Does the game promotes imperialism?[spoilers]

[DuranA]

Pros: Greater freedom, slavery banned, respect on Magic users

Greater Freedom? How exactly since they are all absolutist monarchies.

How is slavery banned in the North but not banned in Nilfgaard? Maybe I missed something I never saw this mentioned, in fact slavery barely ever gets mentioned.

economic struggles(largely due to Nilfgaards aggresive politics)

Wrong, the North can only blame itself and it's pointless wars between rival kingdoms for all it's problem. The devastation caused by Nilfgaard is certainly real but to put the blame largely on Nilfgaard for the economic woes of all the north is rather ludicrous.

much stricter rule with harsher punishments(so stability enforced through fear)

Exactly how is Nilfgaard harsher in terms legal punishments then the North?

I think the idea of Nilfgaard winning being the "good" option is mostly a fan invention of the forums. The game is very clear about Nilfgaard's atrocities throughout the game.

No it's not. The Nilfgaardian victory ending is clearly portrayed as the best ending, with the only negative connotation being that Nilfgaard slaughtered the opposition, but then again I find it extremely hard to give two shits about people that were preparing to murder Emhyr in cold blood because he wouldn't fuck one of their daughters to produce an heir.

The choice in game is very clear cut. Radovid is a maniac that needs to be stopped before he butchers thousands of innocents while Dijkstra is a scumbag for betraying Thaler and Roche after they all came together and negotiated terms with Nilfgaard. All the games and the books make it very clear Geralt would never let his friends die. Geralt letting Roche die would be akin to Geralt letting Milva or Regis die.

You may complain about the lack of nuance and the way the choices were handled but it's very clear Nilfgaard is the best choice. All the examples you gave of Nilfgaardian "evil" pale in comparison to the massacres committed by the North.

 

[CTPhipps]

No it's not. The Nilfgaardian victory ending is clearly portrayed as the best ending, with the only negative connotation being that Nilfgaard slaughtered the opposition, but then again I find it extremely hard to give two shits about people that were preparing to murder Emhyr in cold because he wouldn't fuck one of their daughters to produce an heir.

I disagree with it being depicted as the best ending. But that's entirely a matter of interpretation.

The choice in game is very clear cut. Radovid is a maniac that needs to be stopped before he butchers thousands of innocents while Dijkstra is a scumbag for betraying Thaler and Roche after they all came together and negotiated terms with Nilfgaard. All the games and the books make it very clear Geralt would never let his friends die. Geralt letting Roche die would be akin to Geralt letting Milva or Regis die.

Geralt thought Renfi was a good person and they made a strong connection. He still killed her to stop her massacring the citizens of Blavaiken. Geralt walking away "felt right" even though it was something he wasn't happy about.

Both groups of his friends were scum in that scene.

You may complain about the lack of nuance and the way the choices were handled but it's very clear Nilfgaard is the best choice. All the examples you gave of Nilfgaardian "evil" pale in comparison to the massacres committed by the North.

I don't play poker with the lives of people. There's no, "This group is better than this group" when dealing with nations in a world as morally gray as the Witcher.

If you think I am, that's a misinterpretation.

Then again, everyone seems to be ignoring how much I loathe the North because I'm insulting Holy Nilfgaard.

 

[DuranA]

It's no matter of interpretation. It's someone looking at the facts from a logical objective perspective without allowing his or her bias getting in the way and someone letting their bias determine how they view things.

You are clearly letting your bias control the way you view things, the numerous posts about how Nilfgaard is evil confirm this.

The way the choices are handled when presented make it very clear that doing anything other then helping Roche is the bad call, you may feel otherwise but that's how that choice was built.

 

[CTPhipps]

It's no matter of interpretation. It's someone looking at the facts from a logical objective perspective without allowing his or her bias getting in the way and someone letting their bias determine how they view things.

You are clearly letting your bias control the way you view things, the numerous posts about how Nilfgaard is evil confirm this.

You have yet to give a single defense of Nilfgaard's actions so I'm not sure what you mean. Your response to my post listing out Nilfgaard atrocities is, "You just hate Nilfgaard."

Really?

