The Nilfgaard thread - How did you like the depiction of the Black Ones?

[CTPhipps]

Yeah, I noticed that too since he posts in most of the political topics that I'm interested in, and it kind of seems like a fall-back option for whenever someone accuses him of raging on Nilfgaard.

I honestly think CDPR were able to capture Nilfgaard they way they were actually portrayed in the books, without the patriotic glaze of all the readers who came to unfathomably love a 'free North' (Something that Geralt gives absolutely no fucks about).

As for Nilfgaard being made 'too nice', seriously, what are the alternatives? Look at how Nilfgaard acts in the videogames; it's literally 100% a 16th-century empire in political and social attitude, not too 'good' or too 'evil'. They crack down hard on the peasants that help their enemies, but they show remarkable mercy to those who surrender to their vast ambitions, not unlike the Habsburgs of the Spanish and Holy Roman Empires.

Also, Nilfgaard's 'atrocities' in the books are literally limited to a single account (The Sack of Cintra) by a bleeding-heart Northern spy (Dandelion). People seem to conveniently forget that one city that the Nilfgaardians promised to leave undamaged if they surrendered. Geralt is surprised when he's told that they honoured their promise, remarking how rare it is for a whole nation-state to show such a sense of honour.

As for the Sack of Cintra, why DID everyone start killing themselves and their children, at least according to Dandelion? We don't even know that the defenders weren't just freaking out/overreacting, since Nilfgaard never perpetrated any similar massacres in their other occupied capitals.

They murdered everyone for miles around before destroying Cintra. THAT is why they reacted the way they did.

They also defaced Calanthe's corpse.

As for why the Nilfgaard didn't do it, does it not occur to you it might be because the Nilfgaard LOST the first war? They seemed like they were going to annihilate the North completely and resettle it. They just suffered immeasurable casualties in the process so they had to use more subtle methods the second time. It's why they started stirring up anti-human resentment like Jacques Ailsberg so they could recruit the Squirrels as a weapon against the North.

Divide and conquer.

Nilfgaard isn't honorable. They're just practical. They only started treating people with less harsh measures because the North could fight back.

---------- Updated at 04:45 PM ----------

I'm a big fan of Nilfgaard and think it's one of the best setting elements in the game but I hate to see it lose it's edge. It's like King Henselt. I ****ing LOVE King Henselt. He's a mean, twisted, evil SOB but he's awesome in his own way right up until Ves. He fights from the front, he's an aggressive military conqueror, he's a raging bigot, and he's a scumbag but he's also a father to his men. He's basically Stannis Baratheon meets King Henry VIII and that is the book version versus child-burning nutso.

Now imagine the Witcher 3 doesn't stupidly throw away such a great character but introduces him as the saintly wise King of the North who Geralt is going to try to help get his daughter back so he can make her Queen and bring happiness to all the various races. I mean, yeah, it's NICER but it's NOT Henselt. I love the Nilfgaard warts and all.

The North is meant to represent a backwards pastoral existence in a transitional state. Basically, the North is halfway between Nilfgaard and Skellige. Skellige is what the North used to be with its quirky traditions, manly values, and rape/pillage mentality. The North has become less honorable and more scummy as they've developed but they haven't made any of the other progresses Nilfgaard has either.

They don't, however, commit genocide or practice slavery or commit organized war crimes on a massive scale. The North is a place where you might get rape and murder and banditry but you don't just go into a place and kill everyone then resettle it. Maybe sometimes with the racism but the Nilfgaard fully intended to exterminate every man, woman, and child in Cintra until they lost at Sodden Hill. There's no need to be patriotic because the North is a craphole but they managed to stagger the giant.

So Nilfgaard turned to more subtle means. They fostered terrorism, fanned the flames of racial hatred, and did their best to divide the North against itself. Just as we see with W2: AOK. They haven't given up on the wholesale conquest of the North but maybe they're not going to try and ERADCIATE all of its people this time because they managed to hold down the Fort.

It's wonderful, really. Ruthless, efficient, cold, and calculating. They're the best AND WORST elements of the Roman Empire with a 16th century coat of paint.

 

[wright1978]

Personally feels like the game's trying to sell 'brand Nilfgaard' i guess because one of the good endings revolves around Ciri becoming Empress. Redania is shown as being led by a anti- non human/anti-mage leader who is also insane. Dijkstra taking charge revolves round the murder of character the player may have grown fond of. Nilfgaard is treated with kid gloves. One instance where i feel the emperor and nilfgaard were whitewashed was regarding Fringilla. In TW2 we see how Nilfgaard treats mages who don't play by their strict conditions. Don't think emperor should have handed her over or if he did it should have been a brutally tortured limp figure.

 

[Ortwyn]

They murdered everyone for miles around before destroying Cintra. THAT is why they reacted the way they did.

They also defaced Calanthe's corpse.

As for why the Nilfgaard didn't do it, does it not occur to you it might be because the Nilfgaard LOST the first war? They seemed like they were going to annihilate the North completely and resettle it. They just suffered immeasurable casualties in the process so they had to use more subtle methods the second time. It's why they started stirring up anti-human resentment like Jacques Ailsberg so they could recruit the Squirrels as a weapon against the North.

Divide and conquer.

Nilfgaard isn't honorable. They're just practical. They only started treating people with less harsh measures because the North could fight back.

Well, we don't know how many people Nilfgaardians murdered. People from the North were almost sure that Ciri died, but it was not true, they just repeated what they heard. The opinions of both sides must be biased, Nordlings call it the Massacre and Nilfgaardians the Battle for Cintra.

What we know for sure? If there is a rebellion, Nilfgaardians suppress it quickly and without mercy. The execution of the revolts leader is public and very cruel. Whoever betrays or opposes Nilfgaard must be punished/eliminated.

