Your Political Side in The Witcher 3.

[Kylestien]

Your Political Side in The Witcher 3.

Okay, so we all know that in the Witcher 3 there will be war between The Northern Realms and Niffguard. My question is this:

People will doubtless wonder where your loyalties lie. Well? Do you side with the Nilfguardian Empire, the currently chaotic Northern Realms, or are you just going to stay out of it altogether? And why?

Also, I probably spelled everything wrong XD.

 

[caspartine]

Once you read the books, this one might be a tough call, taking into account the relationship between Emhyr, Geralt, Ciri, and what they have been through...

Yes, Geralt alwyas tells everyone, that he's neutral and want to stay neutral, out of politics, out of any power struggles....yeah, we know how this ends, don't we? He's constantly being used. Personally, I would think he doesn't really care who wins.

Afterall, he is a witcher, as long as there are monsters to slay, people to pay him for it, he couldn't care less, what currency he is paid in. One would think he must feel at least a bit patriotic about northern kingdoms, where he comes from, but must he? People scorn him no matter where he goes. In the end, what drives his decisions, are the people he cares about.

 

[OliverDK]

I will try and stay out of politics whenever I can avoid it but I am sure I will be involved in it somehow in which case I will try my best to pick the less gray/evil options that serves the common people in the long run. However if history is anything to go by that is not an easy feat.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Is the spelling error intended to pun them?

It's Nilfgaard...


Oh, and of course neutrality. My Geralt will try to stay out of all the political hassle as far as possible.

 

[Klavi]

Going neutral is probably the best and easiest choice, like usual. I don't mind the Nilfgaard at all, but Triss is probably going to explode if I even think about helping them. And working for the North seems like a waste of time, now that Foltest and Temeria are gone, and Radovid controls pretty much everything.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

Well, I will forever always be against the aggressors. Always. I just can't stand those who can't leave well enough alone and hunger for more.

Sure, Temeria hasn't been the most peaceful nation, nor Kaedwen for that matter, but to me Nilfgaard seems way worse. Emperor Emhyr var Emreis probably couldn't stop all those well-oiled war machines even if he wanted to. But he doesn't does he? Why does always someone powerful want more power?

All I see is a grand schemer that is busy taking over as much as he can, forcing his people to march and fight, so no one in the empire can focus on how that empire is ruled.

Spoiler

He used witchers as assassins for crying out loud!

Of course, you can flip this however you want and always opt for the one side or the other, various motivations included.

But if I'm allowed to make a choice then I'll wrap myself in blue and golden lilies.

Allow me to quote Bertram Tung from Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines: "Whenever there is an ounce of power to be had, there will be people dickin each other over."

 

[Ljesnjanin]

Plough Nilfgaard and The Northern Realms!

 

[Darth-Death]

Watch both realms burn and then fly away with love interest on a magical unicorn.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Watch both realms burn and then fly away with love interest on a magical unicorn.

All unicorns in the Witcher world are magical...

 

[blameless75]

But it's an interesting question really, because you see Nilfgaard bringing more security and better condition to the inhabitants e.g. when the commander does not want to take too much from the peasants or on the message board in the village you see sth. like "Everyone is required to go and burn rotten corpses following the combats. This has long been a standard in the civilized world and now we are setting it up here too."
So it's not exactly the 100% evil enemy that you usually see in video games.

Also I noted Vesemir seems unconditionally against Nilfgaard in the intro. Personally I must say I am tempted to not go against the local resistance because they are risking their life to try and defend their sovereignty.

 

[mecha_fish]

Given how witchers are treated in Nilfgaard according to Letho and that Nilfgaard are trying to stir up violence against sorcerers and witchers, I wouldn't make any kind of move to favour Nilfgaard. Plus they don't like beards. My envisioning of Geralt is that he doesn't directly take part in the political power struggles of the continent, but would be more inclined to assist the Nordlings since that's a culture he's familiar with -- regardless of their previous treatment of him and his kind in the past.

There is that stuff with Emhyr, but for me, although Emhyr and Geralt know each other, I don't think they're such great mates. I mean,

Spoiler

his being incestuous and being a terrible indirect antagonist in Ciri's life would probably put him on the 'not someone i want to assist if i can help it' list

I'll give the air of being neutral and I'll avoid poltical conflict, but if I get shoved into it, Northern Kingdoms are a must.