I'm open to any sort of debate on the subject here and like Nilfgaard a great deal. They have better education, better clothes, and are out for world domination but SO IS EVERYONE ELSE.

But my ancestors were people brutalized under the statement, "We're bringing X group civilization."

The way the choices are handled when presented make it very clear that doing anything other then helping Roche is the bad call, you may feel otherwise but that's how that choice was built.

I don't disagree with the presentation, you're right. That was weird.

 

[saricc]

It is strange that everyone say nilfgard treats nonhuman better yet we never see any nonhuman nilfgardian, no elves or dwarves in army or some high ranking officer, or atleast some elven mage, they are all humans, correct me if i am wrong if anyone see any in games, plus i dont think all north is bad for nonhumans and mages its mostly Redania or Radovid realms after invasion

Well, for one thing Nilfgaardians are almost all part elf. That's why they consider themselves better than the nordlings. They have the blood of the elder races flowing through their veins. They were also the creators of the Scoia'Tael. By doing that they were able to establish a semi-independent vassal state of elves in the Valley of Flowers (that's in Aedirn, described as one of the more racist Kingdoms). They end up betraying the Scoia'tael commanders at the end of the books, but they make sure that all of their subordinates are spared out of respect.

Really though, it has never been shown how nonhumans are treated in Nilfgaard. It's just stated by some reliable people that they are treated with much more dignity and respect than they ever were in the North.

---------- Updated at 10:09 PM ----------

Nilfgaard is a country of conquerors and warmongers. Conquerors and warmongers that bring peace and prosperity when all is said in done. In that way they are very similar to the Roman Empire. This version of imperialism is much different than 18th century imperialism. Not that it is right, but it is a lot less brutal and exploitative. The Northern Kingdoms are essentially just warmongers and from time to time conquerors. They do not intend to bring peace and prosperity. They only wish for power and wealth.

Furthermore Nilfgaard respects other races. Unlike the North which systematically murders them. Also, Nilfgaard has slavery... Yet I don't see the difference between that and feudalism for the average peasant. To me that's just slavery by a different name.

But I guess I should answer the question instead of just telling you which poison I prefer. No, the game does not promote imperialism, it simply shows what happens after Romanesque Imperialism in a realistic way.

Anywho... I kinda want the North to be shown in a more positive light. Lets see the Kingdom of Kovir and Poviss! Haven't heard much about racism there, we know they still treat mages with respect, but not only that they're peaceful and rich.

 

[carlos2033]

Well, for one thing Nilfgaardians are almost all part elf. That's why they consider themselves better than the nordlings. They have the blood of the elder races flowing through their veins. They were also the creators of the Scoia'Tael. By doing that they were able to establish a semi-independent vassal state of elves in the Valley of Flowers (that's in Aedirn, described as one of the more racist Kingdoms). They end up betraying the Scoia'tael commanders at the end of the books, but they make sure that all of their subordinates are spared out of respect.

Really though, it has never been shown how nonhumans are treated in Nilfgaard. It's just stated by some reliable people that they are treated with much more dignity and respect than they ever were in the North.

Its probably because we play in north kingdoms and we actualy witness all bad things that hapens to nonhumans and mages, we never actually see nilfgard so its mostly rumors about ideal place for nonhumans its not i dont belive its just i think every land is equaly bad none is perfect.
Valley of Flowers not so ideal place like Iorveth call it land of sterile elves ruled by old hag

 

[saricc]

It's stated in the books that all humans descend from Elves, the elder race. Elder not eldest. It is rumoured that Nilfgaardians are closer related to elves than northerns, but is not proved. Their language is closer to the Elven though. Apart from that non humans are treated better in the south. Nilfgaard does not care much about race, but rather that you work hard and are productive in order for economy to grow.

In the North the situation is different. North was inhabited by Elves, and Humans conquered their land by force. Though it is also stated that before elves the north was the home of even elder races like dwarves and gnomes. After the takeover the relationship between non humans and humans only deriorated more. Elves attacked humans through guerilla warfare, more often than not attacking innocents as well, and humans in their turn treated Elves like crap. Putting them to ghetto's and not letting them integrate into society. Vicious Cycle and everything. The situation resembles the Israeli-Palestinian struggle over the last century but i will not expand.