However. Nilfgaard wanted to annihilate the whole North? Come on, it doesn't make sense. They suffered immeasurable casualties? They invaded the North again soon after. They have money, they have manpower. The North can fight back, but they cannot resist forever. Their defeat is practically inevitable.

Nilfgaard fully intended to exterminate every man, woman, and child in Cintra until they lost at Sodden Hill

Emhyr is just the evil guy who wanted to eliminate all the Nordlings. Propaganda?

 

[Zeroscape]

Personally feels like the game's trying to sell 'brand Nilfgaard' i guess because one of the good endings revolves around Ciri becoming Empress. Redania is shown as being led by a anti- non human/anti-mage leader who is also insane. Dijkstra taking charge revolves round the murder of character the player may have grown fond of. Nilfgaard is treated with kid gloves. One instance where i feel the emperor and nilfgaard were whitewashed was regarding Fringilla. In TW2 we see how Nilfgaard treats mages who don't play by their strict conditions. Don't think emperor should have handed her over or if he did it should have been a brutally tortured limp figure.

Bolded the most important part. They are presenting Nilfgaard in a way that makes them "hard but fair" so we can accept the idea that Ciri would actually agree to become Empress. Even so I still don't fully buy into that ending. I think CDPR needed to convince book readers more that this was a viable long term path for Ciri and that she wasn't just being manipulated again.

Arranged marriage with Moorvan (sp?) was likely too. I think his fascination with horses would be the common ground between him and Ciri, but I find it hard to accept there would be any love there. Just like most arranged marriages.

 

[CTPhipps]

Personally feels like the game's trying to sell 'brand Nilfgaard' i guess because one of the good endings revolves around Ciri becoming Empress. Redania is shown as being led by a anti- non human/anti-mage leader who is also insane. Dijkstra taking charge revolves round the murder of character the player may have grown fond of. Nilfgaard is treated with kid gloves. One instance where i feel the emperor and nilfgaard were whitewashed was regarding Fringilla. In TW2 we see how Nilfgaard treats mages who don't play by their strict conditions. Don't think emperor should have handed her over or if he did it should have been a brutally tortured limp figure.

The game seems to have the weird thing of trying to rope you into supporting Nilfgaard. The entirety of the game is ushering you into working for Emhrys then ending up accidentally helping him win the War. You have the Nilfgaardians give that guy a torturous whipping after the rotten onions thing but we don't get to see people being burned alive or exterminated en masse like in Novigrad.

Radovid is treated like Hitler despite the fact that being the Nazi-stand-ins has traditionally been the Nilfgaardians role. There's even a thread like, "Is this a WW2 allegory? Radovid is Nazi Germany, Dijkstra is Stalin, and Nilfgaard is the US of A?"

What.the.hell.

The fact the North is STILL full of racist evil scumbags nonwithstanding (because Sapkowski's writings aren't full of easy answers) so I don't even DISLIKE the idea that, yes, Geralt can say, "Nilfgaard isn't going to kill us all this time so they're not noticeably worse."

The acknowledgement this is a change of policy would have been nice, though.

. Which is WEIRD because sometimes they do have things which hint at the Book Nilfgaard like exterminating an entire town of innocents and executing all prisoners. I don't think the Nilfgaardians are Nazi stand-ins but they have the role of being a TERRIFYING and slightly alien force to the North which has left a collective cultural scar on the place.

Basically, to repeat the refrain from previous games, "I preferred how they were done in AoK."

---------- Updated at 01:00 AM ----------

Well, we don't know how many people Nilfgaardians murdered. People from the North were almost sure that Ciri died, but it was not true, they just repeated what they heard. The opinions of both sides must be biased, Nordlings call it the Massacre and Nilfgaardians the Battle for Cintra.

The thing is that the "Massacre of Cintra" vs. "The Battle of Cintra" is due to a witness who propagated the historical account throughout the North--Dandelion. One of the most powerful moments in the books is the description of Nilfgaard's invasion by Dandelion and Geralt's skepticism at him. The thing is, the whole reason the scene works is because Dandelion is OUT OF CHARACTER. He's terrified into taking all of this extremely seriously.

Geralt even tries to say the Nilfgaardians are no different from any other invader and Dandelion says, more or less, "YOU AREN'T LISTENING. THEY REALLY-REALLY ARE."

It's just WEIRD Dandelion and Triss have no opinion on the subject given they're both heavily involved in the resistance against Nilfgaard. Dandelion becomes a spy because he can't just be an entertainer anymore in the face of what he considers to be True EvilTM. The irony this never completely convinces Geralt is a good one.

But Triss and Dandelion are conspicuously neutral on the subject in the Witcher 3.

What we know for sure? If there is a rebellion, Nilfgaardians suppress it quickly and without mercy. The execution of the revolts leader is public and very cruel. Whoever betrays or opposes Nilfgaard must be punished/eliminated.

Well it was an invasion of a sovereign power so it's only a rebelllion if they failed. Looking back, the massacre of Cintra happened AFTER Sodden Hill, though.

Which leads me to believe that Cintra was massacred BECAUSE they defeated Nilfgaard and forced them to withdraw.

"You DARE beat the Empire in Battle? You dare make it impossible for us to conquer you?"

However. Nilfgaard wanted to annihilate the whole North? Come on, it doesn't make sense. They suffered immeasurable casualties? They invaded the North again soon after. They have money, they have manpower. The North can fight back, but they cannot resist forever. Their defeat is practically inevitable.

Five years is not a small amount of time between invasions in terms of countries to rebuild themselves. Also, the remaining two invasions will FAIL unless Geralt causes a catastrophic breakdown in command.

The North is not paper, contrary to Nilfgaard's claims.

---------- Updated at 02:22 AM ----------

Some relevant passages.

