Recruiting for Nilfgaard

+
I hope that Emhyr will have ambitions to grant equal citizenship to the people of his empire. If he wants to, it would make siding with Nilfgaard more agreeable to me.

I tend to respectfully disagree...:)
You have such a scary and misterious evil guy -that would be the real appeal of the character to me, he is unapologetically EVIL-, that breaths and sleeps for POWER basically... But the moment you start to paint him in a better light, is the moment you whitewash and weaken him as a character...

It would be the same as to say "I love LOKI so much, he's such a great character; I'd love to see a story in which he sides faithfully with THOR and is a total bro"... But then HE WOULDNT BE LOKI... Ridiculous... :p
 
I tend to respectfully disagree...:)
You have such a scary and misterious evil guy -that would be the real appeal of the character to me, he is unapologetically EVIL-, that breaths and sleeps for POWER basically... But the moment you start to paint him in a better light, is the moment you whitewash and weaken him as a character...

You know it is actually nearly a contradiction - to claim that someone is mysterious, and to claim that he is evil. If you only played the games, there is practically nothing about Emhyr there. Just because people treat Nilfgaard as a boogyman, does not mean that it is an empire of evil akin Mordor, and Emhyr is a big bad evil guy. Probably Northern barbarians perceived the Roman Empire the same way, but it does not mean that some conquering emperor, like Trojan, for example, is an evil guy who just wants more power.

I sure hope CDPR droped all these high fantasy LOTR-type cliches, and won't treat Nilfgaard as another Mordor, and Emhys as another Sauron. In terms of mature dark fantasy, such a juvenile moral absolutism is a no-go. Equating Emhyr with villains from comic books is unwarranted, to put it mildly, and was never Sapkowski's intention. As he told in one of the interviews, he modeled Nilfgaard by the Roman Empire, and no black/white morality was anywhere near his view on this matter.
 
Well I full wholeheartedly support the need of a complex, interesting villain, not a cartoon, or a black and white option (as in Tolkien). You can still have a villain and make it charismatic (as in John Silver), WITHOUT whitewashing any of his ugly bits.

But my point was just a reaction to Knight's usual fanboism towards antagonists, and his tendency to portray them more "likeable" than they really are. I tend to think (as I said) that giving a villain some common "likeable" traits woudl be an error, cause thats not why they shine as characters. As an example, making Emhir earnest in a social welfare agenda towards his citizens - when he really is a warmonger to the core-, would only make him difficult to believe as a character...
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, a villain in a story is someone bent on doing bad things and a source of a conflict or some disaster, and being a villain is a role in the narrative, and not a moral evaluation of a character. But, concerning TW saga, why to have characters that are villains, at all? In TW2 there is no villain as such because nobody actually plays this role. People do a lot of bad things, but no one is a villain. In TW2 even Dethmold is not a villain, just a bad guy. Philipa is not a villain, and Letho is surely not one. Loredo comes closest, but he is a sociopath raised by a schizophrenic mother who is a bit too much into Ithlinne's prophecy. But Loredo and his mother are aberrations from the norm, and they do not play a role of a grand enemy. I would say let's all these villains stay in high fantasy, and in TW3 let characters just be people with motives, good or bad. I don't want CDPR make a villain even out of WH.
 
Praise the Great Sun!
 
I tend to respectfully disagree...:)
It would be the same as to say "I love LOKI so much, he's such a great character; I'd love to see a story in which he sides faithfully with THOR and is a total bro"... But then HE WOULDNT BE LOKI... Ridiculous... :p

There are a mass of Sagas where Loki is Thor's faithful and ingenious companion, he had a revered place among the Aesir until his Flyting and deception of Hod. Loki's a very complicated character, with a definite arc.
 
There are a mass of Sagas where Loki is Thor's faithful and ingenious companion, he had a revered place among the Aesir until his Flyting and deception of Hod. Loki's a very complicated character, with a definite arc.

I'm aware of that, but in my opinion the whole "trickster" personality works because he's never been the most powerful guy around, hes just creating problems and gettting people in trouble, he's not head of any kingdom or anything...

With the Emperor of Nilfgaard, you got the most powerful character among the monarcs, and he got there by being ruthless.... He has a lot to loose by turning "nice".
 
Well ushering in electoral reforms and such doesn't have to be the actions of a "nice" guy, it could be simply robbing one power group of their authority while empowering another, or gaining the backing of the mob. Ceaser was such a man, immensely popular with the common man but equally a ruthless bastard and a bitter foe, it's all part of the political game. Some of the greatest acts of freedom have been struck by utter villains, though personally I don't judge Emhyr as being one, he's merely surviving in a pit of snakes by being the most poisonous.

From what we read of him I wouldn't say he's simply evil, but that's open to interpretation I suppose so your view is equally valid.
 
I tend to respectfully disagree...:)
You have such a scary and misterious evil guy -that would be the real appeal of the character to me, he is unapologetically EVIL-, that breaths and sleeps for POWER basically... But the moment you start to paint him in a better light, is the moment you whitewash and weaken him as a character...