As for Mages there is absolutely no doubt that they were better treated in the North than the South. In the North there were the prestigious magic schools, and Sorcerers were widely respected. Even lower ranking mages were treated well, but the high ranking ones were serving as advisors in King's courts, and usually they manipulated them. It is safe to say that sorcerers were more in charge than the actual kings. In Nilfgaard they despised magic of all forms. That was the reason of the formation of the Lodge in the first place, to preserve the well being of magic, and for the situation to not be like in Nilfgaard. The situation changed in the games, and i thought it was abit forced to depict Nilfgaard in a more postive light.

As for pros and cons in the books:
NORTH
Pros: Greater freedom, slavery banned, respect on Magic users
Cons: Racism, Instability, religious fanaticism, economic struggles(largely due to Nilfgaards aggresive politics)

NILFGAARD
Pros: Much less racism, political stability, economic growth, less religious centric-more promotion of science
Cons: Disrespect for Magic, Slavery allowed, less freedom, much stricter rule with harsher punishments(so stability enforced through fear)

Now i find it interesting that in the games, they moved the disrespect to magic on North(Radovid) and industrial growth through strict ruleship also to the north(Dijkstra), and they made nilfgaard to be the much better solution overall. Bascially the only way for the North to live in peace and prosperity is to be conquered by Nilfgaard. That is what is bothering me(abit).

Uh... No. Not all humans come from elves. Humans arrived after the conjunction of spheres, elves were on the world before. That's why they called Elder races. The northern humans were hostile towards elves, the southern ones were not. In the end the Northern humans became Nordlings, Southern humans became Nilfgaardian or conquered by Nilfgaard. The second group interbred with the elves, the first oppresses them.

Yeah, the games definitely did flip the whole respecting of mages around. The North really loved them, while Nilfgaardians pretty much oppressed them and forced them to serve the military. You have to remember though, the Northern Kings were not displeased about the Thanedd. They felt as if mages were too powerful, and wanted to weaken them.

---------- Updated at 10:15 PM ----------

Its probably because we play in north kingdoms and we actualy witness all bad things that hapens to nonhumans and mages, we never actually see nilfgard so its mostly rumors about ideal place for nonhumans its not i dont belive its just i think every land is equaly bad none is perfect.
Valley of Flowers not so ideal place like Iorveth call it land of sterile elves ruled by old hag

Iorveth's just being bitter, I think. Francesca betrayed the Scoai'tael as much as the Nilfgaardians betrayed them.

 

[CTPhipps]

Nilfgaard is a country of conquerors and warmongers. Conquerors and warmongers that bring peace and prosperity when all is said in done. In that way they are very similar to the Roman Empire. This version of imperialism is much different than 18th century imperialism. Not that it is right, but it is a lot less brutal and exploitative. The Northern Kingdoms are essentially just warmongers and from time to time conquerors. They do not intend to bring peace and prosperity. They only wish for power and wealth.

Furthermore Nilfgaard respects other races. Unlike the North which systematically murders them. Also, Nilfgaard has slavery... Yet I don't see the difference between that and feudalism for the average peasant. To me that's just slavery by a different name.

But I guess I should answer the question instead of just telling you which poison I prefer. No, the game does not promote imperialism, it simply shows what happens after Romanesque Imperialism in a realistic way.

Speaking as a historian, the idea Roman occupation was better than British occupation is pretty out there. The Romans were also no less motivated by greed, if not worse, and had the point of committing state-sanctioned atrocities en masse as a means of terrorising the populace so they could enrich the city-state of Rome. Imperialism is fundamentally based on greed, no matter which nation is doing it.

So what does this mean for the Witcher?

Well, allow me my analogy using the Witcher 2. There's a lot of hijinks going on, politics wise, in that game but what's the BIGGEST one is King Henselt vs. Nilfgaard and that pretty much is the basis of the problem. Henselt is a rapist, racist, greedy warmonger and he is a TYPICAL Northern King.

