Between Game of Thrones and Witcher 3's second DLC, I've noticed blank attempts at discrediting knights and their reputations.
Is modern culture really unable grasp honour, duty, and purpose? Does everything need to be a facade, everyone to be hypocritical?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Nerd revolt (mostly an unconscious/spiritual effort) against warrior aristocracy. This has been largely financed by the same generation who came of age when Chad was the bully antagonist figure in popular media, mostly during and after the 80's.
Also you can't blame it entirely on israelites, some will doubt my antisemite cred for saying this but it's simply true. Something similar happened in Japan re: Samurai and socio-political perspectives. Luckily this was curtailed by the fact that Samurai and Gangster films have been popular, and Burakumin and other such castes became a big part of the Yakuza.
ironically knights and gangsters are very much the same thing. "honour and duty" to a knight was basically synonymous with a gangsters loyalty to your mob boss. it doesn't mean youre a good person or adhear to some higher values and virtues like some wanna be Don Quixote, it just means you're a good cog in a higherarchy who does his part and reaps his share of the spoils gained by abusing and exploiting other people
>reaps his share of the spoils gained by abusing and exploiting other people
There's nothing wrong with abusing others as long as I can get away with it. You being too weak to fight me is your sin
Mafia clans are genuinely very similar to feudal structures and identities. Loyalty to a specific family which keeps control and order over a certain neighborhood, it's literally identical to loyalty to a hereditary lord whose job is to rule a fief
Wouldn't the untouchable class becoming infamous for being honorable thieves besmirch the reputation of the samurai who inevitably would have seen them as despicable outlaws? Not saying I don't get that the yakuza sort of larp as a kind of warrior caste, but I don't think it's much more than a larp.
That's a very interesting hypothetical and most likely, if you could somehow revive a typical samurai of any era he probably would be ashamed of such a LARP and the mingling of castes. Many modern Japanese are still ashamed of this aftercall.
But perhaps there is a nuance to this question. Say something similar to this question happened among Europeans like Anglos. Some became violent thieves and gangsters, but got weird with it and began to venerate knights, thanes or Vikings or something like that as the Japanese do to Samurai. Some of these men may have surnames like Coates or Bond (these surnames typically came from peasantry, who were obviously resented). But if you were this hypothetical revived thane or whatever, would you perhaps be grateful that you were being remembered and venerated a thousand years later, no less by someone who is possibly descended of you in some way?
I'm not trying to uplift criminality. Yakuza and mafia types and even knights are not really admirable people to me, it's a boyish fascination, but few seem to ask why such fascination persists through the ages. Or worse, they deny it exists.
I can't help but think at least some Samurai or other such warrior aristocracies may more admire the entrepreneurial types or even thieves and gangsters of recent ages more than they would admire office wagies, who let their bodies and minds deteriorate while they pay taxes to race communists and pedos.
Just my take though.
checking in at 800+ ng'dL anon, also a reminder that all hierarchy is biological.
>can't help but think at least some Samurai or other such warrior aristocracies may more admire the entrepreneurial types or even thieves and gangsters of recent ages more than they would admire office wagies, who let their bodies and minds deteriorate while they pay taxes to race communists and pedos.
Those are the same
There is a third way
>those are the same
>third way
wat means
>comparing modern troony amerimutt concept with warriors
>gangsters are the same as warriors
Pls have a nice day you low t estrogenic cuck
>gangsters are the same as warriors
they were though. knights weren't just "warriors", they were a landlord class who exist to extract money from peasants like gansters rob and shake down shops, and their entire value system was about being a loyal player in the feudal hierarchy and doing their job and getting paid,just as gangsters value loyalty to their own hierarchy, not about ethics and morality
Gangsters wont defend you if there is an army to invade you
I agree that knights were not the heroes but i wont call them gangsters tho
Personally i prefer a professional army/warrior culture like the romans/mongols
I dont like knights for other reason, i think their helmets are gay and cringe and also easy to be strong when you have the best armor and weapons
>Gangsters wont defend you if there is an army to invade you
Just plain wrong. Gangsters protect their hoods from randos pulling up to start shit.
>gangsters protect you from other gangsters
Woaw
As opposed to knights protecting you from knights?
