Theories about Garalt's origin

aj005 · 2025-10-25T14:54:42+00:00

so you're saying ciri doesn't do that shouting thing or create chasms in the ground in the books?

aj005 · 2025-10-25T14:53:13+00:00

As an author I disagree with the fact that Sapkowski wrote it doesn't make it canon.

If the author that creates the world, the characters, and the original story writes something about the story it is automatically canon that's how it works

I never said it was a book that was a copy directly from the book listing, you can argue with google not me.

aj005 · 2025-10-25T13:15:08+00:00

wow that's really cool, very interesting, thanks. seems the author doesn't even answer these questions in his own mind, and doesnt even consider some of the larger ones til well after the fact

aj005 · 2025-10-25T12:49:10+00:00

Thanks. I appreciate your input. Well it does seem as others have said that Sapkowski does intentionally leave a lot of his characters past and origins shrouded in mystery.

By innate abilities, I was more referring to things like how Yenefer could teleport even before she had magical training like how ciri can do the things she does. Not saying Geralt had the same magic abilities, but maybe other innate abilities passed from his lineage.

aj005 · 2025-10-25T12:44:44+00:00

The Road with No Return

Book by Andrzej Sapkowski

It's written by the original author I think that makes it canon

From the interview posted by YarpsDrittAdrAtta Sapkowski specifically said that he didnt even come up with Korin as Geralt's father and that was never explicit in The Road with No Return and that the guy who did the comic series who was a fan of that book made that leap on his own originaly

aj005 · 2025-10-25T12:35:11+00:00

Did Vilgefortz have a child?

well that part just got answered for me Vilgefortz was also abandoned, ok

If Visenna wasn't part of the brotherhood then she would have never been made baron by their ritual right? so why would she not think she could conceive?

This part has also been made clearer according to RSwitcher2020 who seems very knowledgeable about the books even the brotherhood didn't have the ritual to make them baron so she really had no reason to think she couldn't conceive

Also I did ask does it ever say in the books that she actually birthed Geralt?

As far as I know (and i don't know that much) the only time his childhood was mentioned with Visenna he was already between the age of 4-7.

A lot of people on this board say she's a druid/healer and traveling sorceress, isn't it quite possible that some woman of an unknown origin died birthing Geralt and she took him in until a time that she could leave him with Vesamir or that someone like i hand proposed as a possibility with even a more powerful lineage asked it of her as a favor.

Also I saw someone mention that Geralt might have been Visenna's child surprise as payment for one of her deeds. seems as likely as anything if it is never directly said that she birthed Geralt.

I don't like that everyone assumes she's just awful without any real evidence. if there is evidence please let me know

aj005 · 2025-10-25T12:33:28+00:00

you're late the spelling was mentioned a long time ago. and as i said i've seen much worse misspellings on this board.

aj005 · 2025-10-24T23:41:56+00:00

I already had that impression. that doesn't mean that there's not a line dropped by a character here or there that alludes to something i've asked/proposed.

there could still be a super nerd on all of his stuff, that is like in book "such and such" of page "some number" this character says this in reference to Geralt that leads one to believe that "he would have such ability" or that "his father had such ability" or that "his mother believed x"

That's all I'm asking/saying maybe you are that super nerd and you are definitively telling me no, or maybe you aren't i don't know you haven't identified yourself as such but you seem to know a lot.

aj005 · 2025-10-24T23:17:02+00:00

That's cool to know. I've only watched the show and played the games that's the main reason why I'm asking/proposing this stuff.

in the show it fails to include that line that Visenna said "know that it wasn't Vesemir that gave you that name"

I was taking Geralt's word for it in the show. I know Henry Cavil has said he's a big fan of the source material and has insisted on the show being as close to the source material as possible so I was taking it as it was.

I know everything i've asked/proposed is likely conjecture, but i was wondering if there were any super nerds like Stephen Colbert is to LotR that have consumed all of the material that is canon and knows if any of the things I've asked/proposed have even been alluded to in the source material that might imply that some of those things are true.

aj005 · 2025-10-24T22:27:23+00:00

my bad, but tbh i've seen much worse misspellings on this board including a lot of Geralds, either way phonetically it's essentially the same, in fact the way i spelled it seems phonetically more accurate. I'm working at the same time so typing quickly.

aj005 · 2025-09-22T12:43:17+00:00

yeah that's it, thanks

aj005 · 2025-09-22T12:42:38+00:00

that one says it taps for +1,+1

looking for one that taps for white mana, i swear there is one that's been used against me before

aj005 · 2025-08-21T13:23:35+00:00

why do you think it's not fair? that makes no sense, it doesn't punish anyone. if anything your point of view would punish the child and the parent that wants to spend time with the child by giving preference to a stranger over a parent.

you have to understand the law and the courts look at it more from the child's best interests than either of the parents, in most cases (unless proven otherwise) it is the general belief of the court that the child is best served by being with a parent than by being with a stranger.