On this note -- I hear the Squirrels are having a less of a play in the main events, but if you're put in a position in regards to them, what would you do?

 

[MomoSinX]

I replayed both W1 and W2 to have a save for W3. I decided to side with Siegfried in W1 because he was a good guy and you get to be buddies again in W2. I only involved myself in polotics because of him and tried to remain neutral in other stuff. In W2 I was fully neutral and didn't give a damn about politics only my personal problems. I will do de the same in W3 (and hope to get to meet Letho again!). Nilfgaard really pissed me off in W2 so there is no way I am gonna help them. I also hope I can kill the Emperor because he is an asshole and caused major shitstorm for me.

 

[Klavi]

Given how witchers are treated in Nilfgaard according to Letho and that Nilfgaard are trying to stir up violence against sorcerers and witchers, I wouldn't make any kind of move to favour Nilfgaard.

Wait, how are they treated? Emhyr promised to revive the Viper school, so he can't really have anything against the witchers.
Sure, magic users aren't having a great time there, but it's understandable. How did the sorceresses of the North use their power, wealth and great treatment? Killed three rulers and brainwashed a dragon. It's only reasonable for Emhyr to keep his mages on a leash.

 

[Sephira]

Look, I don't want to get involved in politics if I can avoid it. Let them fight it out.

But I'd like to settle in Kovir & Poviss. 8)

 

[moonknightgog]

I think...I will go neutral if the quest design allow me to choice in this way.
Even in TW2, I chose Iorveth instead of Roche, because the motivation with Iorveth was to find Triss.

 

[Aryvandaar]

Either the Northern realms or neutral, neutral meaning I will just kill anyone who appears to be monsters. :fury:

 

[Ljesnjanin]

Geralt should be much more concerned about the state of Yenn's curls than Northern Kingdoms, imho...

 

[mecha_fish]

Wait, how are they treated? Emhyr promised to revive the Viper school, so he can't really have anything against the witchers.
Sure, magic users aren't having a great time there, but it's understandable. How did the sorceresses of the North use their power, wealth and great treatment? Killed three rulers and brainwashed a dragon. It's only reasonable for Emhyr to keep his mages on a leash.

They weren't allowed in cities and they were threatened to the point where they had to go into hiding. Emhyr promised that he was going to revive the School of the Viper, but shortly after Letho said that Geralt pointed out that he'd been manipulated. The Emperor doesn't have any motivation to honour that promise -- he has every political motivation to wipe witchers out or use them as his tools.
I think Emhyr does more than keep them on a leash. He's suffocating them to the point that it's governing the lives of those magically gifted with fear. That's not okay. The Lodge only meant to kill one ruler, the other two were Nilfgaard's doing.

I see your avatar and nod in understanding

 

[Klavi]

They weren't allowed in cities and they were threatened to the point where they had to go into hiding. Emhyr promised that he was going to revive the School of the Viper, but shortly after Letho said that Geralt pointed out that he'd been manipulated. The Emperor doesn't have any motivation to honour that promise -- he has every political motivation to wipe witchers out or use them as his tools.

I honestly don't remember Nilfs targeting witchers specifically, is that from the books? And while Emhyr doesn't have to honor the agreement, he's not the kind of man that would just go back on his word. Not to mention that he's done similar things before, with Dol Blathanna.
As for sorceresses - the Lodge "meant" to kill only one, Phili was behind Vizimir's death, and their collective incompetence doomed Foltest. They have their uses, but all the scheming is a good reason to be very wary of them.

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

I'm going to try and do what I think is right, without any thought of which side I'm fighting for, but if I had to choose I'd pick Nilfgaard. I disagree with a lot of the shit they do and the invasion will likely destroy hundreds of thousands lives, but I think most peoples lives will start to improve under Emhyr's rule. Not to mention that if that end of times crap is real (and judging from the books ancient prophecies should probably be taken seriously) then a ruler with absolute authority over the entire continent and who's made it his life's mission to prepare for the approaching Ice age, is probably their best shot of survival.