From another army
Both the gangster and the wageslaves are the same and the same pawns
I see your point anon. But who is not a pawn then? Lone wolves don't tend to do well when there is any competition.
>From another army
Yes. From another gang.
Most highwaymen were knights, mate. Despoiling the daughters and lands of a rival lord was what any low level knight would do when not at war or training. Raids were endemic.
Most highwaymen also came after the Renaissance, when knights as a class and their traditional concept were in decline.
Robber Barons were everywhere
Knights could well be protecting someone from mercenaries, pirates, thieves, highwaymen who would rob and murder people in the countryside, etc. Knights fought Vikings, Muslim armies, pirates, Mongols (who Western knights actually had a good track record against) and many other such forces. Like it wasn't just a circle jerk of landlords in Europe, it was a very heuristic evolution of a genuine warrior-aristocracy.
If the nobility ran their estates like gangsters ran a casino they'd take everything from the peasants who'd starve and fail to reproduce, then civilization would collapse. Instead they built churches for the peasants and generally avoided interfering with their local customs. There was a level of morality guiding them, they cherished the lands and the people they presided over.
>If the nobility ran their estates like gangsters ran a casino they'd take everything from the peasants who'd starve and fail to reproduce
Bad analogy.
Gangsters WANT local businesses to thrive so they can shake them down for more.
>Instead they built churches for the peasants and generally avoided interfering with their local customs.
Gangsters worldwide provide for the poor, and give them things that are actually useful
>they were a landlord class who exist to extract money from peasants like gansters rob and shake down shops,
You build on and farm the lord's land to eat, you ought to pay rent for that.
Instead we have atheist tax collectors now who are more greedy than the Ferengi and won't protect the country or the people in their town.
Pretty much. We're slowly become a neo-feudalist society with none of the benefits. Yeah the serf was exploited but he had at least SOME protection and rights. And say what you want about the nobility & knights, but at least they fought in the front lines during those times. They couldn't afford to be pussies and had to fight, else they'd be publicly humiliated as cowards, their family reputation at stake, and most likely lose their landholdings and advantages.
Today's plutocrats are just like Carthage's merchant elite; they won't fight themselves or lead by example in citizen armies; they'll just pay someone else to do it. At some point, shit will get real and it'll all come tumbling down.
The nobles in the French and Russian Revolutions never thought they'd get their shit stomped because of their hubris. The same will happen to the globalist elite.
Even Emperor Tiberius admonished his tax-collectors that he "wanted his sheep sheared, not flayed".
You don't grind the peasantry to dust without some stake that they can deal with. Even the Norman lords eventually had to do fair dealings with their Anglo-Saxon villeins, else they'd deal with uprisings every year.
He’s not wrong.
Your average gangbanger has more in common with a knight or Viking than a beta male incel like you.
>no fear of death
>absolute loyalty to the gang
>reckless and bold
>fond of treasure and loot
>lauded by singers and bards for their deeds
Why are you projecting you troony sissy cuck ?
Its justly effeminate cucks like who mouth over them and cry like a bawd when we critisize them you subhuman b***h
Anyone can do this, even a fricking woman
When they face real men they get folded in half
>no fear of death
AHAHAHAHAHAH
>absolute loyalty to the gang
AHAHHAHAHAHAHH
They all kill and snitch on each other
>reckless and bold
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
There is only reason they attack on the weak
>fond of treasure and loot
Yeah
>lauded by singers and bards for their deeds
Yeah
Generally by sissy societies
>Why are you projecting you troony sissy cuck ?
Boy, don’t play with me
OK estrogenic troony cuck
Keep worshiping your sissies like a good beta cuck
Boy, I would violate tf outta you. Keep playing with me.
No i would rape you estrogenic feminine brained cuck
>using the israelited "muh nerd/chad" false dicothomy meme
Amerimutts need to be tortured to death
This is so off. Real needs thought (and still think) knights were based, and role played as knights in board games, dungeon and dragons, and video games. They read books about knights, wrote about knights, and artistically studied knight philosophy, knight armor, knight weapons, and knight fighting techniques. It is the same anti-white morons who make knights look bad and these people aren’t nerds or geeks but just typical sjw Hollywood weirdo types.
Nah the D&D crowd and the more IQfy inspired types who read Arthurian Romances and etc were very different cliques when I was a kid. I've never met a person irl who does HEMA or Renaissance Festivals or something like that but they seem to have the least amount of sex. I think you're confused.
