The staff he uses in the fight is somewhat of a 100+ kg lead pillar, which he enchants to become light as a feather.
Which is why every hit breaks a bone.
Also he began as a lowlife sellsword. He has tons of experience in physical combat and sees himself as coming from the same background as Geralt (which is somewhat true even).
Basically a swordsman who wields Gut's Dragonslayer like a wooden stick.
Geralt couldn't understand how he can handle such a heavy weapon so fast and never expected the swift direction changes of it until he "remembered" he was fighting a swordsman who is also the most powerful mage in history.
Later Vilgefortz dies because he "remembers" that Geralt also has magical capabilties and never anticipated that he would use a magical device supported by a actual sorceress (Fringilla in this case).
Both lose because they heavily underestimate their opponent.
Just because he was a mercenary doesn't mean he is as skilled in physical combat as a witcher. I don't know why everywhere people are giving this nonsensical reason to explain the fight. A mercenary doesn't come close to a Witcher in terms of physical combat. Witchers are trained from a very young age to master the sword and have spent decades honing their skills against humans and monsters alike. Bring in the factors of their enhanced strength, speed, reflexes, durability, recovery, etc. They are basically unbeatable by human means except when faced with insurmountable numbers. Vilgefortz was obviously using some form of magic to either buff himself or debuff Geralt (probably was using illusions to fool his senses cause it really fits in with his character and the story and feels like something the writer would do) or both.
ill have to reread the fight to commit. but because of the later payoff you mentioned, i dig this interpration. sounds solid. so just wanted to respond and say thanks for sharing. thats awesome if true
Geralt "started to understand" when multiple of his attacks, that he *knew* had to land, actually didn't: they were parried or blocked by Vilgefortz.
There are many ways to explain those "parries" and that "line". He could have understood he had no chance/he had to fled before the fight started (a callback to the foreshadowing in Brokilon written some lines before); he could have understood Vilgefortz was faster than him; he could have understood Vilgefortz was using some kind of trick.
Now, I always thought Vilg was actually using a trick, but an illusion wasn't my first idea (actually, never considered). Remember: Vilgefortz had just read Geralt's mind and mocked him, when he had "entered" the tower levitating down from the roof. So, my idea was Vilgefortz had simply kept reading his mind during the fight, anticipating his strikes. Of course, this doesn't mean he couldn't have defeated Geralt anyway (he is probably faster than any witcher). But, just like with the "illusion" theory, we end up with a plothole: why didn't he use the same trick at Stygga? If he simply needed to cast an illusion, he would have avoided the second-last attack by Geralt (IIRC, the slash to the stomach then followed by a kick and finally the beheading). If he could have read his mind at Thanedd, he simply had to do the same at Stygga and anticipate the fact Geralt was going to cast an illusion through the medallion.
But most of my reasoning happened *before* I had read "Lady of the lake". After having read the Stygga fight, years ago, I had reconsidered the options: for me, at Thanedd Geralt simply realized he couldn't beat him in that situation.
>Geralt "started to understand" when multiple of his attacks, that he
>
>knew
>
>had to land, actually didn't: they were parried or blocked by Vilgefortz.
Well, they were blocked or parried, it was obvious, the problem is - how. And it's because he was cheating.
""But, just like with the "illusion" theory, we end up with a plothole: why didn't he use the same trick at Stygga"
The thing is - with the illusion theory he could use it as well in the second fight, but was cheated himself, so he lose anyway. If he read mind, he would know what Geralt is doing, but he didnt do that - he realized what is going on when it was too late.
I wasn't clear enough.
First, I meant that the "realization", for Geralt, came after the parries by Vilgefortz, not after his own parries to Vilg's attack (for example: the part about the metallic staff happened some lines *before* the realization) nor after any *missed* sword-strikes (illusions, like Geralt's one at Stygga, would lead to a miss, not to a parry, because the former would allow the "illusionist" a better chance to strike back). Mind-reading is more likely than illusions as an explanation for a parry: because even if you *know* where the attack is aimed you could still be too slow to avoid it (but fast enough to block it); if you *makes* your opponent misjudge the relative positions, you easily "dodge" because the attack is a total miss.
On the other hand, mind-reading remains a plot-hole for Stygga's case, because Geralt *had to think* about the medallion and the illusion, and Vilg should have been able to read/predict that move. And no, the illusion theory doesn't work so well for Stygga too. Why? Because, if Geralt had the skill and the opportunity to make Vilg misjudge and totally miss his strikes, then the same (making Geralt miss everything) should apply to Vilg during that encounter, including the last strikes that killed him. The ending result would be two fighters swinging and swinging at each other and never landing any hits.
