Psyringe: So let me get this straight. There is a guy in TW2 whom the OP perceives as "obviously gay" due to his clothing. Other options (like bisexuality) are not explored by the OP at all; in fact he does exactly the same as people who discriminate gays: He looks at some "indicators" on the outside and then draws a conclusion about the inside of a person.

This guy ends up being a bad guy, and (depending on how one plays the game), there is the possibility that he gets killed brutally by the player, like many other villains in the game. Still, the OP sees a reason to single this character out.

Since the OP realizes himself that this is a pretty weak line of argument, he throws in the "proof" that made him "realize" that there might be a problem: The country in which the game was made was reported to have problems with anti-gay movements. This is in no way any form of valid reasoning, it's pure analogous thinking which was en vogue in the middle ages, but which really should stay there.

The OP then takes this hole shaky argumentation (which I'm hesitant to label an "argumentation" at all) to ask whether the whole game might be "anti-gay".

Honestly, this is silly. And it's a shame. Gay rights are a very serious, very important matter, and this important cause gets ridiculed and diminished when overblown to such a ridiculous extent.

Psyringe: So let me get this straight. There is a guy in TW2 whom the OP perceives as "obviously gay" due to his clothing. Other options (like bisexuality) are not explored by the OP at all; in fact he does exactly the same as people who discriminate gays: He looks at some "indicators" on the outside and then draws a conclusion about the inside of a person.

This guy was gay because in the cut schene prior to his execution he was about to use a slave with one of the numerous dildos littered around the room. His clothing was pretty standard except I shoul have written "not shitting his robes" - except for the fact I could not really imagine Tom of Finland wizard wearing a robe

This guy ends up being a bad guy, and (depending on how one plays the game), there is the possibility that he gets killed brutally by the player, like many other villains in the game. Still, the OP sees a reason to single this character out.

Well, I did ask three questions why this particular guy gets particularly humiliating and demeaning treatment - cutting genitalia I imagine is very painful and cutting throat is very distressing way of death - I think for the latter the Jewish / Musulman ritualistic slaughter is not legal in most of Europe. The other bad guys rather got a show down. Why not here, in quite an über way, since this seems to be TW2 standard?

Since the OP realizes himself that this is a pretty weak line of argument, he throws in the "proof" that made him "realize" that there might be a problem: The country in which the game was made was reported to have problems with anti-gay movements. This is in no way any form of valid reasoning, it's pure analogous thinking which was en vogue in the middle ages, but which really should stay there.

The OP then takes this hole shaky argumentation (which I'm hesitant to label an "argumentation" at all) to ask whether the whole game might be "anti-gay".

Honestly, this is silly. And it's a shame. Gay rights are a very serious, very important matter, and this important cause gets ridiculed and diminished when overblown to such a ridiculous extent.

TStael: I would much appreciate opinion of other gamers who have played though. Do you think at all the same way? Or would you think I am draving totally wrong, overreacting conculusions? Or if my anti-gay take of this particular characterisation is in fact at all hitting the mark even by margin, even if you have not played it, do you think this should in principle not be ok?

TStael: I do not claim this guy was dispatched because he was gay, but I do find that his character got the "worst of the lot" with a very bad death and very cowardly low character,

Psyringe: So let me get this straight. There is a guy in TW2 whom the OP perceives as "obviously gay" due to his clothing. Other options (like bisexuality) are not explored by the OP at all; in fact he does exactly the same as people who discriminate gays: He looks at some "indicators" on the outside and then draws a conclusion about the inside of a person.

This guy ends up being a bad guy, and (depending on how one plays the game), there is the possibility that he gets killed brutally by the player, like many other villains in the game. Still, the OP sees a reason to single this character out.

Since the OP realizes himself that this is a pretty weak line of argument, he throws in the "proof" that made him "realize" that there might be a problem: The country in which the game was made was reported to have problems with anti-gay movements. This is in no way any form of valid reasoning, it's pure analogous thinking which was en vogue in the middle ages, but which really should stay there.

The OP then takes this hole shaky argumentation (which I'm hesitant to label an "argumentation" at all) to ask whether the whole game might be "anti-gay".

Honestly, this is silly. And it's a shame. Gay rights are a very serious, very important matter, and this important cause gets ridiculed and diminished when overblown to such a ridiculous extent.

pH7: The Witcher is, in my opinion, set apart from most other games because of its total lack of clear-cut answers to what is right and what is wrong. In a way, everything is wrong - as a witcher your job is basically to clean up messes, and it's never pretty. You may go a bit out of your way to right some wrongs, but there's no "happily ever after" - quite the contrary in many cases. It would be a very interesting philosophical debate to figure out the "best" way for Geralt to act throughout his adventures.

With the above in mind I'd say that any perceived homophobic sentiments in the game can be dismissed. This is not a game where the creators are trying to set a moral standard for you as the player to follow (or deviate from in order to get "evil points"). The world Geralt lives in is a tough, unfair world, and he's not on a holy crusade to set it right. If this was done in a combat simulator slash rpg, and it was US soldiers doing the deed, it would be very, very different.

MonstaMunch: It would only be "anti gay" as you put it (or homophobic as it's known in English) if the reason for his grusome death was his sexual orientation.

If I get in a fight with a guy in a bar and attack him, then he later turns out to be gay, it's not a hate crime nor are there any anti gay sentiments. If I get in a fight with a guy specifically because he's gay, that's homophobia. See the difference?

So no, Witcher 2 isn't "anti gay", though perhaps you are for assuming that he was killed because of his sexual preferences, which wasn't the case.

TStael: But... have you ever seen heterosexual guy raping a slave in any RPG, as opposed to this Dethmold? Why was Dethmold executed with all the cutting stuff, but the rapist king that ordered the lynching potentially went on to glory (or was simply stabbed or whatever)? In Witcher or any other RPG, has there ever been a positive example of gay hero or "heroic bad guy gay"?

TStael: Unfair world could have been achieved without singling out a particular group of persons.

TStael: As I said, I do not mind this bad guy was gay but just that he got such miserable, mean death, and why he did not get a cool show down.

TStael: I would much appreciate opinion of other gamers who have played though. Do you think at all the same way? Or would you think I am draving totally wrong, overreacting conculusions? Or if my anti-gay take of this particular characterisation is in fact at all hitting the mark even by margin, even if you have not played it, do you think this should in principle not be ok?