Both like knights, either way. My point is that traditional nerds like knights.
Anon people very broadly have always liked knights and fantasy stuff. Excalibur, Lotr, Conan the Barbarian were all some of the most popular movies when they came out. GoT was the most popular TV show ever made, this ties into OP's point as it's a primary vector for shaming knights.
I can't help that nerds aren't myopic in their interests. Gyno dorks play fantasy football and wear the jerseys of other men more often than read stuff about the history of the middle ages these days. I would not think of someone as a nerd for reading Chrétien de Troyes or Tolkien, it would be the same to me as reading Ovid or the Eddas.
Sometimes the things you anons say makes me think you all have become a like a more crippled version of feminists.
We are just not gynocentrist
>gynocentrist
What does that mean though? Taking a woman's perspective or so I thought. How is admiring good social abilities gynocentric?
Meaning you are the slave to women opinions and ideas
I get that not every portrayal of knights is a positive portrayal. But the rebuttal to
mainly that anti-knight sentiment is a product of “nerd resentment.” Nerds who consume GOT and Witcher 3 actually root for the knights. I got a good example. Dark Souls 1 is a very typical grimdark setting that portrays medievalism as corrupt and oppressive. Yet, the most popular character is Solaire: a knight who worships the sun god of the series and embodies knightly ideas. He is unambiguously good, and while his character has flaws (he is human, after all, and can possibly succumb to a horrid fate based on his personal struggles in a hard world) his portrayal of knighthood is positive. He’s the most popular character from the series and beloved by almost all players, his catchphrase “praise the sun” becoming a meme. If nerds hated knights, why would a good knight be the most popular character of the series? This is the same for all of it. Nerds consume series with bad knights but doesn’t mean they think knights are bad.
I would argue that the nerd resentment against jocks and the like in fiction is in much the same vein as it was to knights.
>Dark Souls 1 is a very typical grimdark setting that portrays medievalism as corrupt and oppressive
I think, working within the confines of a dungeon crawler, any such game is intentionally oppressive because they take place in a labyrinth. It forces one to adopt strategy and learn, like Theseus and other such heroic myths. I don't think this is because the Japanese devs have a particular negative view of medieval Europe anon. Also it was popular and I think this is a good thing for us.
>Solaire
A bright spot in the game, but a tragic figure like every other Dark Souls character. That he is so loved is not what the first post was relating to.
I more meant specifically Western artists depicting such figures. George RR Martin is indisputably a nerd imo. It makes perfect sense to me that he would hold the shadow up of certain archetypes, especially those he resents like the strong. Take his writing of Ed Stark or other such figures (didn't watch much after the first few episodes tbh) these characters being blunt, doing insane things, getting killed by dwarfs on the shitter, being cruel and sassy Machiavellian soap opera characters, them being humiliated in combat by women, etc and juxtapose this style with how Tolkien wrote characters like Aragorn, or even tragic and flawed figures like Boromir. Tolkien was highly intelligent, he wrote in part to deal with what he experienced in war first hand and he was not a resentful nerd like Martin. That is why he valued strong men greatly, he fully understood their value.
>muh nerds, muh jocks
Why americans are so mentally ill ?
>muh sex
>muh women
Who cares gynocentrist
Kys
>I've never met a person irl who does HEMA or Renaissance Festivals
then you'd know HEMA was mostly homosexual while renaissance festivals is for nerds to LARP as their weird kinks and have fat sloppy sex
>hurr nerds are incels
many are, but those that aren't swing far in the other direction and get into the nastiest shit
lol anon youre the one who is in the wrong for pretending this fairy tale romanticism of knights is real even though IRL they were basically just minor landlords with no principles beyond enriching themselves and exploiting the plebs
Also this
You had some good knights and some bad
Like everybody else
The regime never has an excuse to be dogshit if it can successfully make the argument that good things never existed.
>why are you so evil, corrupt, moronic, ugly, and stupid?
>well everyone and everything before us was the same but worse and we're actually better by comparison, so just smile and take it
This really cuts to the heart of it. It's brainwashing.
/thread
We live in an age of unprecedented historical revionism/inequality.
Libshit authors read Twain and emulate him. He thought the civil war was caused by knights.