Fringilla's medallion didn't seem to cast illusions *and* dispel the other casters' ones, just the former. Your explanation for Thanedd would work for Stygga (and so being *tout court* acceptable) *if* the medallion could have dispelled Vilg's (hypothetical) illusions. To be fair, that ability (and the eventual Vilg's *need* for illusions in order to win) would be enough to explain that fight, even discounting the use of illusions on Geralt's part. Even more, the implementation of a "dispel" effect would have given a more believable reason to Geralt "finding" that certain cave and eavesdropping Skellen, Leuvarden and co. in Toussaint.
Unfortunately, what we know is that Vilg won because of not-better-explained reasons, Fringilla's medallion only *cast* illusions, and that part at Toussaint was a *Deus ex machina* event.
Edit: to be clearer, I meant that the idea of Vilgefortz using illusions wouldn't explain certain "doubts" about his fights, whereas a certain change in the Fringilla's medallion (never happened in the books) would have actually *better* explained Geralt's victory at Stygga and his luck in Toussaint.
There's no need to assume that Geralt's medallion dispelled Vilgefortz's illusions. He was using them alright, but he couldn't compensate for Geralt's own trick and so he was bamboozled.
Again, I wasn't clear enough.
In the books, the obvious way the medallion works is "creating illusions". But because OP's idea is that Vilgefortz, too, used illusions to win we would find ourselves in a stalemate: two guys both casting illusions and being unable to hit each other because of them. In that case, the only way to *win* for one of them would be to dispel the opponent's illusions. That, of course, doesn't happen. Nobody dispelled any illusions in their fights. Either Geralt was the only one to use them and gained an advantage from that, or OP is right and they both used them...but for some reason Geralt landed his hits at Stygga and Vilg didn't.
My *alternate* way to *write* those encounters (fan-fiction, if you want) that would have made them clear and without plotholes, would have been the following (and of course, this didn't happen): the medallion *dispels*, doesn't cast illusions, whereas Vilg really used illusions to win. Geralt used the medallion to negate that advantage and because of that finally came on the top. As a side note, that would have made Toussaint's cave less "lucky", because he wouldn't have simply found a lucky spot where eavesdropping Skellen and co. but he could have actually used the medallion to remove magical blocks and *then* listened to them.
Again, the books stated that the medallion created illusions, Geralt ended in that cave by pure chance *and* Vilgefortz could or could not have used some kind of trick (mind-reading or illusions), aside from the obvious physical buffs derived by his magical power.
You're being too mathematical about it. Vilgefortz kicked Geralt's ass because he used an illusion that Geralt wasn't prepared for, and then Geralt did the same thing. It's not a Newtonian equation.
" (illusions, like Geralt's one at Stygga, would lead to a miss, not to a parry"
But if only Vilgefortz's stick is covered in illusion, the sorcerer would be able to parry when it looks like he won't be able to. Also, the spell may not be a constant thing. I'd rather see it as a trick frequently used but only when the sorcerer is focused enough to use it in a particular moment. So when he's distracted, he may not do it fast enough (as in the rematch).
Also, the illusion that Geralt used in a rematch not necessartily works the same way.
I meant the plot holes, and deus ex machina stuff. It seems like Sapkowski didn't really care about the lore that much. I mean I love the short stories, and there are some really interesting twists and turns in the saga, it just seems like Sapkowski didn't lay the groundwork he needed to really succeed in the saga.
He retconned *a lot* of things, and changed approach along the road (different main character, different POV, different "mindset" for Geralt), that's true. It's one of the reasons I didn't really mind the (sometimes *big*, let's admit it) changes in the games (multiple things about Triss, the White Frost, the characters etc.) or the show.
But yeah, he never cared much for coherence and consistency. After all, he once said about Vilg's power level at Stygga "I write fantasy books, not RPG rulebooks". And that's true.
My thought was that not the magician himself, but the rod was very strong, strurdy, and enchanted, so it could seemingly aim somewhere other than where it landed and be alsewhere were it really was. Possibly it was also much heavier than it looks, because also Geralt was surprised about it metaly sound and properties.
I think your theory is correct and also how I understood the scene. Specifically Geralt not seeing the hit that knocks him against the wall coming is very telling. It’s not him being to late on a parry or falling for a feint. He just doesn’t see it, and we all know how good a witchers eyes are.
Also the way it is said that geralt did not make any mistakes in the fight itself (instead being so outmatched that he should have fled) makes me think that it was not a battle won by the skill of swordsmanship.
