Well that's why I put "maybe". To play devil's advocate yet again, it would've been better to have Geralt make mention of his moral disapprobation of the act. After all Geralt or some other character usually does play the moral voice in a scene - just as when Dethmold is summarily executed by Philippa through Saskia, the people following Saskia are actually displeased and perturbed by it and say so, because it wasn't act of justice and thus was out of character for Saskia. Things like that help differentiate a character's action from the writers' intent. It's one way (a facile way I admit) for a writer to ensure the audience/reader/player understands that this the character and part of who the character is rather than who the author is or what they believe in/advocate.

Turning the devil's advocate off partially, Dandelion actually does mention in the character bio for Dethmold that "Geralt never revealed the details of the sorcerer's demise. I've concluded that it must have been quite savage, though I would prefer to hope that Vernon's threats had been but figures of speech". So the writers do what I was talking about, introduce a sense from surrounding characters that to them Roche far overstepped in his vengeance, but the fact it is in the bio rather than the scene itself renders it less effective.

To be honest I didn't actually notice you were greek until much later, I neither wanted to be offensive nor to turn this into a nationalistic issue. So forgive me for the innapropriate analogy.

I just wanted to point out an example that goes against your conception that every single gay male dresses in pink frilly dresses and acts like a woman.

If it's of any consolation, yeah I admit many romans probably weren't straight either. I don't know why I should be ashamed of it however

Oh man, that sounds awesome.

Screw videogames, I guess I should spend more time messing around.

I already booked the flight!

Fuck yeah fellow, come over, we have orgies! ^^

Actually, I'm not sure what "crookery" is but nevermind, it must be evil-cool as well.

Edit: I searched the web for crookery. Well, not that cool but orgies remain. :P

I definitely agree that he is MORE than just that trope, in fact I don't think he becomes that trope until chapter 3. This is what TV Tropes has to say about Dethmold's "Depraved Homosexual Trope" entry:

In The Witcher 2, one of the main characters during the chapter 2 is sorcerer Dethmold. During most of his arc, he's rather Badass, dabbling in necromancy and showing ability to one-shot wraiths by shooting lightning out of his staff, which ends in a cockerel, and generally proves to be a formidable opponent, even if he's somewhat prejudiced against women. In the chapter 3, we learn why. He's gay. When he becomes a villain, all of a sudden, he turns out to be gay, with a sex slave, and terribly incompetent. Upon getting his arm broken, instead of releasing a barrage of magic, he just cries out how precious his arm is. In the end, it looks like game developers decided that making him gay would somehow make him more creepy.

This is what I am coming to believe is the case, more and more as time goes on. They may not have even originally intended for Dethmold to be this trope, but in the end, they made him so, for chapter 3 to make him more "creepy".

So it follows that I also do not think this is a case of him "just happening to be gay". They went to great lengths to show that he was gay, with the sex toys and the male slave and then the "sissy" way he went out. This was not just some quaint and interesting detail thrown in for no real reason.

I sympathize with you that you felt insulted when your country was spoken of the way it was, but now you have a taste of how you make gay people feel with how you talk about them. Its actually quite ironic that you even talk about someone speaking when they have a "stunning lack of knowledge" about what they are talking about. You clearly have quite a stunning lack of knowledge about how multitudes of gay men actually carry themselves.

I disagree. Again I *think* he's gay in the books - I don't *think* that's the creation of the writers. Though I'll admit I don't know that for certain. But it even if it was I feel the trope article is misleading.

For instance, the necromancy stuff is to show how amoral he is since it is a banned practice. He doesn't all of sudden become the villain in chapter 3, he's one all along. The character bio and introduction of who he is in even one of the game trailers is pretty damning. True, unlike Philippa, he doesn't do what he does for personal gain or ambition; he does it for king and country, but regardless he is an amoral creature the whole time - e.g. it is he who pushes Kaedwin to brutally repress nonhumans (something only briefly touched on in the game). He doesn't suddenly become the bad guy. Kaedwin, Henselt, and Dethmold are (some of) the bad guys in the Witcher 2.