Historical materialism is popular, so right now the prevailing idea is that everything that was done in history was for money, land, and sex.
right how could anyone come to the conclusion that feudal organization was about the distribution of land and wealth and not literal children's fantasies
It was a system built on trust. When a noble lost their land, the other nobles wouldn't squabble and fight over the scraps, they'd fight to restore his ancestral acres.
If you were a cynic you might argue that they did so to preserve the system that ensured their own titles, but it is a little more complex than "UGH ME BIG KNIGHT ME RAPED HER ME KILLED HER ME LOVE TO SMASH".
>If you were a cynic you might argue that they did so to preserve the system that ensured their own titles
that is literally why they did it, yes. do you think england, austria, spain etc spend like 3 decades in constant war with the french republic/empire to restore the bourbon dynasty out of the goodness of their heart? no, they did it to try and cover their asses and protect the system which afforded them all of their wealth and power.
>but it is a little more complex than "UGH ME BIG KNIGHT ME RAPED HER ME KILLED HER ME LOVE TO SMASH".
no shit, knights werent grug smash warriors, they were landlords first and foremost.
>nobles threw their lives and wealth away in long arduous wars against dangerous difficult opponents in distant lands out of self-interest
They did so because of loyalty, honor, fidelity and so on. No system lasts for long unless it has some kind of moral backing. You probably call me naive, but it is actually kind of naive to assume the opposite that you can build a system without some kind of ideal.
Their ideas of honor and morality were cynically constructed around their material interests. They also backstabbed each other all the fricking time, 99% of the wars in medieval Europe were the resulting of aristocratic backstabbing in which it was common for would be kings to murder their family members for personal gain.
It was about religion more than anything.
Because they are overrated
They are glorified heavy cavalry and thats it
I dont see people romantizing cataphracts for exemple
It's odd tho. We treat modern pilots or aces like they did Knights back then. They're always held in high regard and depicted as honorable dog fighters never tried or accused of war crimes. Just Galliant heros flying around in their custom insignia/crest like a knight riding around in their custom insignia shield.
So it's pretty funny and moronic that modern people bash on chivalrous knights
Pilots are absolute sissy homosexuals and i dont understand why there is so many cuck homosexuals who want to make rule to protect them
>NOOO I WAS JUST BOMBING YOUR COUNTRY AND COMRADES, DONT KILL M-ACK !!!!
Frick that
Those son of b***hes deserve to be tortured
Bombers are obsolete. And CAS aren't really put on a pedestal. It's more fighter pilots that get the treatment. Tho they do strafe ground units it's not common or damaging enough to really warrant hate. And spy plane pilots only take pictures so really compared to guys like mortar men or artillerymen who shell and glass houses and cities. They're pretty down on the war crime totem pole.
Unless we're talking about ww2 bomber pilots. Then yeah those guys got tons of blood on their hands
>WW2 bomber pilot
Yeah for exemple
Tell me why i shouldnt just put his head on a pike after i impaled him
I think a common soldier deserve way more respect
>I think a common soldier deserve way more respect
Basado and infantrypillado.
I reckon it's cause they're high up in a huge air armada that they say
>it wasn't me my bombs probably missed it could have been anyone
A lot of people delude themselves like this. Being high up in the sky not seeing the suffering you inflicted helps the rid the guilt
Every Marine I've talked to hates the Air Force.
Cause they were sissies
>witcher 3 and game of throne
Game of throne depict everybody as horrible and in witcher 3 this is not true
Only the knights of the ducal guards are portrayed that way
Other than that they are normal
Most knights were wealthy thugs
Most samurai were wealthy thugs
Like many losers, reactionaries like OP view power as something that should be a shield for themselves but a sword against everyone else
>Like many losers, reactionaries like OP view power as something that should be a shield for themselves but a sword against everyone else
Nicely said.
as opposed to winners who view power as a shield for others and a sword against themselves, which is how Lenin won the Russian revolution
>quote
That's literally/misc/ rhetoric now despite how much it was mocked. If you do anything at all IRL, God forbid actually kill anyone, you're immediately disowned as a ~~*glowie*~~.