No, it's worse than that, Henselt is actually GOOD at his job. Henselt is ahead of the curve in terms of what Northern Kings are supposed to be. He's a frontline general, intelligent, surprisingly good to his soldiers, and not particularly brutal to the people he conquers (unless you're nonhuman). He's also a monster. He doesn't want the Pontar Valley to help its people, he wants it to be richer than he already is.

Just like the Nilfgaard.

At the end of the day, the situation is two SCUMMY groups of people waging war to see which gets to plant their flag on the local people. The Nilfgaard are less racist than the North but they're also religiously intolerant and greedier (as we see with their constant extolls of more produce from the people of Velen and White Orchard).

At the end of the day, though, Redania or Nilfgaard? It's all the same. Dijkstra and Emhyr are the same person more or less. Radovid is slightly worse but has the benefit of probably not killing as many people as pacifying 16 or so countries would take.

There's no GOOD option so you just stumble through as best you can.

The North is a hellhole.

But I'll try to make it a FREE hellhole.

And the sad part?

In every ending, I'll fail.

 

[carlos2033]

Iorveth's just being bitter, I think. Francesca betrayed the Scoai'tael as much as the Nilfgaardians betrayed them.

maybe but he was talking that there is not so much new one born elves

 

[CTPhipps]

Iorveth's just being bitter, I think. Francesca betrayed the Scoai'tael as much as the Nilfgaardians betrayed them.

I agree. They essentially wrote off Elf Israel because they wanted to make a plot about establishing Elf Israel.

 

[TouPoutsou]

Greater Freedom? How exactly since they are all absolutist monarchies.

How is slavery banned in the North but not banned in Nilfgaard? Maybe I missed something I never saw this mentioned, in fact slavery barely ever gets mentioned.



Wrong, the North can only blame itself and it's pointless wars between rival kingdoms for all it's problem. The devastation caused by Nilfgaard is certainly real but to put the blame largely on Nilfgaard for the economic woes of all the north is rather ludicrous.



Exactly how is Nilfgaard harsher in terms legal punishments then the North?



.

1) It's stated somewhere in the books that slavery is FORBIDDEN in northern kingdoms,while in Nilfgaard it's not. There is at least one reference about it in TW3. In Vizima you can overhear nilfgaardian nobles talking about how they are going to bring slaves to rebuild the palace. It's also stated both directly and indirectly in the books that the leadership of Nilfgaard is stricter. Executions can happen in a blink of an eye. Emhyr is almost a God King. That's not the case in the North.

2) I said largely due to Nilfgaard's aggresice politics, not entirely. The North has alot to blame itself also. HOWEVER, again in the books it is stated that after the first war against Nilfgaard, Nilfgaard started an economic warfare against the North, with embargos and everything. Largely does not mean absolutely, but it is a very contributing factor. Soviet Union was the richest state in the world in terms of resources. Still the fact that they could not trade with the west was a very contributing factor on the internal deterioration and the ultimate dissolution.

 

[CTPhipps]

maybe but he was talking that there is not so much new one born elves

That was kind of horrific.

It was, however, a pretty sweeping retcon.

---------- Updated at 10:29 PM ----------

1) It's stated somewhere in the books that slavery is FORBIDDEN in northern kingdoms,while in Nilfgaard it's not. There is at least one reference about it in TW3. In Vizima you can overhear nilfgaardian nobles talking about how they are going to bring slaves to rebuild the palace. It's also stated both directly and indirectly in the books that the leadership of Nilfgaard is stricter. Executions can happen in a blink of an eye. Emhyr is almost a God King. That's not the case in the North.

2) I said largely due to Nilfgaard's aggresice politics, not entirely. The North has alot to blame itself also. HOWEVER, again in the books it is stated that after the first war against Nilfgaard, Nilfgaard started an economic warfare against the North, with embargos and everything. Largely does not mean absolutely, but it is a very contributing factor. Soviet Union was the richest state in the world in terms of resources. Still the fact that they could not trade with the west was a very contributing factor on the internal deterioration and the ultimate dissolution.

