This emerged in the middle of writing up thoughts on Ciri and Avallac'h based on the books alone.
---
The Witcher’s theme of choice and destiny is complicated by psychological barriers – one must be emotionally ready to accept the way the dice can fall.
Interestingly, Avallac’h’s rejection mirrors how Lara rejected the plans for her destiny. His rejection of Ciri's offer ironically puts him in the position of resisting destiny – the very 'crime' he condemned Lara for committing.
Elves had plans for Lara – to stay and have special children. She rejected this. Elven goals were upended.
For Ciri, Avallac’h has orchestrated a destiny, but when Ciri gets sick of the official programme not working out and offers herself to him directly – effectively suggesting getting the goal they want faster – she gets rebuked. She’s creating an unexpected path to achieving the elves’ goals; one where she shows agency in choosing the father.
In poetic justice, Avallac’h is mirroring Lara’s rejection of the elves’ plans: the man who spent centuries judging Lara for prioritizing personal choice over racial destiny ends up making essentially the same choice, but from the opposite side of the equation. In rejecting Ciri's offer at that point, he implicitly asserts that the manner in which destiny unfolds matters, not just the outcome.
Avallac’h, however, seems blind to this parallel between himself and Lara.
This suggests though, that perhaps Avallac'h's centuries of resentment toward Lara concealed a deeper, unacknowledged understanding of her choice – one that surfaces in his own moment of revelation. You cannot force it if you are not ready for it, but avoiding it will bring consequences. The sword of destiny is double-edged.
Sapkowski often structures his narrative so as to force characters to confront their own contradictions, often without them fully recognizing the pattern they’re repeating or inverting.