I don't think the way he went out was sissy - no more than Philippa's capture and eye gouging and she's no sissy. There was simply nothing he could've done - he's taken by surprise and he even exclaims when his arm is broken that Roche has broken his casting arm - probably deliberately to stop Dethmold from fighting back. If you don't free Triss, you see common soldiers are quite capable of killing wizards and Roche is hardly a common soldier.

In fact, as I think about, I'm not even sure what is actually depraved about his character in a sexual way - the acts he commits that make him the bad guy are not connected to his sexual orientation, but in his service to Kaedwin and hatred of nonhumans (again only talked about, never shown as a far as I know). We only have the servants word for it (after Dethmold is killed and the armed, dangerous men who did it are still in the room) that he was forced to "have relations" with Dethmold - something sort of contradicted by the cutscene since Dethmold sighs and says, "fine I suppose one more time ..." Yes Roche makes some comment "If he's touched her [Anais] ..." but Dethmold didn't nor was there any sign he had intention of molesting her (killing her almost certainly once he didn't need her any more after Kaedwin and Redania made their pact). I don't remember sex toys in the scene, but I don't see how their presence would make him depraved. In fact, the one character who is explicitly shown to be truly depraved sexually is a heterosexual: Commandant Loredo who hates elves but rapes elven women.

His sexuality is a facet of his personality. If anything actually it humanizes him since it gives him a dimension beyond being a torturer, necromancer, and nonhuman hater with penchant for cruelty. If he had been straight, he would've been exactly the same in his level amorality as presented in the game. His homosexuality isn't thrown in incidentally for no real reason. It's part of the character.

Again, I would favor the inclusion of a positive gay character, but I think you and the TV tropes article stretches Dethmold's depravity too much. I totally understand why having the only gay male character being such a moral vacuum would be offensive and evoke the unfortunate trope of the depraved gay. At first I felt like that too, but I after I thought about it, I just don't think that's fair to the character.

They weren't saying that he was "all of a sudden a villain". The "All of a sudden" referenced his turning out to be gay. "When he is a villain, all of a sudden, he turns out to be gay"


I continue to respect and appreciate your contributions to this discussion.

That being said, what I was describing as "sissy" was the way he reacted to what was happening. The whole screechy "eek!" attitude that he displayed. It was a ridiculous caricature. His manner of death itself was not what I consider "sissy", though I have different negative opinions about that. .

As for the trope itself, I don't see the molesting of his male sex slave as being anything other than connected to his sexuality. But how he uses his sexuality is only part of what makes this into a problem for so many people, though I think you recognize that. Its the fact that he is the only gay male character to appear so far in the entire game series and he is a twisted, amoral douche bag of a man.

And of course his sexuality is a part of his character. I never felt that it wasn't, although of course (and with all due respect), I do not agree with you when it comes to your "humanization" theory. To be honest, if that theory were to be proven to me to be true, I think I would be even more irritated than I already am about it. Besides, I am not so willing to let CDprokectRED off the hook as easy as that. The bottom line is that the dude is the only gay guy to be seen in either game and he is a nasty, horrible jerk who gets his balls cut off. This is the crux of the issue. Adding a motive of "humanization" and making it seem like a noble decision on the part of the developers would just rub salt in the wound, if you ask me. I really would rather this whole "gay Dethmold" thing would have been absent from the game entirely, no matter what they were trying to do when they did it.

You and I both agree that adding a well written gay male character who is not a douche would go a long way in adding balance to the game, so I will say no more about that.

Whew. I am very tired as I type this, so I do not know if I have made my point very coherently. At any rate, I thank you for remaining respectful and sympathetic, even if we do not entirely see eye to eye here.

Anti-gay, really? Thank god.

Well, that's one priceless trolling flame bait above.. Still, I feel like adding to the matter.

No, the Witcher's World, Geralt and the whole cast of characters are not up to your personal tastes or our modern trends, but scripted as his Author intended. Leave it at that, take it as it is, thank you.