My take on Nilfgaard is it's meant to be a Chivalric era 13th to 14th century sort of kingdom, verging on the Renassiance with absolute monarchy and immense wealth. It's the global superpower of the continent and if I were to draw a comparison, it's like the United States to the rest of the world (though the dominance of said country has gotten much-much less pronounced in recent years).

My take on the North is that they're more akin to the 12th century with the fact that monarchs are mostly just the strongest of the local lords and that kings are little more than petty nobles. The Kings have immense power and no legal restrictions but very little actual broad sweeping authority over their vassals.

To compare and contrast Nilfgaard, Nilfgaard has one absolute ruler and Temeria has one King who rules over 40 lesser Kings. We get some of this in "The Price of Neutrality" where we meet a Princess and her brother who rule as monarchs underneath King Henselt.
Nilfgaard is less superstitious, more prosperous, and more efficient in all ways. It's also more cosmopolitan.

However, the problem with Nilfgaard is all of those cultural advancements come at the price of also being far more restrictive. The Nilfgaard consider Northerners to be barbarians and not "people" so they intend to ruthlessly suppress them and exploit them for all of their wealth. Which, hell, the North isn't much better at but they're not as pronounced as that. Likewise, suppression of local culture may be GOOD in some respects with the Eternal Fire and Hag Worship but it also will kill countless innocents as well as destroy the Pro-Feminist Cult of Melethil.

 

[TouPoutsou]

I agree. They essentially wrote off Elf Israel because they wanted to make a plot about establishing Elf Israel.

Lol, it's funny how you used the argument i used before upside down. I wrote on last page:

In the North the situation is different. North was inhabited by Elves, and Humans conquered their land by force. Though it is also stated that before elves the north was the home of even elder races like dwarves and gnomes. After the takeover the relationship between non humans and humans only deriorated more. Elves attacked humans through guerilla warfare, more often than not attacking innocents as well, and humans in their turn treated Elves like crap. Putting them to ghetto's and not letting them integrate into society. Vicious Cycle and everything. The situation resembles the Israeli-Palestinian struggle over the last century but i will not expand.

So for me elves are Palestinians if anything. They were there bo
efore. Their land was conquered and after that they mostly relied on guerilla warfare and terrorism.

 

[CTPhipps]

What's interesting is that Dijkstra and Radovid are both aware that the North is going to disintegrate as it currently is either way. Ironically, the Nilfgaardian invasions are having the same effect that World War 1 and the Russo-Japanese War did on Czarist Russia. It's forcing change.

In the "Sword of Destiny" and "The Last Wish", the North was composed of hundreds of tiny little Kingdoms linked by roads and minor trade. The Nilfgaard invasions forced those kingdoms to band together into a centralized military alliance against the Nilfgaard. The Third Invasion is going to complete that transformation if the North wins.

Instead of ONE Superpower (Nilfgaard) under Radovid or Dijkstra, there will be TWO.

Nilfgaard, even if it doesn't conquer the North, is forcing it to be more like Nilfgaard.

 

[saricc]

Speaking as a historian, the idea Roman occupation was better than British occupation is pretty out there. The Romans were also no less motivated by greed, if not worse, and had the point of committing state-sanctioned atrocities en masse as a means of terrorising the populace so they could enrich the city-state of Rome. Imperialism is fundamentally based on greed, no matter which nation is doing it.

So what does this mean for the Witcher?

Well, allow me my analogy using the Witcher 2. There's a lot of hijinks going on, politics wise, in that game but what's the BIGGEST one is King Henselt vs. Nilfgaard and that pretty much is the basis of the problem. Henselt is a rapist, racist, greedy warmonger and he is a TYPICAL Northern King.

No, it's worse than that, Henselt is actually GOOD at his job. Henselt is ahead of the curve in terms of what Northern Kings are supposed to be. He's a frontline general, intelligent, surprisingly good to his soldiers, and not particularly brutal to the people he conquers (unless you're nonhuman). He's also a monster. He doesn't want the Pontar Valley to help its people, he wants it to be richer than he already is.

Just like the Nilfgaard.

At the end of the day, the situation is two SCUMMY groups of people waging war to see which gets to plant their flag on the local people. The Nilfgaard are less racist than the North but they're also religiously intolerant and greedier (as we see with their constant extolls of more produce from the people of Velen and White Orchard).