"Not this war, Geralt. After this war, no-one returns. There will be nothing to return to. Nilfgaard leaves behind it only rubble; its armies advance like lava from which no-one escapes. The roads are strewn, for miles, with gallows and pyres; the sky is cut with columns of smoke as long as the horizon. Since the beginning of the world, in fact, nothing of this sort has happened before. Since the world is our world... You must understand that the Nilfgaardians have descended from their mountains to destroy this world."

"That's absurd. Who would benefit from destroying the world? Wars aren't fought for the sake of destruction. Wars are fought for two reasons: the first is power; the second is money."

"Stop your philosophizing, Geralt! You can't change what's happening with philosophy! Why aren't you hearing me? Why do you refuse to understand? Believe me, Yarouga will not stop Nilfgaard's momentum. In winter, when the river freezes, they will push the front even farther. I tell you this: we must flee to the North. They may not reach that far. But in any case, our world will no longer be the same. Geralt, don't leave me alone here! Don't go without me! Don't leave me!"

and later

"The city wasn't properly defended. There was no headquarters. The defensive walls were empty. The rest of the knights and their families, the princes and the queen, barricaded themselves in the castle. The Nilfgaardians then took the castle after their sorcerers reduced the gate to cinders and burned down the walls. Only the tower, apparently protected by magic, resisted the spells of the Nilfgaardian sorcerers. Even so, the attackers penetrated inside four days later without making camp. The women had killed the children, the boys and girls, and fell upon their own swords or... What's is it, Geralt?"

"Continue, Dandelion."

"Or... like Calanthe... head first, from the battlement, the very top... It's said that she asked to be... but no-one would agree. So she climbed up to the crenelations and... jumped head first. They say they did horrible things to the corpse afterward. I don't want... What is it?"

"Nothing, Dandelion... At Cintra, there was... a child: the little daughter of Calanthe, about ten or eleven years old. Her name was Ciri. Have you heard of her?"

"No, but a there was terrible massacre that left almost no-one alive in the city and the castle. None of the defenders of the keep escaped from death, as I told you. Most of the women and the children of the royal families were there."

The witcher remained silent.

"You knew Calanthe?" asked Dandelion.

"I knew her, indeed."

"And the little girl you told me of? Ciri?"

"I knew her well."

Plus we get these later moments:

“Elven prattle!” snarled Sheldon Skaggs. “Dim-witted rubbish! It was the price that had to be paid to allow others to live decently, in peace, instead of being chained, blinded, whipped and forced to work in salt and sulphur mines. Those who died a heroic death, those who will now, thanks to Dandilion, live on forever in our memories, taught us to defend our own homes. Sing your ballads, Dandilion, sing them to everyone. Your lesson won’t go to waste, and it’ll come in handy, you’ll see! Because, mark my words, Nilfgaard will attack us again. If not today, then tomorrow! They’re licking their wounds now, recovering, but the day when we’ll see their black cloaks and feathered helmets again is growing ever nearer!”

Also this moment:

“Maybe you will be interested to hear that he was a Nilfgaardian.”

"You think so?” Yennefer sat up and with a swift movement pulled the stiletto from her pocket and turned it in her palm. “A lot of people carry Nilfgaardian knives now. They’re comfortable and handy – they can even be hidden in a cleavage—”

“It’s not the knife. When he was questioning me he used the term ‘battle for Cintra’, ‘conquest of the town’ or something along those lines. I’ve never heard anyone describe those events like that. For us, it has always been a massacre. The Massacre of Cintra. No one refers to it by any other name.”

The magician raised her hand, scrutinised her nails. “Clever, Dandilion. You have a sensitive ear.”

“It’s a professional hazard.”

 

[Ortwyn]

But Triss and Dandelion are conspicuously neutral on the subject in the Witcher 3.

This is a bit weird, probably caused by what happened in Novigrad?

Well it was an invasion of a sovereign power so it's only a rebelllion if they failed. Looking back, the massacre of Cintra happened AFTER Sodden Hill, though.

Which leads me to believe that Cintra was massacred BECAUSE they defeated Nilfgaard and forced them to withdraw.

"You DARE beat the Empire in Battle? You dare make it impossible for us to conquer you?"

The massacre of Cintra happened AFTER Sodden Hill? What? The timeline is battle of Marnadal - massacre of Cintra - battle of Sodden Hill. The North won at Sodden, because they wanted to avenge Calanthe.

Five years is not a small amount of time between invasions in terms of countries to rebuild themselves. Also, the remaining two invasions will FAIL unless Geralt causes a catastrophic breakdown in command.

The North is not paper, contrary to Nilfgaard's claims.

They lost at Sodden, yet they assembled another army. Then they lost at Brenna (and the North would be defeated without the mercenaries).

Some relevant passages.

Nice passages. But I agree with Geralt, the massacre of Cintra might have been very brutal, but Nilfgaard going to destroy the world? Seriously? Calanthé knew they would kill her and her loyal knights decided to share her fate. Once they were in the tower, it was clear that they willl not survive.

Salt and sulphur mines? Yes, there is slavery, but the whole population of the North chained and blinded...the same guy thinks that Nilfgaard attacked the North because they fancy dwarven women...people in this passage exaggerate a lot...they think Ciri is dead and Nilfgaardians are descendants of Black Seidhe.

I bet people in Nilfgaard have different opinions. But we do not know them.

 

[CTPhipps]

This is a bit weird, probably caused by what happened in Novigrad?

I'm not a fanboy but, really, the characters are so well-developed and three-dimensional, their complete lack of commentary on the subject is just weird.

The massacre of Cintra happened AFTER Sodden Hill? What? The timeline is battle of Marnadal - massacre of Cintra - battle of Sodden Hill. The North won at Sodden, because they wanted to avenge Calanthe.

Yeah, I remembered "The martyrdom of Calanthe" almost as soon as I posted. Brain fart.