Now about modern trends, it has reached a point it is almost taboo to disagree with homosexual acts and lifestyles, like it is stealing the freedom of people / being against the march of our World and societies progress. The discrimination is going the other way around, from homosexual people and the average person media controlled toward any opposition blindly labbeled as homophobes and "anti-gays".. Soon the word "heterophobic"? As it is!

Promoting heterosexuality as the norm by pointing out the fact homosexual people are statistically not even 5% of our population, that homosexuality is usually suffered and rarely a choice, pride and joy as LGBT lobbies push it, that happy "gay" people are a minority, being against homosexual acts for biological, health, ethic, moral or religious reasons and beliefs ARE NOT being anti-gay nor homophobic, as homosexuality is not a living person to take any prejudice and we are all the same beings with a body and a mind, sharing the very same human nature and condition, living on Earth our mortal lives.. Homosexuality is a sin but unjustified discrimination toward homosexual people is also a sin, a crime!

As for your flame bait thanking God for being "anti-gay", the correct way is : "Hate the sin, not the sinners".. Hate homosexuality, not homosexual people. The people ARE NOT their actions! Though a person is not responsible for their feelings and tendencies, one is fully responsible for his/her decision to take actions..

The Abrahamic God is not "anti-gays" or "pro-gays" but against sins, and God's Will is for each and every of us to live our life in well being to its fullest potential, by having Faith in His Word building Ways for us to walk in prosperity.. The condition for a human being to come to life, for a couple to exist as an union, in order for people to come together as one flesh and "have sex" is simply our genders barrier and differences as men and women, it is indeed a divine blessing such complementarity in every aspects and the reason why we are all breathing air right here and now, thanks to our parents and to God speaking and being against homosexuality, mind you..

Read and judge, understand and learn, there is no sexual organs complementarity for two persons sharing one and the same gender. Anal, oral, toys, hands.. Are no sexual organs but other members and objects aside from the natural order and purpose of our bodies. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts, it is not me making it so but natural, physical laws.

The complementarity of men and women meant for each other is undeniable, as sexual and life partners. Not only physically but there is a whole gender psychology as well, in all aspects a person is male or female not only the biological body.. As for the sexual organs, the natural lubrication of each other sexes, male and female to prepare their sexual encounter makes perfect sense to prove the natural order.. Perfect matching in morphology for a penis to enter a vagina, for male semen to breed female ovary.. Real purpose of our organs, as it is! The proof against all arguments here, heterosexual mating is the only way to give new life!

So, yes people are equals regardless of their sexual orientation but no, homosexuality is not "equal" by any means to heterosexuality..

Same words as I write above, our Human Nature is not up to our personal tastes or our modern trends, but scripted as our Author God intended. Leave it at that, take it as it is, thank you! As we have no control over natural and spiritual laws, God made them so or they just are as you see fit for non believers, but make no mistake they exist and rule over us no less.. No bypassing reality check! One will only get bruised going against such laws sooner or later, FRIENDLY WARNING..

These Truths I wrote above are the reason why homosexuality is called a sin from most if not all religious standpoints, as deviant from nature from a scientific standpoint. as a "variation" that stopped its development in infantile / narcissic phasis for most psychological standpoints. This is the reason why Marriage as a holy, religious, blessed union for homosexual people is not acceptable. Civil partnerships granting the same exact social, financial rights for homosexual "unions" is the way to go so enjoy what you have if you are in the situation of living your homosexuality, but know the Truth about the sterility of your "couple" or rather "pair" as a natural consequence for going against natural laws, by making up a sexuality and a "couple". But we all know next will be pushing for adopting children for made up "families"...