Cause most people are morons incapable of nuance. "Knights good" narratives, and similar narratives, get countered with "um, akshually, it was bad" and vice versa instead of "Knights were people motivated by many things operating in a system which, we would now consider oppressive and evil, but which developed as a result of the technological and social landscape prior to it".
The Islandboys aren’t gangsters. They claim no set, and no set on planet earth would ever claim them. Just literal gays who were considered amusingly dumb for a few weeks in 2022.
They are exactly like your gangster sissies
Exactly this
Gangster are effeminate sissies and beta cucks who have never seen crime worship them because of media
Narcos are the scum of the earth. I can't believe you would form a hierarchy of them while claiming the younger generation is moronic. Pure projection.
>Is modern culture really unable grasp honour, duty, and purpose?
Modern culture is capable of grasping these things. Modern culture does not view them as a particularly good justification for enforcing what is viewed, perhaps unfairly, as an unnecessarily stringent social structure through brutal means.
>Does everything need to be a facade, everyone to be hypocritical?
Not everything has to be, but a lot of things *are*. While knights were not monsters, they were merely human. Buying into *their* self-aggrandizing narratives of chivalry would be as foolish as buying into modern ones about how they were allegedly shit.
>Is modern culture really unable grasp honour, duty, and purpose?
Nobles and knights without land would turn to thievery when there were not wars to fight. That isn't speculation, its well known fact. Knights, particularly early knights were like a rich guy's posse. They got to live the high life, and in exchange when that noble said to go kill someone, they did it without asking questions: see the death of St.Thomas Beckett. Burning the villages of enemies was also a common knightly tactic: you deny the enemy his means of income. It hardly mattered that non-combatives would die in the process, in fact the knights would take what little they had before they killed and burned the village.
The entire reason the concept of chivalry arose was because knights were being sick fricks (most importantly, against other nobles). Then when they became glorified bureaucrats, it took on romantic dimensions. Shoot, half the reason for the crusades was the Pope and Catholic kings wanted to rid Europe of the endemic raiding by Norman princes with little to no inheritances.
Like Bushido for Imperial Japan.
The Mountain did nothing wrong.
>Witcher 3's second DLC
Does it actually shit on honour, duty, and purpose, or just on knights? Haven't played the game, but the central point of the books is that the dreadful mutant who claims to be neutral and only interested in getting paid constantly acts like a fairy tale knight whole the actual knights are busy raping and pillaging.
The DLC tell about four ducal knights of toussaint who where given orders to escort Syanna, the daughter of the duke out of the duchy of toussaint because she was supposedly cursed, but then alongside, they started to beat and rape her and left her for dead, she survived, joined some bandits, grew up and encountered a Higher Vampire, Detlaff who fall in love with her (One of the most dangerous creatures in the witcher universe and only very skilled witchers can beat them in combat), this vampire is very dangerous and very naive too, she decide to use him for her revenge against the knights and the duchy, she decide to simulate a kidnapping and to blackmail Detlaff into killing the 4 knights and the duchess, her sister for releasing her, each victim represent the knightly virtues of toussaint (Valor, Honor, Compassion,Generosity,Wisdom), Detlaff who think the kidnapping is true decide to kill the victims, hoping his lover would be released, he manage to kill three knights before the duchy decide to hire Geralt to investiguate the murders, Geralt track down the vampire and find him, but he still managed to kill the fourth knight, they engage in a fight but the fight is interrupted by Regis, another higher vampire who is a friend of both Geralt and the Detlaff, and he dont want to see them fight each other, Regis convince Geralt that its better to investigate the murders and to find Detlaff peacefully instead of hunting him down, Geralt convince the Duchy that its better to find the "blackmailer" and to free the kidnap victim instead of hunting down the Vampire/Killer, They find the blackmailer, free the girl but Geralt realise that the girl is the sister of the duchess and that the kidnapping was fake, Detlaff, being angry as frick threaten to destroy the duchy if she doesnt explain herself in 3 days, she doesnt show up, so Detlaff attack the city with an army of vampires, Geralt and Regis decide to stop Detlaff and the Massacre, they manage to find him
They kill him, Geralt is considered a hero for stopping the beast and the massacre, but then you have three endings with Syanna