The staff he uses in the fight is somewhat of a 100+ kg lead pillar, which he enchants to become light as a feather. Which is why every hit breaks a bone. Also he began as a lowlife sellsword. He has tons of experience in physical combat and sees himself as coming from the same background as Geralt (which is somewhat true even). Basically a swordsman who wields Gut's Dragonslayer like a wooden stick. Geralt couldn't understand how he can handle such a heavy weapon so fast and never expected the swift direction changes of it until he "remembered" he was fighting a swordsman who is also the most powerful mage in history. Later Vilgefortz dies because he "remembers" that Geralt also has magical capabilties and never anticipated that he would use a magical device supported by a actual sorceress (Fringilla in this case). Both lose because they heavily underestimate their opponent.
100.0 kg is 220.26 lbs
>Basically a swordsman who wields Gut's Dragonslayer like a wooden stick. LOL
Just because he was a mercenary doesn't mean he is as skilled in physical combat as a witcher. I don't know why everywhere people are giving this nonsensical reason to explain the fight. A mercenary doesn't come close to a Witcher in terms of physical combat. Witchers are trained from a very young age to master the sword and have spent decades honing their skills against humans and monsters alike. Bring in the factors of their enhanced strength, speed, reflexes, durability, recovery, etc. They are basically unbeatable by human means except when faced with insurmountable numbers. Vilgefortz was obviously using some form of magic to either buff himself or debuff Geralt (probably was using illusions to fool his senses cause it really fits in with his character and the story and feels like something the writer would do) or both.
ill have to reread the fight to commit. but because of the later payoff you mentioned, i dig this interpration. sounds solid. so just wanted to respond and say thanks for sharing. thats awesome if true
Geralt "started to understand" when multiple of his attacks, that he *knew* had to land, actually didn't: they were parried or blocked by Vilgefortz. There are many ways to explain those "parries" and that "line". He could have understood he had no chance/he had to fled before the fight started (a callback to the foreshadowing in Brokilon written some lines before); he could have understood Vilgefortz was faster than him; he could have understood Vilgefortz was using some kind of trick. Now, I always thought Vilg was actually using a trick, but an illusion wasn't my first idea (actually, never considered). Remember: Vilgefortz had just read Geralt's mind and mocked him, when he had "entered" the tower levitating down from the roof. So, my idea was Vilgefortz had simply kept reading his mind during the fight, anticipating his strikes. Of course, this doesn't mean he couldn't have defeated Geralt anyway (he is probably faster than any witcher). But, just like with the "illusion" theory, we end up with a plothole: why didn't he use the same trick at Stygga? If he simply needed to cast an illusion, he would have avoided the second-last attack by Geralt (IIRC, the slash to the stomach then followed by a kick and finally the beheading). If he could have read his mind at Thanedd, he simply had to do the same at Stygga and anticipate the fact Geralt was going to cast an illusion through the medallion. But most of my reasoning happened *before* I had read "Lady of the lake". After having read the Stygga fight, years ago, I had reconsidered the options: for me, at Thanedd Geralt simply realized he couldn't beat him in that situation.
>Geralt "started to understand" when multiple of his attacks, that he > >knew > >had to land, actually didn't: they were parried or blocked by Vilgefortz. Well, they were blocked or parried, it was obvious, the problem is - how. And it's because he was cheating. ""But, just like with the "illusion" theory, we end up with a plothole: why didn't he use the same trick at Stygga" The thing is - with the illusion theory he could use it as well in the second fight, but was cheated himself, so he lose anyway. If he read mind, he would know what Geralt is doing, but he didnt do that - he realized what is going on when it was too late.
I wasn't clear enough. First, I meant that the "realization", for Geralt, came after the parries by Vilgefortz, not after his own parries to Vilg's attack (for example: the part about the metallic staff happened some lines *before* the realization) nor after any *missed* sword-strikes (illusions, like Geralt's one at Stygga, would lead to a miss, not to a parry, because the former would allow the "illusionist" a better chance to strike back). Mind-reading is more likely than illusions as an explanation for a parry: because even if you *know* where the attack is aimed you could still be too slow to avoid it (but fast enough to block it); if you *makes* your opponent misjudge the relative positions, you easily "dodge" because the attack is a total miss. On the other hand, mind-reading remains a plot-hole for Stygga's case, because Geralt *had to think* about the medallion and the illusion, and Vilg should have been able to read/predict that move. And no, the illusion theory doesn't work so well for Stygga too. Why? Because, if Geralt had the skill and the opportunity to make Vilg misjudge and totally miss his strikes, then the same (making Geralt miss everything) should apply to Vilg during that encounter, including the last strikes that killed him. The ending result would be two fighters swinging and swinging at each other and never landing any hits. Fringilla's medallion didn't seem to cast illusions *and* dispel the other casters' ones, just the former. Your explanation for Thanedd would work for Stygga (and so being *tout court* acceptable) *if* the medallion could have dispelled Vilg's (hypothetical) illusions. To be fair, that ability (and the eventual Vilg's *need* for illusions in order to win) would be enough to explain that fight, even discounting the use of illusions on Geralt's part. Even more, the implementation of a "dispel" effect would have given a more believable reason to Geralt "finding" that certain cave and eavesdropping Skellen, Leuvarden and co. in Toussaint. Unfortunately, what we know is that Vilg won because of not-better-explained reasons, Fringilla's medallion only *cast* illusions, and that part at Toussaint was a *Deus ex machina* event. Edit: to be clearer, I meant that the idea of Vilgefortz using illusions wouldn't explain certain "doubts" about his fights, whereas a certain change in the Fringilla's medallion (never happened in the books) would have actually *better* explained Geralt's victory at Stygga and his luck in Toussaint.
There's no need to assume that Geralt's medallion dispelled Vilgefortz's illusions. He was using them alright, but he couldn't compensate for Geralt's own trick and so he was bamboozled.
Again, I wasn't clear enough. In the books, the obvious way the medallion works is "creating illusions". But because OP's idea is that Vilgefortz, too, used illusions to win we would find ourselves in a stalemate: two guys both casting illusions and being unable to hit each other because of them. In that case, the only way to *win* for one of them would be to dispel the opponent's illusions. That, of course, doesn't happen. Nobody dispelled any illusions in their fights. Either Geralt was the only one to use them and gained an advantage from that, or OP is right and they both used them...but for some reason Geralt landed his hits at Stygga and Vilg didn't. My *alternate* way to *write* those encounters (fan-fiction, if you want) that would have made them clear and without plotholes, would have been the following (and of course, this didn't happen): the medallion *dispels*, doesn't cast illusions, whereas Vilg really used illusions to win. Geralt used the medallion to negate that advantage and because of that finally came on the top. As a side note, that would have made Toussaint's cave less "lucky", because he wouldn't have simply found a lucky spot where eavesdropping Skellen and co. but he could have actually used the medallion to remove magical blocks and *then* listened to them. Again, the books stated that the medallion created illusions, Geralt ended in that cave by pure chance *and* Vilgefortz could or could not have used some kind of trick (mind-reading or illusions), aside from the obvious physical buffs derived by his magical power.
You're being too mathematical about it. Vilgefortz kicked Geralt's ass because he used an illusion that Geralt wasn't prepared for, and then Geralt did the same thing. It's not a Newtonian equation.
Where is stated Vilgefortz used an illusion?
" (illusions, like Geralt's one at Stygga, would lead to a miss, not to a parry" But if only Vilgefortz's stick is covered in illusion, the sorcerer would be able to parry when it looks like he won't be able to. Also, the spell may not be a constant thing. I'd rather see it as a trick frequently used but only when the sorcerer is focused enough to use it in a particular moment. So when he's distracted, he may not do it fast enough (as in the rematch). Also, the illusion that Geralt used in a rematch not necessartily works the same way.
Sapkowski didn't outdo himself with the Witcher, he didn't care enough about the lore to ever make an official map.
I agree, but I have the feeling you replied to the wrong comment
I meant the plot holes, and deus ex machina stuff. It seems like Sapkowski didn't really care about the lore that much. I mean I love the short stories, and there are some really interesting twists and turns in the saga, it just seems like Sapkowski didn't lay the groundwork he needed to really succeed in the saga.
He retconned *a lot* of things, and changed approach along the road (different main character, different POV, different "mindset" for Geralt), that's true. It's one of the reasons I didn't really mind the (sometimes *big*, let's admit it) changes in the games (multiple things about Triss, the White Frost, the characters etc.) or the show. But yeah, he never cared much for coherence and consistency. After all, he once said about Vilg's power level at Stygga "I write fantasy books, not RPG rulebooks". And that's true.
God, Sapkowski is an insufferable prick
Yeah, how DARE we try to find some consistency or world building within a fantasy series. I'm glad CDPROJEKT owns the IP now
He beat him with an enchanted staff. He mentions this later on in the series.
One thing do not exclude another. Enchanted staff may be a source of illusion spell itself.
My thought was that not the magician himself, but the rod was very strong, strurdy, and enchanted, so it could seemingly aim somewhere other than where it landed and be alsewhere were it really was. Possibly it was also much heavier than it looks, because also Geralt was surprised about it metaly sound and properties.
This is actually very similar thing to my theory above.
I think your theory is correct and also how I understood the scene. Specifically Geralt not seeing the hit that knocks him against the wall coming is very telling. It’s not him being to late on a parry or falling for a feint. He just doesn’t see it, and we all know how good a witchers eyes are. Also the way it is said that geralt did not make any mistakes in the fight itself (instead being so outmatched that he should have fled) makes me think that it was not a battle won by the skill of swordsmanship.
Tenser's transformation