They lost at Sodden, yet they assembled another army. Then they lost at Brenna (and the North would be defeated without the mercenaries).

Very true. Of course, Nilfgaard makes a lot of its progress due to the fact the North is incredibly divided.

Nice passages. But I agree with Geralt, the massacre of Cintra might have been very brutal, but Nilfgaard going to destroy the world? Seriously? Calanthé knew they would kill her and her loyal knights decided to share her fate. Once they were in the tower, it was clear that they willl not survive.

Salt and sulphur mines? Yes, there is slavery, but the whole population of the North chained and blinded...the same guy thinks that Nilfgaard attacked the North because they fancy dwarven women...people in this passage exaggerate a lot...they think Ciri is dead and Nilfgaardians are descendants of Black Seidhe.

I bet people in Nilfgaard have different opinions. But we do not know them.

I'm pretty sure the Nilfgaardians *are* descendants of the elves. It's just, as the elves mention, the whole racism against mixing with elves is actually a fairly new thing. The Squirrels are a fairly new phenomenon and previously there were half-elves, quarter-elves, and many more like them beforehand. Also, the Blood of Elves does say that Nilfgaard's actions in Cintra were VERY out of character for the organization. Emhyr even had the Marshals and their subordinates executed but Henselt believes that's because they FAILED rather than because they committed the genocidal massacre.

Either way, my big issue with the game is Nilfgaard is kind of shoved down our throats as the lesser evil. I don't need it to be the GREATER EVIL because, really, King Foltest and the other monarchs are like, "We should find Ciri AND KILL HER so we can take Cintra for ourselves." It's just it's conspicuous because they had to change Radovid's personality from the North's version of Emhyr to a cackling maniac in order to do it.

Then they had to make Roche, a DIE-HARD PATRIOT, side with Nilfgaard when Temeria's allies are willing the war. THEN they had to make it so only by killing Dijkstra can you save his life. You also have to, by doing so, consent by inaction to a treaty which will sell Lyria and Aedirn to become Nilfgaardian provinces.

Kind of cheesy, IMHO.

I'm really looking forward to the Toussaint expansion, however, and I really hope this will give us a lot of insight into how Nilfgaard is run and what sort of good and evil is available to the place. In addition to Fringella, I'm hoping we'll see the following characters show up:

General Voorhis
The Ambassador's Daughters

And most of all

FAKE CIRI.

 

[CostinRaz]

Then they had to make Roche, a DIE-HARD PATRIOT, side with Nilfgaard when Temeria's allies are willing the war.

He's a Temerian patriot, no one else's. Why should he give a flying fuck about Redania winning the war if he can keep Temeria as a vassal state and even if Dijkstra would give him such a deal why would he prefer turning his country into a battleground for the third time when he can end the war and stop the suffering of his people.

You can complain about Dijkstra and Radovid being handled very very poorly, and I'd agree, but Roche makes perfect sense.

You also have to, by doing so, consent by inaction to a treaty which will sell Lyria and Aedirn to become Nilfgaardian provinces.

Sorry to break this point to you as you seem dead set on being anti-Nilfgaard or anti-Emhyr, but first off why should Geralt really give a damn? He doesn't like war true but he doesn't give a fuck about any particular nation. The second and third games both drill this into players that Geralt only cares about those close to him.

Second, why would Geralt want to see the war continue? He cares about the little man stuck between warring rulers more then he does about nations.

 

[Ortwyn]

I'm not a fanboy but, really, the characters are so well-developed and three-dimensional, their complete lack of commentary on the subject is just weird.

True, I would expect Dandelion would comment on this.

I'm pretty sure the Nilfgaardians *are* descendants of the elves.

Yes, they are. My point is that those people from the North claim that Nilfgaardians are descendants of elves but they wouldn't confess that some elven blood flows in their veins too.

Either way, my big issue with the game is Nilfgaard is kind of shoved down our throats as the lesser evil. I don't need it to be the GREATER EVIL because, really, King Foltest and the other monarchs are like, "We should find Ciri AND KILL HER so we can take Cintra for ourselves." It's just it's conspicuous because they had to change Radovid's personality from the North's version of Emhyr to a cackling maniac in order to do it.

Agreed. Nilfgaard is pretty much ok, but Radovid is insane. Northern Emhyr who hates witches would be better.

Then they had to make Roche, a DIE-HARD PATRIOT, side with Nilfgaard when Temeria's allies are willing the war. THEN they had to make it so only by killing Dijkstra can you save his life. You also have to, by doing so, consent by inaction to a treaty which will sell Lyria and Aedirn to become Nilfgaardian provinces.

Roche is Temerian patriot, not the Northern patriot. But Dijkstra sucks, he is such a mastermind and then they make him act like a fool in the last quest. They screwed one of the best characters of the whole saga and TW3. Such a shame. I wish he could at least flee and survive (and return in TW4 to revenge).

I'm really looking forward to the Toussaint expansion, however, and I really hope this will give us a lot of insight into how Nilfgaard is run and what sort of good and evil is available to the place. In addition to Fringella, I'm hoping we'll see the following characters show up:

General Voorhis
The Ambassador's Daughters

And most of all

FAKE CIRI.

Disagreed. Toussaint is a fairy-tale duchy, Its inhabitants must be the happiest people of the Empire. It makes no sense to meet Voorhis, var Attre family or fake Ciri there.

On the other hand, more interaction with Voorhis or var Attre family in Novigrad would be appreciated. Some quest with Edna var Attre, spying and intrigues, maybe?

And TW4 should definitely take place in Nilfgaard. I want to see corruption, slavery, strong propaganda, harsh justice, crushed rebellions against the Empire, cruel executions, arrogant Nilfgaardian nobles, servile mages, greedy representatives of the Trade Corporation etc.

