#ooc: like anyone else she might have conceded but it is part of her job to chill in the firmament

[neramontagofficial]

What about the calendula? Do you think starving, suffocating, or dying of dehydration in another dimension is a good way to die? Do you think getting shot or stabbed is a pleasant way to die just because it is the "accepted" way? You admittance to some members of the Karrakin nobility use the same mechs you spent time decrying? Its bullshit. Its bullshit for the baronies to pretend it has some moral high ground in warfare when there IS no moral high ground in war to begin with. And its bullshit for you to pretend your organization is better than the Albatross on the made up moral justification of "our killing machines aren't as barbaric" as if you both aren't equally vain and greedy

It is interesting that you bring up the Calendula to me, because it is a frame that gets most of its utility via its strategic use of the Firmament, a plane I am quite familiar with traversing as someone who has to manage professional upkeep of a FADE cloak.

You see, the problem with the Firmament is that it is quite difficult to keep anything there for any length of time. Unlike the Blink, where traversal is reliable if incredibly risky, even the most advanced, reliable technological attempts to utilize the Firmament outside of the Aun are momentary and unstable, where the collapse of that instability merely means return to realspace. I'll note, also, that there is no special precautions that need to be taken while there- while we in les Fulgurites have expansive training on what to do if trapped in blinkspace as a ward against psychological harm, there is no such problem with the Firmament. It is breathable, and I have heard of no pilot being trapped there long enough to starve or dehydrate even working in a squadron of people who regularly go there.

That is to say: even in combat with a Calendula this is short lived. Its abilities are extremely temporary, or else will end the moment you come close to one of its husks, and you are shielded from the dangers of the battlefield the entire time you're gone. I think you are generally more in danger of the weapon the Calendula carries than starving or suffocating or dying of dehydration in the Firmament.

Beyond that: I think that you are disingenuous if you think that all ways are killing are equal, else you would endorse the usage of nuclear weapons on large population centers to wage war, or weaponized disease outbreaks, or nanite weaponry, or napalm. Drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable ways of killing is a practice that goes back even to pre-fall Terra and pretending that there is no rational place for it or that it does not exist is an attitude that I think is frankly galling. I mentioned my issue with IPS-N is primarily aesthetic (and I will admit to vanity on that) but we can both agree that marketing a frame built to turn corridors into minefields on its efficacy against soft targets is a problem, right? The threat from your Calendula leaves when it leaves the battlefield, but Webjaw Snares persist until triggered, and the person laying the snare has no idea who may trigger it. The Calendula can choose, discretely, who and what it execrates, but the Vlad does not get the final say on what it harms, which will always put civilians at risk.

[gayregis]

hi! why do u think Regis doesn’t not exist as a character without hansa?

i am so glad you asked this question!! it's something important to me when it comes to regis's character that was made apparent to me after i read the hansa parts of baptism of fire, tower of the swallow, and lady of the lake. this argument came to me from flipping back and forth between games!regis as he appears in blood & wine, and books!regis as he appears originally. 

this train of thought stems from the differences between book and game regis, which i think i have already described at length somewhere else (edit, i found some thoughts (still couldnt find the og post i had in mind though, idk where it is, it was very long and i wrote it on a train): (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x))

but to summarize, games!regis isn't as personal with geralt, he doesn't seem committed to humanity at all, and his scenes involve more depressing and violent overtones (forced relapse? unable to control self with tempting of blood, having to be locked in a cage? what in the spiral...). in this analysis of the differences between games and book regis, i attributed some of games!regis's OOC-ness to the lack of the rest of geralt's hansa.

i think that regis cannot really be an accurate representation of his character without the presence or at the very least, the acknowledgement of, the other members of the hansa in a sincere and involved manner.

the conditions that i mean by this: when i refer to the "rest of the hansa," i mean at the very least geralt, dandelion, milva, and cahir (since angouleme was introduced later), but especially milva, for reasons i will desciribe later. when i refer to a "sincere and involved manner," i mean to say that the characters can't just sit there as pretty background or interact once and never again - they actually have to interact multiple times if not constantly, have meaningful conversations which demonstrate things about their characters, play off of each other in humorous exchanges, etc.

okay now onto my two main points

i. positive relationships with other members of the hansa demonstrate commitment to humanity

regis’s primary character goal and purpose in-universe is to be the “epitome of humanity.” i ask, how is this goal ever going to get represented or achieved if he never speaks to or interacts with any humans on a meaningful level other than geralt?

regis’s first and foremost role, that we learn as an audience as he introduces himself in his character debut in fen carn, is that he’s a barber-surgeon. this means that he is a healer, his whole job (which is quite significant in a medieval-esque setting such as this, one’s job pretty much defines their entire life, which you can see with geralt, yennefer, dandelion, milva, cahir, etc) is that he heals people and tries to help as many human lives as possible. 