LGBT lobbies pushes and tries hard for their "lifestyles" to become legit alternatives to traditional norms.. But same-sex bodies are not meant for each other, simply put and that factual, simple Truth must be acknowledged and accepted, not ignored and challenged by pushing on our bodies with unnatural sexual acts or chemicals and surgeries harming them.. Run the risk to hurt your body that your parents and God gave you, going against natural laws and the risk to cover your consciousness with ambiguities in your relationships with others as a social person, to endure shame and suffering for your heart and soul sooner or later by going against spiritual laws.. I respect the feelings of care and love one can have for a same-sex person as necessary but it should never, ever cross the line of a deep friendship involving normal affectivities, respect, admiration to fall and fail into trying romantic and sexual approaches, as it is said SIN. If you really love your same-sex partner, free him/her from your own selfishness keeping him/her for you, yourself trying to establish a sexuality and a "couple" on your own when the organs and genders are not complementary to begin with..

Freedom to grow as a genuinely mature and "complete" person through the holy insitution of Marriage living paternity and maternity with their own children and family.. As such is God's Will for us, after caring for the needs of our fellow human beings as we can!

The Church is built on our human nature and our World natural laws as a solid base, to expand on it with Faith and spiritual laws. Our gender differences and complementarity are the condition for Life, it has always been and will always be. Going against it will only get one so far, as minorities are and remain so for a reason. As it expand I can foresee bloodshed because of our medias spreading homosexuality as a trend and after a wave of homosexual "couples" adopting children in masses, this is bound to happen someday..

My take, I apologize if my words are hurtful, but it will prove less damageable than sinful behaviors being pushed as good and new norms day in, day out.. Not my intent to hurt people carelessly at all, just warning God knows better what is Right or Wrong for His Children!!

I understood your points - Good debating you too, I think we can end it here agreeing to (mildly) disagree :)

Actually, from a scientific standpoint, it's not nearly as clear. On many occasions, homosexuality has been seen happening in nature - and it doesn't only apply to sex, it also applies to natural forms of 'partnership.' I won't go into details here, if you're interested, read ahead - yes, it's a wikipedia article, but I think it sums it up fairly nicely and if you're interested in the 'real' thing, check out sources at the end of the article.

Furthermore, I would really like to know one thing: Is homosexuality actually condemned in Bible, or is it only condemned by Christian officials? Because these are two completely different things.

I find this link to give the most unbiased answers about the Bible and homosexuality, also a few Churches officials stance :

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm

Thank you, I will read the article soon and edit here if I feel the need.

Edit : Sure, animals have no self awareness of who they are though, with most if not all of animals homosexual behaviors observed being mere beastly pulsions, not a clear, regular homosexual orientation or with too few exceptions to make a norm. Also please, we're not animals, to take our morals from them.. :/

Quoting : "According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[9] "

Thank you, honestly I did not intend to stand for the Witcher 2 portrayal of male homosexuals in any way, as I own the games but only played the first for 10 minutes.

I actually posted here thinking it was this thread of the Witcher 2 that I've browsed and read quite a while ago, as I thought seeing it again on the first page :

http://www.gog.com/en/forum/the_witcher_2/disappointed_by_the_lack_of_homosexuality_in_the_witcher_2

From what I could gather in the game there is actual "lesbian fantasies", and the only male homosexual is a sick man molesting male slaves.. This is of course crazy criminal shit he does and not at all my feeling about homosexual people, I genuinely tolerate and welcome them as equals, fellow human beings, making no discrimination or accusation toward the person for their sexual orientation. The behavior and practice, however I consider it immoral, as I am a Christian believer and these are unarguably identified as grievous sins by God's Word..

As for "my own Truth", I try hard to stay objective and as far as natural functions of our bodies organs go, we are all bound to it by our shared Human condition and Nature, same-sex bodies are not complementary by any means making homosexual acts a deviance and a wrong, fairly enough. Thing is, they are slowly but surely passing as good and right by our modern medias and popular opinions, hence my reaction to show its true color as a suffered reality, and a dangerous sin causing addiction risking the loss of one's soul..

Surely the inappropriate thread and maybe the inappropriate forum so sorry. I have to admit I took the opportunity as I felt it a duty, inspired and heartful thing for me to write it down and try to "save" a few from the slavery of sin, if just one person, it is worth it... :)