The Witcher wiki now has a light themed alternative for the wiki skin. To check it out, go to Special:Preferences, then choose the "Appearance" tab and click on the radio button next to "Hydra".


From Witcher Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

New Heading for Differences in game Vampires[edit source]

I added a new heading to acknowledge the issue brought up by an anonymous editor: game vampires are a little different from those in Sapkowski's books. For now just their aversion to garlic is noted, but more can be added later as necessary. Kalkstein 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Orianna - a higher vampire?[edit source]

Some report that Orianna is a higher vampire proper (i.e. not a Bruxa). Is there any info on that in the game? The image title on the page calls her "Bruxa". I assume it's incorrect? — Gilrond (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, Orianna is a higher vampire and a Bruxa is a type of higher vampire, no ? ( --— Gwynbleidds (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Bruxae are not true higher vampires (i.e. Regis like). See the very article you linked to where it's explained. What I'm talking about is strictly higher vampire, not what is a commonly confused notion of it (within the witcher world). I understand it's a bit confusing, since it's designed to be confusing even within the settings itself ;) — Gilrond (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
For now I'll just fix the description to "higher vampire". If anyone has good arguments why Orianna is a bruxa and not the higher vampire proper, please post them here, and I can fix it back. — Gilrond (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe it came from fact that Orianna looks exactly like a vampire from A Night to Remember, who was confirmed to be bruxa during Warsaw meeting (when I asked why bruxa in Corvo Bianco wasn't able to transform into giant bat like in short story, Reds said the duel was a tribute to the trailer in which Geralt had fought with another bruxa). — SMiki5five (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me some reds are using term "bruxa" too freely, simply calling female vampires that way. Did they really mean bruxa as in bruxa? Were that script / story writers, someone who is supposed to know their stuff? I also can assume that it's one of the inconsistencies that reds slipped into the writing, and they didn't really think this through thoroughly. It's wouldn't be the first such occurrence. — Gilrond (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there were writers... we were able to ask about moron Eredin, Iorweth or Dol Blathanna cut from TW2 :P — SMiki5five (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I'd say in this case what's expressed is actually better than what's not. I.e. for me it's more consistent to count her as higher vampire and not as bruxa. It fits the context and story better. Since they didn't really explicitly say it in the script, it should be a possible interpretation. And their intended one (but unexpressed) seems to be less consistent (unfortunately). — Gilrond (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It is rather sad that Reds messed up with the lore... she even could be a bruxa (Vereena was undeniably intelligent, so I have no doubt that some bruxa would be able to learn Common Speech). However, CDPR gave them abilities of higher vampires, like invisibility or transformation into dust... :/ — SMiki5five (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)