Either the girl dies just before the final fight with Detlaff (the duchy throw you in prison because of that, even if you kill detlaff) and the duchess is butthurt at you forever, either Syanna and her sister the duchess forgive each other, or syanna is still butthurt about the duchy, so she murder the duchess during Geralt Ceremony just before getting also killed
>The Duchy of Toussaint (A land inspired by Southern France and Northern Italy) is considered a peaceful, rich and lovely country in the witcher universe, known for his knights and beautiful landscape, its almost seen like a fairytale by the other peoples of the universe
>The heiress daughter of the Duke, Syanna is cursed with the curse of the black sun (a curse that affect girls born during eclipses and apparently make them into cruel destroyers of the world)
>She is mistreated because of the curse and the Duchy decide to exile her to avoid further trouble, making her little sister, Anna, the heiress
>They sent 4 Elite Knights to escort her out of the Duchy borders
>The Knights are all supposed to represent the Five Knightly Virtues of Toussaint : Honor, Generosity, Compassion, Valor and Wisdom
>But the knights for some reason decide to beat and rape her along the way, leaving her for dead
>Syanna survive that and she end up alone in the nature trying to survive, because of that she will grew an eternal hatred for the duchy of Toussaint, one day she find bandits in the woods who instead of raping/stealing from her like bandits would usually do, decide to give her food, shelter her and to propose her to join their band as a bandit instead, she accept and join them
>Roaming with the band of bandits as she grew up, she encounter one day some sort of monster in a city, curious she decide to go see him despite him trying to scaring her to make her flee, they then begin to meet each other
This creature, Detlaff is an Higher Vampire (one of the most dangerous creatures in the witcher universe, so dangerous that only some very skilled witchers and mages could beat them in a fight)
>Detlaff is in love for Syanna, they begin to love each other and have a romantic reliationship
>Syanna Know that Detlaff love her to death, and that he is extremely dangerous but also very naive
>She decide to use him for her revange against the knights and the duchy of toussaint, wanting to kill the four knights who abused her and take back her throne
>She elaborate a plan, she decide to fake a kidnapping where she is taken away by some "blackmailers", that will demand Detlaff to kill the four knights and the Duchess for release of Syanna
>Detlaff learn about the "kidnapping" and the demands for the release, scared for his love, he decide to execute the killings hoping they will release her
>Detlaff kill three of the Knights, The duchess worried about the killings decide to hire one of the best Witchers in the world (Geralt of Rivia) to investigate the killings and find the killer, who is suspected to be a supernatural beast
>Geralt of Rivia accept the contract and to investigate on the killings and to find the killer
>Geralt track down the killer in Toussaint and manage to find him, but thats just after he managed to kill the fourth knight
>Geralt fight Detlaff but the fight is interrupted by Regis, another Higher Vampire who is a good friend of Geralt but also of Detlaff who helped him to regenerate after he got killed
>Regis that dont want to see his two friends kill each other, decide to convince Geralt that its better to find Detlaff/the killer peacefully and to see WHY he did the killings
>They Investigate further and find out that Detlaff did the killings because some blackmailers kidnapped his lover and demanded him to kill the targets for the release of Syanna
>Geralt then convince the duchy that its better to find the lover of the killer and to rather punish the blackmailers rather than to track him the vampire down and kill him
>Geralt, Regis and Detlaff find the blackmailers and Syanna with the help of the duchy
>Geralt realise that the blackmailer is actually Syanna and that the kidnapping was all bullshit for making Detlaff killing the Four Knights
>Detlaff, Realizing that he has been fooled and mad with rage, decide to give Syanna an ultimatum
>She has to explain herself to Detlaff whitin three days or he will destroy the Duchy of Toussaint
>Geralt explain the situation to the Duchess but she refuse to negociate any further with the Vampire and task Geralt to bring Detlaff's Head
>The people of toussaint, realizing that Syanna was the true killer want her dead and ask for her head, the Duchy and especially her sister the Duchess, refuse to punish Syanna
>Three days later, Geralt has to explain himself to the duchess why he hasnt found the vampire yet while all of sudden Detlaff and an army of vampires attack and butcher the Duchy and its Capital, Beauclair
>The people of toussaint are being butchered by the vampires and Detlaff will surely destroy Toussaint if he isnt stopped
>Geralt realize that he has to stop the massacre and that he need to find Detlaff very quickly