 

[CTPhipps]

He's a Temerian patriot, no one else's. Why should he give a flying fuck about Redania winning the war if he can keep Temeria as a vassal state and even if Dijkstra would give him such a deal why would he prefer turning his country into a battleground for the third time when he can end the war and stop the suffering of his people.

You can complain about Dijkstra and Radovid being handled very very poorly, and I'd agree, but Roche makes perfect sense.

I'm iffy, actually, because I'm not sure that Roche is the sort of guy who really thinks Temeria comes out on top in all this. What is Temeria getting out of this, exactly, that is so much better than everyone else who are actually being conquered? Yes, they get to keep their legal system but half of Niflgaard is already composed of conquered provinces. The game ACTS like becoming a Province of Nilfgaard is a big happy ending but I don't get how it is. It's still been assimilated into the largest Empire on the Continent and is now part of its armed forces?

It just seems like, "Temeria is a land of joy and wonder now that it's paying for the conquest of other nations." Vichy France made a similar deal with the Nazis and it turned out horribly for them (and I think the Nilfgaard are only like 10-20% worse than the rest of the North).

What, Roche, is the appeal of being Nilfgaard's strumpet? To use a less offensive version of your speech.

Sorry to break this point to you as you seem dead set on being anti-Nilfgaard or anti-Emhyr, but first off why should Geralt really give a damn? He doesn't like war true but he doesn't give a fuck about any particular nation. The second and third games both drill this into players that Geralt only cares about those close to him.

Second, why would Geralt want to see the war continue? He cares about the little man stuck between warring rulers more then he does about nations.

It's a frustrating situation for me because I'm consistently called upon to be the guy who articulates the need for more Anti-Nilfgaard options because, as I stated, I *LIKE* Nilfgaard. However, it's like the whole damn Triss vs. Yennefer thing. I *LIKE* Yennefer and think she's the AwesomeTM. However, Triss vs. Yennefer is definitely biased to Yennefer.

The games are definitely biased to acting like Nilfgaard is the superior option and denying you the option to oppose them whenever possible. This is FRUSTRATING because the game gives you a lot of reasons to oppose them even as they seem to ignore their own storytelling and act like it's self-evident they're the better option.

You can't have death-squads, an unprovoked invasion, the horrors of turning Triss into a statue, the chaos provoked by Letho, betraying Letho, the hellhole they've turned Velen into with the Bloody Baron's forces, the massacre of villages, and scourging of people and NOT think some players are going to want to kick the Nilfgaard out on their posh asses.

As for Geralt and Emhyr, the game is VERY good in that it allowed me to be quite clear I was not that guy's friend and never ever going to help him with anything--I hated that dude and am glad the game let me. Still, the game has an unearned narrative that you're somehow ever supposed to WARM to Emhyr that a lot of players seem to take as self-evident.

The opitons exist for opposing Nilfgaard but they're like the Triss option. They're an afterthought. Does that make sense? It's like, "Well, you CAN oppose Nilfgaard, I GUESS, if you really want to--so here, support Dijkstra."

The funny thing is? I would actually enjoy there to be a FULL-ON Nilfgaard option to and would PLAY THE SHIT out of Geralt, Agent of Nilfgaard on my second playthrough.

It's just I often seem to be the guy who says, "No, I don't like Nilfgaard wins as sunshine and roses at all. Also, I really want an option to punch that evil **** in the face as he sits on Foltest's throne."

---------- Updated at 07:36 AM ----------

Roche is Temerian patriot, not the Northern patriot. But Dijkstra sucks, he is such a mastermind and then they make him act like a fool in the last quest. They screwed one of the best characters of the whole saga and TW3. Such a shame. I wish he could at least flee and survive (and return in TW4 to revenge).

If they ever do Witcher 4, I'm entirely cool with just retconning both Dijkstra and Roche to be alive. I think they're both such essential characters to the saga that it would be a shame for them to just vanish from the gameline because of the need for SOME player characters to kill them. It's like Thaler, I'm okay with him coming back from the (possible) dead.

As for Roche, I'm not necessarily AGAINST him becoming Nilfgaard's w*** (as he says). There's some cool foreshadowing that he's more inclined to spare Nilfgaard soldiers and not get too involved in fighting tham anymore. I just think it needed a little more build-up and it's also confusing because Ves' quest consists of, "GRRR! KILL NILFGAARD! GRR! EVIL PSYCHOS! GET EM!"

It's kind of dissonant to see her silent during all this. A Ves and Roche conflict over the issue of whether to surrender or not, honestly, seems like it would be far-far more interesting than Dijkstra vs. Geralt (because D is a gigantic asshat). Who would players side with if it came down to swords between Ves and Roche?

---------- Updated at 07:37 AM ----------

Disagreed. Toussaint is a fairy-tale duchy, Its inhabitants must be the happiest people of the Empire. It makes no sense to meet Voorhis, var Attre family or fake Ciri there.

On the other hand, more interaction with Voorhis or var Attre family in Novigrad would be appreciated. Some quest with Edna var Attre, spying and intrigues, maybe?

And TW4 should definitely take place in Nilfgaard. I want to see corruption, slavery, strong propaganda, harsh justice, crushed rebellions against the Empire, cruel executions, arrogant Nilfgaardian nobles, servile mages, greedy representatives of the Trade Corporation etc.

I figured they'd be there for a party.

But yes, good stuff.

I've also mentioned I'd love to see Ciri as a protagonist in an expansion set in Cintra.

If not, Geralt would do too.

---------- Updated at 07:50 AM ----------

Geralt of Nilfgaard options

But yes, if they were going to do more stuff for the characters, I wouldn't mind some stuff where Geralt can side with Nilfgaard and do more jobs for them--presumably in Velen and Novigrad.