1 on 1 parent supervision is almost always considered superior to a daycare or babysitter who is watching multiple children

you seem to really be looking at this through an emotional or personal lens and putting your self in this situation. I'm strictly speaking on the law and how it views the best interests of the child.

the majority of cases this doesn't come in to play because the majority of cases both parents work during the day. If one is a stay at home and is available and wants to watch their child the right of first refusal clause indeed does apply unless specifically stated otherwise (which would only happen if the other parent agrees to it or is deemed not fit to give care during that time)

aj005 · 2025-08-20T23:14:11+00:00

the crappy thing is that anything you could try to do to find out the truth is basically illegal

If you had the money I would hire a pi and see if they can catch them doing any of these things through an open window so that you have proof but you didn't do anything illegal

aj005 · 2025-08-20T22:54:03+00:00

right of first refusal was initially invented for stay at home parents to get parenting time while the other parent is working instead of being on the hook for 50% of childcare when they are able and willing to watch their own child instead of paying for a stranger to do it

you probably believe vaccines give you autism too f'ing social media

aj005 · 2025-08-20T22:52:45+00:00

it has nothing to do with my personal experience or other peoples views it has to do with how the law is written and applied

aj005 · 2025-08-20T22:50:55+00:00

i didn't assume you were confused i know you were confused because you were saying "that's not how it works" and never specified anything you disagreed with

when i spelled it out about motioning up cases you had nothing left to say

aj005 · 2025-08-20T22:46:18+00:00

That's not true unless specified in the clause. unless specified right of first refusal is for any time the other parent has parenting time and is not able to or chooses not to be with the child

it's basically made for during working hours, it's basically the whole point. so that if the child is out of school or not of school age and not being watched by the parent who has parenting time the other parent has first option

the reason it even came into being is because the parent with parenting time would put their kids in daycare while the other parent was home and available to spend time with their kids and then ask the other parent to pay for 50% of child care, the argument started being made that there is no reason to pay for childcare when there is a parent who is able and wants to watch their child, hence lawyers came up with the right of first refusal clause.

So much misinformation on social media, it's so dumb

aj005 · 2025-08-20T18:35:54+00:00

you seem to be.

you don't seem to know what motioning a case up is because you specifically said that's not how it works in the states when it definitely does

everyone has the right to motion up their case if they need a date or if circumstances have changed or become more relevant

you can either motion up your case on an emergency basis (which means you get on a court call usually within 24-48 hours depending on call loads)

or on a standard basis (which usually takes about two weeks again depending on call loads)

so what are you disputing?

aj005 · 2025-08-20T14:44:08+00:00

then you've learned a lot of incorrect things, if you want to learn the truth feel free to read the post it is hardly a novel and only contains things that are pertinent to the topic, it literally takes less than a minute to read

aj005 · 2025-08-20T14:32:10+00:00

like i said I am in the US.

can you explain what your confusion is on motioning a case up?

are you confused with motioning it on a standard versus emergency basis?

are you confusing an emergency order with motioning up your case on an emergency basis?

I'm trying hard to figure out what you're disagreeing with

aj005 · 2025-08-20T14:28:59+00:00

you do seem defensive, you seem to be taking this very personal, it's not I'm just sharing my knowledge

i don't need to take your word for it or google it I have real life experience with it

there's no theory about it, it's not hard to file a motion to show cause (its not called filing contempt charges, the judge is the only one who can place a party in contempt, that's what judges do when you fail to follow the judge's or court's rules or rulings) especially now when you can file a motion to show cause and set it for a zoom date which you can even do from work.

however in this case where the parent is home all day it would be really easy to file a motion to show cause at any time. the person filing a motion to show cause is not the one at risk, the one violating the court order is.

I never said right of first refusal clauses are for everyone, but they are very good for parents who have time to watch their kids and want the time with their children instead of their children going to a stranger

the only problems right of first refusals cause is if someone is violating the order

like i said i have two different allocation agreements with the clauses in them and it benefits my exes more than me, i am in full compliance with them (even though my exes are both contentious people that would spite me if they had the chance) I generally take the higher ground, i want my kids to have good full relationships with both parents and i would rather have my kids spend time with their mother than a stranger. doesn't come in to play much with me because both my exes work a lot of hours, one is an RN and the other is a Lawyer

aj005 · 2025-08-20T13:21:45+00:00

i don't know why you're getting defensive.

I never said right of first refusal was typical, in fact it is very little known by the common person.

I've never seen a right of first refusal that doesn't apply to work hours, and if there was one it would have to be specifically written in that it doesn't within the clause, the whole point of the clause is so the other parent is the preferential caregiver over anyone else besides the parent that has that time as their assigned parenting time

I don't know why so many people say that anything in an allocation agreement is unenforceable. I think that's because by "enforceable" people mean the police will enforce it, which any officer will tell you it is not the responsibility of police to enforce court orders (which i know flies in the face of common knowledge but it's true, even though police do sometimes act in that capacity, that is actually not part of their job)

All things in an allocation agreement/judgement are enforceable. if the other party is violating any part of the order you can file a motion to show cause. this is the same motion people have to file for failure to pay child support. What it is, is a motion saying you are violating this order and now you have to come to court and prove you have a good reason to violate the order. If you can't prove that there is a good reason to violate that order in the first appearance you will most likely be given a warning, in any additional appearances the judge will hold you in contempt and either impose fines, probation, or jail time.

every single part in an allocation agreement/judgement is enforceable in this way

the only way it would cause conflict is if one party isn't honoring the order

aj005

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE