Discussion VideoGame / TheWitcher3WildHunt

Meh, I am fine with it. Geralt is willing, but his willingness stems entirely from him having Amnesia. Plus, the game itself gives Geralt the option to bring it up, that he was essentially taken advantage of yet he doesn't mind (which is basically this trope) - so it's not exactly reading too much in the story when it's a possible plot point. He was not in a proper state of mind and she knew this. It's not that different from someone taking advantage of someone with brain damage or who is drunk. Sure, the person's giving consent, but they are not in full possession of all the facts and the other person both knows this and is counting on it. To Quote The Other Wiki: "Consent is affirmative "informed approval, indicating a freely given agreement" to sexual activity". Geralt's consent is not informed. It's under false pretence.

Completely agreed with Ghilz.

I will add that Vesemir, Lambert and Eskel are also complicit. All three of them know Yennefer, they know Geralt doesn't remember her, and they know he's sleeping with Triss (At the start of the first game), and not one of them brings it up to him. Which is weird. It's like everyone at Kaer Mohren is gaslighting Geralt. Yennifer apparently good at burning bridges with people >_>

I see where you're coming from and I agree that she took advantage of the situation but I just think rape is not what happened. "Consent is affirmative "informed approval, indicating a freely given agreement" to sexual activity" indeed and Geralt gave that; Geralt may not have had his memories but his mind worked perfectly fine and he was quite capable of deciding to have sex with Triss or not and he chose to do so. His memory was impaired but, unlike being drunk or brain damaged, his judgement was not. If lacking one's memories removes the chance for consent no amnesiac could ever give consent until and unless their memory returns. I just think The Unfair Sex would be a better trope for what Triss did (and is not called on by anyone but, briefly, herself).

The actions of Eskel, Lambert and Vesemir actually was what tipped me over into not thinking this is all about Triss getting Geralt; later in the first game Triss states she thinks Geralt should create his own identity rather than trying to pretend to be the person they remember. I figured the other Witchers and her discussed it and all agreed that was the best course of action. Note they also don't talk about others who aren't romantic competition for Triss (Ciri, Dandelion, Zoltan, Regis etc), not just Yennefer.

Except his judgement IS impaired by the fact that he's not informed. He's lacking critical info about his own situation. And the very proof of that is that you can have Geralt point out he'd not have slept with Triss if it weren't for his lack of memory. IE: If he had his memories, his judgement would've been different. One's judgement doesn't exist in a vaccuum, it's also formed from your own experiences and past memories.

The problem is that Triss lied to Geralt by withholding information. It's not informed consent because, by her own admission, she withheld information that could influence his decision for the express purpose of getting Geralt in bed. Going back to issues of mental impairment, it's like taking advantage of a dementia sufferer during a particularly bad episode, and directly lying/deceiving them just to get them in bed.

Certainly had he had his memories he might have acted differently but one can apply that to literally any action he took between the beginning of the first game to about two thirds of the way through the second. As a non-sexual example I suspect he would have reacted differently to Alvin if he could remember Ciri. As I said above by that token no amnesiac could ever have sex and it not be called rape since one could never know if they would have made the same choice with their memories. Triss never actually lied, she told Geralt they were friends and they occasionally had sex, true on both counts. She kept information from him but she also told him she was doing so, even explaining why and, as I noted a couple of comments back, it's not as if she only held back from talking about Yennefer so I accept her explanation (and by implication that of the other Witchers). Not to mention that, as far as she knew, Yennefer was dead. She certainly took advantage of the situation to make a play for his affections which was certainly A Bad Thing but it's not rape, which is why I disagree with the trope. Plus it's worth noting none of us has brought up the gender of either party in our arguments so the trope could be said not to apply for that reason; the fact that Triss is a woman and Geralt a man has no bearing on whether it's considered rape or not.

Triss never actually lied

She did

There is such a thing as Lie by Omission

"lying by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception." Triss outright states that she is not telling Geralt everything she knows about his past and at no point implies that the two were romantically involved beyond the occasional roll in the hay and again, Yennefer was dead as far as she knew so she was not incorrectly implying that Geralt was single. So Lie By Omission does not apply.