* Geralt is hired to kill a high vampire who wiped out a bunch of their troops. It turns out it's because the vampire was an inhabitant of Cintra. Does Geralt spare it or does he destroy it for all its murders.

* Geralt finds himself in YET ANOTHER pogrom and the Nilfgaard offer to help protect the nonhumans by taking over the town. There's no hidden agenda, the Nilfgaard just see them as people worthy of protection.

* Missions with Cynthia, Geralt's sexy Femme Fatale from the first game.

* Help a few mages escape Novigrad who didn't go with Triss, escape to Nilfgaard instead.

Honestly, when I found the Velen Nilfgaard base, I was REALLY disappointed there wasn't that many missions involving them.

Just two.

You could have done a lot of stuff with siding with either Nilfgaard forces or the ragtag Temerian resistance.

* Geralt is asked to bring a message to the local Scoia'tael leaders by the Nilfgaard, offering them pardons if they lay down their arms.

It could have been the Order of the Flaming Rose vs. Scoia'tael thing of the next group.

I would LOVE to have more Nilfgaard missions as well as anti-Nilfgaard ones.

So yeah, I'm probably confusing the hell out of people now.

 

[almostfaceman]

I don't really care for Nilfgaard or the Northern kingdoms. They're all a mess. I think Geralt's position to view it all is very satisfactory. On one side we have Emhyr, slaughtering people for his ambition. On the other side we have Radovid, slaughtering people for his ambition. Who suffers? The peasants, minding their own business. We see tons of pain and suffering for no good reason. Even the peasants, though, are somewhat guilty of persecuting the non-humans. So really, from Geralt's perspective, most of the people he has to deal with are crap.

 

[CTPhipps]

I don't really care for Nilfgaard or the Northern kingdoms. They're all a mess. I think Geralt's position to view it all is very satisfactory. On one side we have Emhyr, slaughtering people for his ambition. On the other side we have Radovid, slaughtering people for his ambition. Who suffers? The peasants, minding their own business. We see tons of pain and suffering for no good reason. Even the peasants, though, are somewhat guilty of persecuting the non-humans. So really, from Geralt's perspective, most of the people he has to deal with are crap.

True, I guess I was hoping for an option to do something about it.

Which we get for assassinating Radovid.

There's just no option for hitting the Nilfgaard just as hard.

 

[CostinRaz]

I'm iffy, actually, because I'm not sure that Roche is the sort of guy who really thinks Temeria comes out on top in all this. What is Temeria getting out of this, exactly, that is so much better than everyone else who are actually being conquered?

What does Temeria get exactly by having it's land ravaged more by the north then conquered by Redania? Fuck all that's what.

The game ACTS like becoming a Province of Nilfgaard is a big happy ending but I don't get how it is. It's still been assimilated into the largest Empire on the Continent and is now part of its armed forces?

Because the war ends to them, and they no longer have to die fighting in the war. In the witcher ending, if you killed Radovid and Dijkstra but didn't have Ciri meet Emhyr, then they're keeping their word and preparing to withdraw from Temeria while the war goes on elsewhere.

It's a frustrating situation for me because I'm consistently called upon to be the guy who articulates the need for more Anti-Nilfgaard options because, as I stated, I *LIKE* Nilfgaard.

You like Nilfgaard as much as I like Yaevinn, which is zero, any post you make about much you like Nilfgaard will never be taken seriously when you're the guy constantly shoving arguments in our faces about the "evils of Nilfgaard".

So don't really be expected to be taken seriously, especially as in the same post you make it clear how much you hate Emhyr.

It's kind of dissonant to see her silent during all this. A Ves and Roche conflict over the issue of whether to surrender or not, honestly, seems like it would be far-far more interesting than Dijkstra vs. Geralt (because D is a gigantic asshat). Who would players side with if it came down to swords between Ves and Roche?

Fantasy scenarios again? Ves is loyal to a fault to Roche and Roche is loyal to Temeria, making a conflict where there is none is a load of bullshit. In your mind you think Ves would challenge Roche when he wants to end the war to prevent more slaughter of his people is a reasonable scenario.

The funny thing is? I would actually enjoy there to be a FULL-ON Nilfgaard option to and would PLAY THE SHIT out of Geralt, Agent of Nilfgaard on my second playthrough.

It's just I often seem to be the guy who says, "No, I don't like Nilfgaard wins as sunshine and roses at all. Also, I really want an option to punch that evil **** in the face as he sits on Foltest's throne."

In essence you want TW3 to have a clear cut "evil" vs "good" choice. With siding with Nilfgaard being a clear "evil" choice while siding with the North being the "good" one because you hate Nilfgaard can't stand CDPR portraying them winning as being "good".

That's not how political conflicts work or how political nuance works. I didn't go in TW3 expecting the situation to unfold at it did. In fact I fully expected CDPR to approach it in the same hamfisted way as they did it in the past, but I am certainly am glad CDPR didn't go down the whole path of portraying the North as good in any way: They're racist scumbags that love to engage in brutal acts against each other when they're not busy fighting Nilfgaard or butchering non-humans. They have no real redeeming value.

But like the Scoia'Tael choices in TW1 and TW2, and the Scoia'Tael are far worse then the Northern kingdoms in what they've done, most people would have gone with the smaller guy because they're suffering under the bigger guy's boot. People are predisposed towards helping the little guy and damn their crimes since who gives a damn if the Scoia'Tael are murdering thousands of innocent villagers..it's all justified right?

So for the first time CDPR decided to not go the same route as before and instead put the player logic on it's head, with the vast majority of players aiding Nilfgaard in winning by saving Roche because CDPR understood the vast majority of players would not be in favor of aiding Nilfgaard directly in the war. Especially with the much vaunted neutrality.