It would be the same as to say "I love LOKI so much, he's such a great character; I'd love to see a story in which he sides faithfully with THOR and is a total bro"... But then HE WOULDNT BE LOKI... Ridiculous... :p

Yet I let Foltest's murderer walk, cuz he was such an universally evil guy.
 
If Emhyr will help Geralt to find Ciri ... Then I will join the badass Black Legions ...

Just so we're on the same wavelength here: you do remember what exactly Emhyr was planning on doing with (... I should rather say "to") Ciri in the first place? I also hope you remember who exactly he is in relationship to her.

Emhyr is Ciri's father. He intended to impregnate her because he believed this was the only way out of Ithlinne's Prophecy. Ciri does not know this.

Now, knowing this, and remembering how well Geralt's last meeting went with Emhyr, why oh why would you ever trust the man to help you find Ciri? Leaving aside the fact that learning the truth about Emhyr and his plans (the reason he wanted to kill Geralt in the first place) would emotionally shatter her, there is no sane reason to want to give Emhyr the slightest indication of her whereabouts.


If Emhyr comes and tells me "Here, let me help you find her", I swear I'm handing him over to Yen. Sorry for the pro-nilfgaardians, but I won't hesitate.
 
Now, knowing this, and remembering how well Geralt's last meeting went with Emhyr, why oh why would you ever trust the man to help you find Ciri?

Actually, I do, and that's why I greatly respect him. People who believe in prophecies, tend to do crazy things, and they become addicted to all this crap. Even in RL, when people start believing things like this, they become utterly irrational. It is very hard to break from such obsession with a future, and to stop attempting to "fix" destiny. Loredo and his mom are a fine example.
As I saw it, Emhy was nearly like this, obsessed, but in the end he found strength of will to stop, think it all over, and realize what he was doing. And he chose to walk away from it all, from his plans about Ciri, and let them just live their lives. He did not need to do it because at this point he won - Ciri was his to do as he pleased. That was pretty incredible to see such restraint in the world of the witcher where, it seems, practically everybody is doing whatever a hell he or she wants.

So concerning Ciri, he should be the first stop for Geralt to go if he really needs help because besides Geralt and Yen Emhyr is the only one who truly cares. .
 
I am Emhyr Var Emreis, a spice merchant

I actually emailed the devs about that comment, wondering if they meant that as a joke(of course they did). I had the greatest faith in the devs but, I didn't hear any sarcasm on Roche's voice. Any indication of it by intonation or stress. Granted, this was the gamespot interview at E3 2010 mind you, so I didn't hear much of the game because of the interview with Tomasz Gop.

I stated that making the irony clearer(for those who had no idea who Emhyr is) or just showing that Roche wasn't serious was the path to go.

Don't know if they took my(particular) advice to heart, but I do know that in the finished game the irony is quite clear, and also enhanced by the soldier's comment on Roche being a spice merchant named Emhyr.

At least I was praised for being the only one reacting on the comment and Emhyr's name. I felt mighty proud I tell you. I was a very young(new) witcher(fan) at the time. :laughing:
 
But my point was just a reaction to Knight's usual fanboism towards antagonists, and his tendency to portray them more "likeable" than they really are.

Because you assume that I suggested that to make Emhyr necessarily "likeable" out of my "usual fanboyism."

The granting of equal citizenship would be one of the means the Emperor can solidify his control, by essentially countering the nobility and amassing massive popular support. In other words, he'd acquire more power.

But if by "fanboyism" you mean I don't view the world as simply as to proclaim quest for power = evil, then yes I'm a fanboy.
 