how is he supposed to be a surgeon if he never actually is shown healing anyone? if he doesn’t have close relationships with the hansa, who else is he supposed to heal? one of the large parts that regis provides the company in baptism of fire is that he actually functions as a healer. he assists the peasant milva gave a concussion to, he sews the head wound dandelion garnered from his and geralt’s escape from the partisan camp, and he helps milva with her options relating to her pregnancy and later immediately goes to provide medical attention when she begins to miscarry. these actions demonstrate not only his role in society and demonstrate how he fits into the world of the witcher, but demonstrate his committment to humanity and to the wellbeing of others.

but of course, he could heal random other humans. why does he need to be around the hansa, specifically?

regis has many valuable interactions with the hansa, part of which i’ll expand on in my second point, but his developed friendships with each of the members and as a group begin to define him as committed to humanity not only in a general ethical sense, but in a personal manner. 

i have mentioned this “arrogant immortal vampire” archetype (think of like, a vampire that thinks they’re so much better, powerful, and knowledgable than humans just because they are a vampire) that regis is completely the opposite of, and we get to see that he is the opposite of this archetype only through his interactions with the rest of the hansa. 

it’s parts like when dandelion notices, “i see you know your fish!” and regis replies modestly, “i know lots of things :)!” or when regis criticizes geralt for not having a goal and that the cardinal directions of the compass mean nothing to him, and milva disagrees and says, “but ciri’s his goal? how can you say she’s nothing?” and regis apologizes and explains he was joking, without much tact... when regis treats angouleme with distance in their first meeting and tries to accuse her of lying, but then gives her his horse and in the next book defends her against fringilla/distracts fringilla’s sharp tongue from her and onto him. regis demonstrates humility and respect for others, as well as genuine friendship to others and propensity for humor during his interactions in the hansa.

without the hansa, specifically in blood and wine, what is regis? he doesn’t interact with anyone else, only geralt, maybe another vampire. how is he supposed to demonstrate and develop such meaningful interaction, good nature, and weighty values towards humanity without ever having the opportunity to be amongst friends? he simply will be a shell of the character he is supposed to be if he is separated from the hansa which defines him. 

ii. contrasts with other characters develop character

regis without the rest of the hansa will be expotentially weaker as a character because his qualities are not effectively made apparent without contrasting him against other characters.

i think milva and regis in baptism of fire have a very good character dynamic in that they are kind of opposites of one another. milva is action, force, to kill. regis is talk, placation, to heal. they address situations in extremely different manners, and have extremely different senses. this is good because they are both members of geralt’s company, and are liable to sway geralt either way, sort of representing a fork in the crossroads, or an angel and devil on his shoulders.

this is apparent in many scenes, but the ones that first come to mind are in baptism of fire, when regis describes the refugee camp in a very elaborate manner and then milva tells him “why use three dozen words, when three will suffice?” and is very blunt about the situation, and later when they are sitting by the fire as regis dispells myths about vampires, milva criticizes his philosophy and points out how generally useless it is. neither character is wrong in this situation, but their exchanges provide an opposite to compare the other to.

if regis spoke about philosophy on his own, and geralt nodded and muttered “hm...” (as you might see in tw3), or argued a little with him about what he was proposing, but ultimately conceded (as you see in baptism of fire), then what you as a reader get from this exchange is that regis philosophizes. that gives you information about his character, but it’s essentially useless - what does that say about him? he philosophizes. great, that’s good for him. but it doesn’t make him stand out as a character, because there’s no dissenting voice or someone to argue with him and point out the faults in his approach. 

by milva addressing regis’s approach as not the only way to approach a situation and to give another perspective, you learn something valuable about both of their characters: regis doesn’t just philosophize, he philosophizes unnecessarily, to the point of annoying and excessiveness. milva doesn’t just come at things from a simple point of view, she is headstrong and unwilling to entertain ideas she deems stupid. this is so much more interesting than just regis talking on his own, and no one responding to it with a genuinely different viewpoint or approach. geralt may argue with him, but in tw3 geralt is more of a vessel for the player to adopt rather than a character so his responses are limited, and also in baptism of fire, geralt is more wanton to argue with regis about the actual topic regis brings up: for example, discussing vampires and the symbolism of blood. geralt disagrees with regis’s analysis of the symbolism of blood and engages with him on this, milva disagrees with addressing the whole subject in a philosophical manner entirely.

and it’s not just contrasts... it’s also the general exchanges they have as a company, like regis getting excited about what dandelion is writing in the tower of the swallow, like angouleme calling him uncle and him trying to address her formally but she gives him more sass, like when they are walking in angren and regis points out the pines, “take a closer look at those trees,” and begins to lecture them, like when regis reappears and gives advice to geralt despite geralt trying to get rid of him. it’s this kind of human interaction which demonstrates to the reader his character traits, what kind of behavior he is prone to, how he is liable to respond in a given situation.

idk how to end this but basically yeah like regis needs his friends :( i also believe that more broadly, as it relates to real life, that we are defined by the people we share our lives with and how we treat them, not by our own conception of ourselves. it is our actions towards others and care which make an impact on this world and show what our inner characters are like