We are told in both TW2 and TW3 that Geralt doesn't give a lick about rulers and politics but only cares to help his friends. In TW2 CDPR allowed us to get involved knee deep in politics despite this, to the point he can abandon the woman the game forces us to care about in order to help with a political goal.

In TW3 CDPR realized just how dumb this was and decided to fix this by having Geralt be involved in politics for his friends and close ones, with the only choice being whether or not you break that precious neutrality to stop a mass murderer. This does not justify lobotomizing Dijkstra and Radovid but it does perfectly justify not having the option of aiding Nilfgaard directly or fighting against them directly.

It's a shame Reason of State turned out to be an abject failure of a quest though, because Deadly Plot had such an amazing build up to it. Siting there by that lighthouse and chatting with Dijkstra was one of the highest points in the game for me.

I could have done without Radovid becoming a madman that acts like an asshole just so we can feel so morally superior about the whole affair of murdering him. That completely ruined the build up. Radovid should have been, and should be changed to, being a ruthless son of a bitch using the Church to gain control of Novigrad and slaughtering the mages/alchemists/scholars as a way to cement his popularity among the masses while securing his divine power on the throne.

There's just no option for hitting the Nilfgaard just as hard.

So yay let's kill Emhyr and lead to further chaos and instability and suffering and more pointless conflict.

 

[CTPhipps]

What does Temeria get exactly by having it's land ravaged more by the north then conquered by Redania? Fuck all that's what.

Independence? The Dijkstra ending is as bullshit as the Nilfgaard one. Why in the world would Temeria suddenly roll over for Redania any more than it would for Nilfgaard? It makes no damn sense. Redania conquering Kaedwin stretches disbelief to the breaking point but no way in hell are they going to be able to take Temeria as well.

I don't care HOW smart Dijkstra is, he's not ****ing Batman.

Because the war ends to them, and they no longer have to die fighting in the war. In the witcher ending, if you killed Radovid and Dijkstra but didn't have Ciri meet Emhyr, then they're keeping their word and preparing to withdraw from Temeria while the war goes on elsewhere.

Roche has never struck me as someone afraid of fighting. I'm not against being sold that Temeria as part of Nilfgaard is the better option but it's not something I accept at face-value.

You like Nilfgaard as much as I like Yaevinn, which is zero, any post you make about much you like Nilfgaard will never be taken seriously when you're the guy constantly shoving arguments in our faces about the "evils of Nilfgaard".

So don't really be expected to be taken seriously, especially as in the same post you make it clear how much you hate Emhyr.

Emhyr is scum who deserves to die but he's not the sum of Nilfgaard. I like General Voorhis and would like to see some more missions for the Nilfgaardians incorporated into the game. I am seriously irritated by the absence of Cynthia, Fake Ciri, and the fact you don't get to meet anyone but the Quartermaster in the Nilfgaardian camp.

Nilfgaard culture is cool, they have awesome uniforms, great wealth, and a pretty awesome language.

It'd have been nice to have someone who could demonstrate the benefits of Nilfgaardian assimilation or talked about how they consider the Massacre of Cintra a terrible national shame (Emhyr executed a bunch of his own generals for it) but, instead, it's like Cintra doesn't exist.

It's like they left the scummy shit parts of Nilfgaard in the game but barely touch on the good ones and act like it's the Second Coming when they take over.

Fantasy scenarios again? Ves is loyal to a fault to Roche and Roche is loyal to Temeria, making a conflict where there is none is a load of bullshit. In your mind you think Ves would challenge Roche when he wants to end the war to prevent more slaughter of his people is a reasonable scenario.

Ves already disobeyed Roche's orders on multiple occasions to carry the fight to Nilfgaard. That's her sole adventure in the game no less. She also ordered the sole surviving Nilfgaardian to be executed over Roche's orders (or asked Geralt to do it).

If she's been persuaded to "Operation: Join the Black Ones" then I'd love to hear the argument!

So yay let's kill Emhyr and lead to further chaos and instability and suffering and more pointless conflict.

To prevent Nilfgaard from invading any other nations? To force them to withdra to deal over matters of succession? To weaken the Empire so it can't continuously expand for no other reason than because that's what it does? I say this as someone who wants a game set in the Nilfgaardian Empire and an opportunity to save its people and thinks Toussaint is going to be ****ing awesome.

Redania winning is almost as bad.

But yes, to explain my complicated feelings on the subject.

If Emhyr wasn't the guy crowning Ciri, if it was a conspiracy of guys who want to assassinate Emhyr and put Ciri on the throne, I would support the Empress Ciri ending.

The problem with the Empress Ciri ending isn't Nilfgaard, it's that it's Nilfgaard and Emhyr.

 

[CostinRaz]

It makes no damn sense. Redania conquering Kaedwin stretches disbelief to the breaking point but no way in hell are they going to be able to take Temeria as well.

I don't care HOW smart Dijkstra is, he's not ****ing Batman.

Of course it's stupid. The Dijkstra ending at best should have been a stalemate between Nilfgaard and Redania with Emhyr coming to an end.

Emhyr is scum who deserves to die but he's not the sum of Nilfgaard. I like General Voorhis and would like to see some more missions for the Nilfgaardians incorporated into the game. I am seriously irritated by the absence of Cynthia, Fake Ciri, and the fact you don't get to meet anyone but the Quartermaster in the Nilfgaardian camp.

Yay, let's have Geralt kill "evil" Emperors now because he's some morally upstanding crusader.

Ves already disobeyed Roche's orders on multiple occasions to carry the fight to Nilfgaard. That's her sole adventure in the game no less. She also ordered the sole surviving Nilfgaardian to be executed over Roche's orders (or asked Geralt to do it).

If she's been persuaded to "Operation: Join the Black Ones" then I'd love to hear the argument!