Well well, I like how people bring the misconceptions about Tolkien here, this so called black and white morality is oversimplification. If anyone tried to classify it, the whole case would like mind boggling, black and grey and white it's not as simple as you think, in Tolkien's Middle Eartth there is plenty of people that are genuinely good there are loads of people morally questionable doing evil things but not classified as evil those who are good but flawed (some minor flaws or great, even those sweet, brave hobbits are mean, petty, greedy, superstitious, isolationistic and almost xenophobic in their ways but they care little for power their ambitions are limited to well fare of their families, clans, good food, peace and quiet, they are in a way anarchists but have tradition of central rule of kings, in the same time it is the head of families that are governing their own affairs and Shire has little or no government, even Frodo has flaws he has stereotyped view on race of Men, he is stern for Gollum and at first hates him, he is often foolhardy, at times reckless of course a typical hobbit traits, he is in fact a little man in great shcem of thigns, he represents an average person raising to the challenge) and those ,,good and noble" dwarves they are super greedy materialists that will remember better than you any debts or services rendered, fast in enmity, secretive in their culture and knowledge to the point of xenophobia, they too can be petty, vengeful, cruel, filled with hate and grievances and of course racism, then we have elves wiser than most peoples and yet they can be as dangerous (if not more) than all the others and then we have Men, the race of great potential and even greater affinity to be total jerks, there you have it racism and distrust (may I remind about an individual called Castamir the Usurper who owed his name as usurpator to the throne and slayer of his relatives from royal family, who started out the civil war in Gondor simply because he was a racist towards lesser men and his followers were alike, he was a cruel man whose rule was highly beneficial to the people of the coastlands as he drew resources for development of navy and he planned to make his capital at Pelargir the largest port of Numenorean origin, he was against the Eldacar the half-numenorean heir to the throne whose mother was of the Northmen the princess Vidumavi and those who pursed the pure blood policy were outraged that this half blood would ascend to the throne, of course Castamir killed Eldacar's son and the destruction his army caused ,,far exceeded the needs of war" meaning he took capital city of Osgiliath by assault and caused great slaughter and destruction) after he was killed Castamir's sons and many other rebels escaped to seize power in Umbar starting out Castamirioni dynasty and of course the opposition of later kings too sought refuge in escape to Umbar strengthening political enamies of Gondor. I think that it is not needed here to remind about history of Numenor how they became colonial empire with great ,,treasure fleets" that at first were benevolent for natives but soon their pride grew so much that they persecuted the local population (as well as treatment of Numenorean faction of Faithful who also were persecuted for a long time in Numenor itself) and this nation the Numenoreans were blessed with greatest gifts among mankind wisdom and knowledge other men couldn't hoped for, longevity, they were physically altered to be stronger and taller than any other people and with other great abilities and yet they fell to standard weaknesses of man. Then we have mentioned by many ,,but Mordor is pure evil" well what is Mordor? It's a land, base of operations and it earned bad fame which is understandable, from there hordes o merciless invadors come to pillage and burn, dark creatures, bred monsters and works of sorcery come from there, but it is also something more, military base with proper order where each army unit is pushed into place like pawns on board a great chessboard in the mind of it's sole unquestionable ruler. There are mines and forges there, fortifications, armouries, walls and strongholds, net of well made roads for easy communication and transport, each orc has number and rank and there is clear chain of command, there are whole shanty towns of huts and drab buildings of Men and Orcs, there are fertile fields and thousands of slaves working, tunnels and caves, fortified military camps a la ancient Rome (black and red tents set in order or buildings surrounded by defensive walls with whole streets bustling with activity, it's a vision of order in the mind of it's sole guiding force, because this is Sauron's purpose power and new order according to his designs, power over minds of sentient beings with their independent wills (he likes riches too why he demended from orcs that plundered Moria tribute in mithril or why there are whole wagon trains of goods, booty, fresh slaves and tributes from conquered or tributay lands of his vast empire in the East and South, of course orcs still can be a bit unruly especially if they come from breeds of more or less independent tribes and clans that serve unwillingly in wars of the Dark Lord, or whne he overdoes it with magically filling them with hate adn fury to fight better hehe, but the iron rule of ,,god-king" Sauron puts them quickly in place :):):) in fact Tolkien writes that he started out as all tyrants do, from the benevolent notions of improving the lives of sentient beings on Arda, ,,nothing is evil in the beginning even Sauron was not so")

Now to the Nilfgaard we go, as for possibility of joining with it I rather doubt that. First of all from what I read about Witcher 3 it will be more personal story so it wouldn't be a great surprise if any world shattering policies going on (and the invasion in progress) would be rather less important than personal pursuits of Geralt, as for his attitude towards the emperor as he already regained memory he would know exactly what Emhyr did and why and as we see in The Baptism of Fire he clearly disaproved the Nilfgaardian ways (which I will cite again from other work of fiction ,,far exceeded the needs of war" :)) even during his talk with Fulko Artevelde there is this personal attitude towards empire adn it's internal workings (Geralt does not hesitate to accordinlgy judge what he sees, he saw the nilfgaardian colonists being resettled in Northern Kingdoms after the war and he clearly despised their cruel treatment, in fact Dandelion reminded him to not get himself involved thinking that he would intervene, so he was critical towards Nordlings too, he is cynical but he sees in his mind what's wrong and what's not, so I would not rule this out, after all we have a set character to play as and thought some freedoms are for the players it would be a bit non-character to assume that Geralt just like that would suddenly be freinds with Emhyr). Geralt at one point claimed that he would work for nilfgaardians to protect nilfgaardian children for money at the ruins of the world if he had to, but that in my opinion was simply his stance of neutrality being brought up to discourage Triss trying to involve him in conflict (Blood of Elves), Triss if I remember too had critical attitude towards empire adn the destruciton and suffering the war brought to the people (and not simply because she fought against them on Sodden hill or that her position as sorceress in Nilfgaard would be compromised, she tells that consumed by fear she knew no more whether she fought for interests of mages or policies of kings, she despised her moment of cowardice but she tells Geralt that they the fourteen from Sodden Hill stood there because it was right thing to do). Geralt also isn't a great hero but he is more noble than he thinks himself, why when Ciri tells that she would stand with Triss to fight he rebuts that she will stop learning the sword fight unless she'll understand what sword means in witcher's hand. Moral relativity of our times is astounding sometimes, are we to justify the cruelty and evil because...it's complicated and nothing is purely good or bad?!
 
Top Bottom