Yes it does. Triss telling Geralt that she's not telling him everything doesn't automatically absolve her of not telling him. In addition, it's yet another form of lying by means of Mathematician's Answer: it's a statement so general as to be useless. Geralt has no way of knowing WHAT information she's withholding or how it will affect their interaction. What you're arguing is like saying that just because someone says "I'll want something in return for this favor" in a verbal agreement, they're justified in later punching the guy in the face and claiming it was what he wanted in return. No reasonable person would expect to be assaulted in return for a favor, and no court would uphold it.

By Trish's own admission in the third game, she was wrong for keeping Geralt's relationship with Yennefer a secret from him while he was suffering from amnesia. And Geralt frequently defends his actions in said game by indicating he didn't remember. Both of these statement taken together means that if Trish had told Geralt the truth while he had amnesia, he would not have slept with her. And she KNEW that and did it anyway.

Your argument of "no amnesiac could have sex" is invalid, because if you TELL an amnesiac information you feel is relevant to their consent and they still choose to have sex with you, that has more value as consent than not telling them anything. You're making the argument that two different morally grey scenarios are completely the same when they aren't.

My argument was that Triss was not fostering a misconception. She didn't tell Geralt or imply to him that they were in a relationship (the sex remains casual until halfway through Act 3, maybe, depending on player choice). That Triss was not wrong was never something I was arguing. I just don't think she's a rapist. Now if Triss thought Yennefer was alive maybe I could see it but she didn't. As far as she had any way of knowing Yennefer was dead and Geralt's relationship with her had as much relevance as, say, his relationship with Fringilla Vigo since it was over now. Telling him "you had a girlfriend called Yennefer and she died" would have been the decent thing to do given that Yennefer was her friend but, since she was apparently dead, his previous relationship was no more relevant to him sleeping with her now than his past relationship with Fringilla Vigo did. If she's going to tell Geralt about every woman he's slept with they're gonna be there a while. Her behaviour is FAR from free from reproach but it is not rape.

The problem is that she didn't even tell him ABOUT his relationship with Yennefer. Whether Yen was alive or not, Trish admits that she did not tell Geralt the details about his relationship with Yennefer specifically to get Geralt in bed with her. Again, she deliberately withheld information that she KNEW would affect Geralt's decision to sleep with her, while Geralt was in an unsound mental condition.

Telling him that information wasn't just a "decent thing to do". It was the bare minimum expectation. It was the exact information Geralt needed to make informed consent and she withheld it from because she KNEW that. Again, Geralt himself stating that he didn't know about his relationship with Yen as a defense for why he slept with Trish specifically means that he wouldn't have made the same choice if he had that information.

Why was that "the bare minimum?" It was a past relationship with someone who was now dead and, given that he couldn't remember Yennefer at all, Geralt had no emotional connection with either the relationship or the death. Geralt does bring up his memory loss with Yennefer as something that would have affected his decision but that's because his memory would have told him that she was alive and out there somewhere to find, not just that he had had a relationship with her. Triss was not privy to that information.

Oh, and linking to Wants a Prize for Basic Decency was not appropriate; I had brought that up as an example of Triss doing something wrong so the trope doesn't apply.

It was the bare minimum because both she and Geralt knew that the information would affect his consent, while he was in a mentally-fragile state. Again, she KNEW that telling him about Yennefer would have ruined her chances to sleep with him, whether Yen was alive or dead. Therefore, Yen's survival had no impact on the importance of the informaton—Trish knew that just telling him about Yennefer would end her chances.

Your argument is that Triss telling Geralt about Yennefer would have been "a decent thing to do", as in above and beyond what she was morally expected. What Ghilz and I are saying is that that's wrong and is the definition of trying to praise Triss if she had done what she knew she should have done in the first place.