Ves, as the game makes clear through her mission, cares about the little people and wants to protect them from more harm. There's no reason she wouldn't agree with Roche to end the bloodshed in Temeria.

To prevent Nilfgaard from invading any other nations? To force them to withdra to deal over matters of succession? To weaken the Empire so it can't continuously expand for no other reason than because that's what it does? I say this as someone who wants a game set in the Nilfgaardian Empire and an opportunity to save its people and thinks Toussaint is going to be ****ing awesome.

Redania winning is almost as bad.

But yes, to explain my complicated feelings on the subject.

You're so adamant on hating Emhyr, so self absorbed in that hatred that you would demand CDPR make a plot just to suit your own subjective viewpoints and nothing more, and fuck how much that would not make sense for Geralt but gotta hate Emhyr no matter the cost. It would be as nonsensical as Geralt killing Yennefer, but you want to save Nilfgaard from it's brutal "tyrant" and nothing else matters.

All of your posts and arguments become clear now. You don't want nuance or political complexities, you just want to kill Emhyr, fuck everything else right?

 

[CTPhipps]

@CostinRaz

That's a bit of a strawman don't you think? It's also rather nonsensical since that's exactly what happens in the game. There's an elaborate five or six story plotline set up in the game about how King Radovid is a tyrant, how King Radovid is a danger, how King Radovid is a threat to the innocent, and then arranging for Geralt of Rivia to assassinate him. You can't, SERIOUSLY, say with a straight face that Geralt isn't the evil tyrant slayer when HE KILLS A TYRANT IN THE GAME.

Really?

Hell, it's Geralt's second in my game since he also killed King Henselt.

Next, I *DO* rescue Nilfgaard from the tyranny of Emhyr as that's an option in the game which I took. By walking away from Roche and Thaler, Dijkstra won the war against Nilfgaard and Emhyr was assassinated (and there was much rejoicing). Is it a perfect ending? No, not in the slightest because suddenly Sigi Reuvan has warped into Stalin.

Still, I found it better than the alternative.

I'm not looking for some kind of "Geralt will kill Emhyr" plotline because that would be nonsensical but I do think the lack of options to work against Nilfgaard while also the option to work against Redania is just a little silly and one-sided. You can't suddenly make Radovid Adolf Hitler in charge of the Spanish Inquisition opposing the moral and upstanding Nilfgaardians.

That's silly.

Both ways.

Next, I'm just sharing how I feel about the subject. Yes, I hate Emhyr and I think my Geralt would hate him too because he's after Geralt's daughter. That's a far cry from hating the Nilfgaardians, though. I want them ruthless, cool, and cultured even if they are bastards. I can want to fight them and prevent them from taking over as a gameplay option the same way I want more Triss content. I can *ALSO* want more pro-Nilfgaard content.

Which I do, very much so.

My Geralt wears the Nilfgaard armor because it's both protective and badass.

HOWEVER, either way, I can say that I think Nilfgaard's portrayal in the game is underwhelmiong and badly done.

But I don't want to argue about this, I want to DISCUSS it with you so I'll throw you a question.

What did YOU *LIKE* about the portrayal of Nilfgaard, Roche, and Reasons of State that you'd like to see it unchanged?

 

[CostinRaz]

King Radovid is a threat to the innocent, and then arranging for Geralt of Rivia to assassinate him. You can't, SERIOUSLY, say with a straight face that Geralt isn't the evil tyrant slayer when HE KILLS A TYRANT IN THE GAME.

Really?

Hell, it's Geralt's second in my game since he also killed King Henselt.

Radovid and Henselt are mere shadows compared to Emhyr and that's how they should be. As for Henselt, Roche kills him, not you. You just stand aside and let it happen.

Still, I found it better than the alternative.

The fact you found walking away from three friends and letting me be butchered while calling Dijkstra Stalin shows just how biased you are. You know what, you're not worth talking to.

Whatever I want changed in Reasons and State and with Radovid/Dijkstra is something I'll tell to CDPR, not argue with some ardent hater on the forum here.

 

[CTPhipps]

Dude, it's just a game.

Seriously.

 

[CTPhipps]

But yes, in Witcher 4, I'd love for the majority of the game to be in Cintra or Niflgaard's other provinces and am really looking forward to the section in Toussaint.

And because this is the Nilfgaard thread, I'm going to do something amazing and PROMISE NOT TO MAKE ANY MORE TALK ABOUT NILFGAARD'S DOWNSIDE.

Only the positives.

What did you guys think of them in the game?

 

[yagha]

Lots of stuff

Damn, I was away for a few days and now there's just too many things for me to reply to, so I won't even try.

Firstly, I think I see where you're coming from in regards to Nilfgaard, but I stick to my opinion that Nilfgaard is no better than it was in the books, and that the North has just been made 'worse'. You never addressed that one Northern city in the Second Northern War that gets promised mercy if they surrender, which they are granted when they do. As I mentioned before, the fact that Geralt shows surprise at this proves that that was a seriously uncommon act of nobility, anywhere on the Continent. Also, even though this is admittedly not a very strong argument, I can tell you as a history student that there was lack of highly exaggerated stories of atrocities in the 1200-1500 period of our history that seems to be the backdrop of the Witcher.

As for TW3, just think about it for a moment. If Radovid were the same character he was in TW2, what would stop most gamers from rallying to the 'Free North' cliche? I was happy that CDPR turned that situation on its head, although apprarently Nilfgaard is 'too friendly' as a result.

Regarding Emhyr, I've gotta say that I just don't see why you hate the guy so much. Although I recognize that his obsession with power almost drove him to impregnate his own daughter, the fact that he gave it all up in order to uphold his word makes him one of the most honourable characters in the series.

PS: About that reply to CostinRaz, you can do better than that on a gaming forum. We're all aware that this is a videogame series, but we're still posting in the 'Story and Characters' section.