray oneself as virtuous for slaying it.

Yet, it is at the end of the episode that we reach the culmination of this theme, when the party finally locates the dragon, which to their surprise is lying dead next to its egg, having died from earlier inflicted wounds from the army it allegedly attacked. To their further surprise another dragon is defending the body and egg lying in the cave. The living dragon reveals itself to be the one, who while in human form, enlisted Geralt, in the hope that he would help protect the egg, when the party inevitably reached it. Geralt only truly joined the search to be closer to Yennefer, and had no intention of harming the dragon. Yennefer, who sought to use the dragons heart for a fertility-cure, sees that the dead dragon had only attacked the army in defence of its own child, and thus decides to side with Geralt against the members of the party that seek to destroy the egg and living dragon.

Not only, does it turn out that the dragons are very sentient, but also that they seem to only have attacked in self defence. In a similar way to the earlier mentioned examples, it turns out that the reality of the situation doesn’t conform to the story told. The humans can hardly be considered virtuous for their attacks, nor the dragon malevolent for defending itself, yet according to the preconceived notion of good and evil, this should have been the case.

This is the reason that the dragon sought out Geralt, since he knew that he would make his decision based on his own sense of integrity, instead of simply going along with those around him. It not only shows the profound value of people living in accordance with their own integrity, but also the dire necessity of them doing so.

As mentioned earlier, we can only call ourselves “good” if something else is “bad”, and the problem is that we are wired to see ourselves as good. This means that anything different to us, can easily blind us to the reality of a situation, and even worse, cause us to enact horrifically unjustified violence while believing we are vanquishing evil. Most of the creatures that Geralt is hired to kill, are they way they are, because of what has happened to them. Renfri, the cursed child, or the dragon could hardly be considered malevolent once we understand their motives and origins, yet nonetheless they are treated as monsters.

It is the exploration of this theme that is at the heart of the story, and it is one that fundamentally challenges us. For how many times have we justified our treatment of others, on based on seeing ourselves as morally superior? We look back with horror at times past, such as Nazi-Germany or times of slavery, where large amounts of people seemed capable of committing atrocities. We wonder how they were capable of taking part in genocide and subjugation of others, yet perhaps this wonder is a vail that we use to hide behind. Because the German people were not fundamentally different to anyone else. They did what they did, because they accepted the narrative they were being told, about who is good and who is evil, which means that if had been there, it is very possible that we would have done the same.

“Hatred and prejudice will never be eradicated, and witch-hunts will never be about witches. To have a scapegoat — That’s the key. Humans always fear the alien, the odd. Once the mages had left Novigrad, folk turned their anger against the other races, and, as they have for ages, branded their neighbours their greatest foes” -Quote from The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

It is perhaps this realisation that The Witcher hopes to help us achieve; that we are all susceptible to being manipulated as long as we prioritise being seen as good above our own integrity. That following what others tell us without question, almost inevitably leads us to act in ways we would otherwise disagree with.

Yet, freeing ourselves from the beliefs we have been indoctrinated into, is no easy task, as we have internalised the sense of goodness. We base our very identity on being good, and thus seek to eliminate anything “evil”, even when it resides within us.

There are many conflicts between different groups and factions in The Witcher, yet, as the story progresses we realise that there isn’t truly a good and bad side. Every character we meet has reasons for their beliefs, and for the most part, they are understandable. Nonetheless, most of them seem completely convinced that they themselves are the virtuous ones, and their opposition monstrous. A quite clear reflection of our own world, that at current, seems more polarised than ever.

“When I am sharply judgmental of any other person, it’s because I sense or see reflected in them some aspect of myself that I don’t want to acknowledge.”
― Gabor Maté, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction

When trying to get rid of anything within us that we consider bad, the most normal way seems to be to project what is undesired in us, onto others. Of course, the part of us isn’t actually removed, but simply repressed into the subconscious. The problem is that we are now directly opposed to someone else, who is likely mirroring the process towards us.

Examples of this are numerous, and in western countries it mostly manifests in politics as a left/right issue. There are very valid arguments on both sides, and there seems to be absolute cause for wanting to stand for the principles related to either side. Nonetheless, it seems the attachment to seeing ourselves as good, is leading us more than a desire for constructive progress. Both sides seem convinced that the opposing faction is an existential threat, and also coincidentally, a manifestation of everything they despise within themselves.

Those of us identifying with the right, often consider the opposition to be lazy, weak, parasites who want to establish a communist rule and destroy society, while those of us identifying with the left, often see the opposition as selfish, cruel, and willing to destroy the planet and suppress workers for the sake of profit. One can likely find evidence for both claims, but the problem is that instead of recognising the validity of the oppositions points, we demonise them.

We claim and identify with everything we consider good, and project the unwanted onto the opposition. We might see valid points which, while challenging some of our own beliefs, could help us discover even better solutions, yet would also require us to accept that the situation is not black and white, and thus we avoid it.

Furthermore, it would mean accepting that we ourselves hold beliefs, feelings, desires, which align in some part with the opposition, and thus makes us feel that we are evil as well. It is no wonder then, that we prefer polarity. That we would rather fight against something outside of us, than to accept that we are in denial of entire parts of ourselves, when that would mean fundamentally challenging our own identity.

This is the foundation of every war that has ever been fought, and it is exactly what The Witcher seeks to challenge.

The true strength of this story lies in its ability to challenge our moral judgements, and make us to look for deeper truth. To move beyond the need to see ourselves as good, and instead to seek understanding. It does so by showing us that everyone has reasons for being the way they are, but that these underlying truths will remain inaccessible as long as we approach others with hostility and condemnation.

I believe that this is why the story captures the hearts of so many of us; it shows another way of approaching the world that feels truly human. It is a story that shows the immeasurable value of understanding and empathy, even for those we consider to be monsters, by showing us how easily we enact cruelty out of fear and ignorance, both on others and on ourselves.

It is a story that challenges us to let go of the need to see ourselves as good, an instead approach the world with that sense of integrity which is always present in our hearts, and have the courage to look at all we consider evil, and instead of condemning it, seeking to understand it.

Maybe then, we will stop creating monsters, and instead create what we truly wish to see in the world.

Thank you for reading.