A terminology confusion then: when I say "the decent thing to do" I mean what a decent person should do in that circumstance therefore if it wasn't done the person in question was not being a decent person. So no, not implying it's above and beyond anything. Apologies if I worded that poorly.

Back on point I disagree that merely knowing Yennefer had existed would have affected Geralt's consent regardless of if she was alive. There is a world of difference between "You had a girlfriend who is now dead" and "you are currently in a relationship with someone who is alive and well and who you could go find now." Since Geralt couldn't remember Yennefer the former, which is what Triss knew, would have meant little or nothing to him. He was made aware of his own age (and that most people don't get that old) and the dangerous nature of his life, he'd be foolish not to assume he had a few deceased paramours in his past. Telling him about Yennefer by itself would have been just dry data with no context as to why he should care. Actually knowing that he could go find said girlfriend right now and explore that is a whole different ball game.

As I noted already it's not as if Triss only kept Yennefer from him. She didn't bring up any of his old friends regardless of if they had been in a romantic relationship or not. As she actually said in the game she believed she should do so to allow him to develop his own personality rather than be shackled to other's memories of who he used to be. Given that the other Witchers did the same (and, far as I can tell, none of them want to sleep with Geralt) it's logical to assume this was an agreement they came to. I don't agree with this, I think at least a Cliff Notes version of his life would have been the way to go. If nothing else not doing so was disrespectful to Yennefer, Ciri, Regis and the various other friends he was presumably never going to be able to meet again and should know about. But it was the call they made and it was not just "lie to Geralt so I can steal him" as you seem to be suggesting.

But really this has already gotten well out of hand. I just wanted to express my own opinion regarding a trope entry and then I got caught up arguing. I do that too much. I don't think we're either of us gonna convince the other so, having said my piece and then some, I'm gonna let it lie.

You stated that telling Geralt about Yen was "decent thing to do" but NOT RELEVANT. What your words are implying is that "relevant" and "decent" are two separate things. You're saying that she was wrong for not telling him, but that this wrongness is unrelated to consent. And that's where the disagreement is.

Also, the details of whether or not Yennefer was alive has no bearing on Triss's actions because Triss in the third game ADMITS to not telling him about Yen to take advantage of his amnesia and sleep with him. Thus, Triss knew that telling him about Yen, alive or not, has the possibility of ending her chances. Geralt's statement in the third game also indicate that he possibly would have acted differently if he had known. The ability to make a different possible decision based on relevant information, especially in a mentally unsound state, is what informed consent is, and Triss willingly denied that to Geralt.

You're also now trekking into speculation territory by arguing "what Geralt should have known". As I already said, Geralt not knowing general information is not the same as him being denied specific information. The argument of "well Geralt should have assumed he had lovers" is irrelevant speculation because if we're speculating THAT, we might as well speculate that Triss would have lied if asked to keep her aim of sleeping with Geralt. We don't trope "logical assumptions". We trope what is said and shown in the story.

Geralt lifted a curse from him when he was young. A curse that turned him into a werehedgehog of sorts.

So yeah, he is VERY grateful for that. Not only this allowed him to finally marry Pavetta (whom she loved in a genuine way, rather than politicking), but also created a chance for him to return to Nilfgaard from exile and retake what was his via a coup backed by his loyalists.

It's the kind of favour you don't discard, even if you are emperor of half of the known world. Because he's said emperor and not an exiled cursed knight trapped in semi-important backwater thanks to Geralt.

Also how many people do you think he lets mouth off to him like Geralt does?

Not sure what trope we're discussing, but Emhyr and Geralt are not friends. None of ^^ makes it friendship. He tolerates Geralt. He gives him more leeway both as gratitude for what he did, and because he knows Geralt's skills are unmatched and warrant putting up with him. None of that makes them friends. You can be grateful to someone, that doesn't make you friends.

I believe so.

In the most technical of senses, Double Standard is just a list of tropes exhibiting double standards; it doesn't have examples itself of it occurring in works. You'd need to pick a particular trope on that page and go from there.

Wrong place.

Never.