At the end of the day, though, Redania or Nilfgaard? It's all the same. Dijkstra and Emhyr are the same person more or less. Radovid is slightly worse but has the benefit of probably not killing as many people as pacifying 16 or so countries would take.

There's no GOOD option so you just stumble through as best you can.

The North is a hellhole.

But I'll try to make it a FREE hellhole.

And the sad part?

In every ending, I'll fail.

I'll admit, I'm not much of a historian, so you're probably right there. Both are pretty much just as bad as the other, though still, I gotta say that I prefer Nilfgaard and a semi independent Temeria. I mean it can't be that bad for them, we know that Nilfgaard honors the deals it makes with it's vassal states (see Touissaint). I also just can't bring myself to betray Roche. I mean the guy broke me out of prison, helped me after I ditched him for the Scoia'tael, and STILL helped me after I let Letho live. He didn't owe me a damn thing, yet still stuck by me. Dijkstra on the other hand... not so much. Plus Skellige and Kovir survive.

 

[CTPhipps]

I'll admit, I'm not much of a historian, so you're probably right there. Both are pretty much just as bad as the other, though still, I gotta say that I prefer Nilfgaard and a semi independent Temeria. I mean it can't be that bad for them, we know that Nilfgaard honors the deals it makes with it's vassal states (see Touissaint). I also just can't bring myself to betray Roche. I mean the guy broke me out of prison, helped me after I ditched him for the Scoia'tael, and STILL helped me after I let Letho live. He didn't owe me a damn thing, yet still stuck by me. Dijkstra on the other hand... not so much. Plus Skellige and Kovir survive.

That's a major thing, though, that I actually don't trust Emhyr. It's why I didn't save the Spirit of the Tree in order to save the kids (which was gut wrenching). I couldn't buy what she was selling.

I'd already met Letho by this time and discovered that Emhyr went back on his deal with him, forcing Letho on the run and making the whole offer of, "a homeland for Witchers" into complete B.S. Emhyr honored his deal with the elves, though, so it turns out it's really whatever is convenient for Emhyr.

This is why Witchers should never get involved in politics.

 

[Ortwyn]

Uh... No. Not all humans come from elves. Humans arrived after the conjunction of spheres, elves were on the world before. That's why they called Elder races. The northern humans were hostile towards elves, the southern ones were not. In the end the Northern humans became Nordlings, Southern humans became Nilfgaardian or conquered by Nilfgaard. The second group interbred with the elves, the first oppresses them.

Maybe he just wanted to say that virtually every human has some elven ancestors. They interbred with them as well, but mainly in the past when the relationship between the two races weren't that bad. One elf says that at the beginning of the Blood of Elves.

 

[CTPhipps]

Maybe he just wanted to say that virtually every human has some elven ancestors. They interbred with them as well, but mainly in the past when the relationship between the two races weren't that bad. One elf says that at the beginning of the Blood of Elves.

I enjoy that bit of satire from the Witcher.

Humans brutalize, torture, and humiliate elves on a regular basis.

Elves on their world brutalize, torture, and humiliate humans on a regular basis.

---------- Post merged on 05-06-2015 at 01:05 AM ----------

It also helps to know that even if Nilfgaard wins, they don't conquer the entire North.

Only a significant chunk of it with Temeria, Aedirn, and Lys.

Redania/Kaedwin can hopefully stand against further aggression or maybe even take back territory.

 

[carlos2033]

Redania/Kaedwin can hopefully stand against further aggression or maybe even take back territory.

But is it not stated on the end, black banners apears across Novigrad and whole Redania, plus its only Redania, Kedwen is under them

 

[CTPhipps]

But is it not stated on the end, black banners apears across Novigrad and whole Redania, plus its only Redania, Kedwen is under them

Re-Watching it on Youtube, you're right, he invades Redania but it doesn't say he wins but is engaged in a full-scale war with them.

It also says the fighting continues.

Weird, it seems Emhyrs broke his word about the agreement and had to fill it because of continued rebellions.