>Regis decide to help Geralt because he realised that Detlaff has gone too far and need to be stopped even if Detlaff is his blood brother and that he saved his life
>Geralt has two choices to stop Detlaff
>He can liberate Syanna to lure out Detlaff
>Or he can ask an Unseen Elder (A Giga OP elderly race of vampires who are the commanders of vampire societies and rule and command over all vampires, wheter higher or lesser) to make Detlaff see Geralt and Regis into a meeting
>Geralt and Regis meet Detlaff in a ancient vampire Castle
>They fight and Geralt defeat Detlaff
>Geralt is considered a hero for stopping the massacre and defeating Detlaff, The duchy award him with the highest military/knightly honor/medal/reward
>Detlaff being dead and the Duchess still alive, Syanna decide to kill the final victim, the Duchess by herself
>>Then you have three main endings
>The First ending is when Syanna is convinced to spare her sister and to forgive her, the Duchess and Syanna forgive each other during Geralt Ceremony
>The Second is when Syanna isnt convinced to spare her sister, and decide to kill the duchess before getting killed by the guards during Geralt ceremony, making both heiresses of the Duchy dead
>The third is when Syanna is killed by Detlaff during the meeting in the ancient vampire castle if you decide to bring her to lure Detlaff, Detlaff will simply just kill her if you dont give her some magic amulet, and because of that, the duchy will throw you in prison, even when you stopped the massacre and defeated Detlaff, you then go out of prison but the Duchess is still eternally butthurt at you because she thinks that you are the reason why her sister is dead
because knight rhymes with white and you know the media feels about that
Big true
Knight pride, world wide.
There isnt.
Reminder that George got butthurt after women wrote him telling him how hot they found The Hound character but not Tyrion, his self insert
ASOIAF is a post modern deconstruction of Lord of the Rings and Martin even says as much. It found mass appeal after the show because of what I call the "Batman Begins effect" which is traditionally childish media being elevated into respectable and/or mature media for adults through the rebranding of a story with fantastical elements into a "realistic" style.
But while Tolkein wasnt writing a medieval story, but a mythical one, Martin thinks hes writing a historical story. But the issue is that I dont think he really has a good understanding of Feudal Europe to really do this as cleverly as he thinks.
Yeah he is an historylet
Who cares
There is no difference between banditry and knighthood. Strip away the titles and see for yourself.
Warrior aristocracy across all cultures were prostitutes to foreigners and served their own interests at the expense of their own culture and locals.
Notice how Japan and France prospered the moment they snipped away these thieves like the tumors they were.
>Is modern culture really unable grasp honour, duty, and purpose? Does everything need to be a facade, everyone to be hypocritical?
If you actually paid attention to media like the Witcher and Game of Thrones, the whole point is that those things DO exist and that genuine men of honor do fight for them, but they're not always "official" knights and many knights are undeserving charlatans who fail to live up to these virtues.
Geralt is the sort of reluctant-hero who rolls his eyes at knightly virtues while simultaneously encompassing them, making him a "truer" knight than those who seek out the glory of titles and social ranking.
In Game of Thrones, Sandor Clegane hates the fact that his monstrous brother was knighted, yet Sandor Clegane exemplifies knightly virtues by protecting Sansa and Arya, being fiercely loyal to his liege (up to a point), being brave in battle, etc. Sandor Clegane rejects the title of Sir and the rituals of knighthood, but he still acts as a 'true knight' in the end
There were plenty of scumbag knights in the Middle Ages, whether just following order types like Peter von Hagenbach or Raubritter collecting illegal tolls
All a knight (miles) was originally just a cavalryman that could afford to equip himself with a horse, armor, and arms and do equestrian combat.
Chivalry and all that jazz didn't come into play under centuries later because the Church wanted to limit the violence. All knights were (especially in the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries) basically thugs on horseback. The High Middle Ages of the 12th and 13th centuries is where there was a social distinction between simply a man-at-arms (a non-noble cavalryman) and a chevalier who was part of the feudal hierarchy whether they had estates or not.
While there's a misconception that the Dark Ages/early Middle Ages were nothing but chaotic violence, there certainly were local squabbles happening between rival barons over property; which is the vast majority of medieval conflicts. Fulk Nerra of Anjou, one of the greatest pioneers of castles as forward bases, greatly enlarged his holdings because of his strategic positioning of stone fortifications.