Politics in TW3

[CTPhipps]

I just can't wrap my head around just how Ciri becoming empress is actually going to solve any of Nilfgaard's internal and external conflicts. She will always be either seen as an unknown quantity, her father's/husband's puppet or a Northern outsider that does not put Nilfgaard before everybody else.

Realistically, Ciri wouldn't be able to do things like end slavery or stop the military expansionism of the Empire or so on because those requires groundswells of popular support.

The games might make it possible to do so, though, through the power of Being The ProtagonistTM, though.

She might be able to handle the administration of conquered territories with a deft hand, though. Even small protections provided the locals would be welcome, though.

---------- Updated at 05:34 PM ----------

I can understand that but still it`s not free i mean when Nilfgard needs money or army it will be Temeria`s still outcome of Reasons of State quest is strange, you can`t reason with either side just walk away or kill Djikstra, that i meant is it worth dying for either side because by dying they achieve nothing, and btw Toussaint don`t have army just couple of guards so they can offer only money to Nilfgard

Yeah, so Temeria is potentially much more valuable.

Really, Reasons of State is something an Enhanced Edition would benefit from a great deal.

Any suggestions for "fixes" they could incorporate?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't think an enhanced edition can really fix the inherent problems in the game, as a dev himself admitted in this very thread.

TW2's enhanced edition added more fluff in Act 3 to make it longer and more fun, but it didn't have to fix anything as TW2's plot was not in any way broken. The only way an enhanced edition would be able to fix the mess in TW3 is for to be massive, which they won't do because why would they, it's their best selling game and is a complete commercial success.

At best, an enhanced edition will do a bit of damage control.

 

[carlos2033]

Yeah, so Temeria is potentially much more valuable.

Really, Reasons of State is something an Enhanced Edition would benefit from a great deal.

Any suggestions for "fixes" they could incorporate?

Just add scene where Natalis show up with Anais ( if we do side quest to rescue her and bring her to him)
You see Anais could be either a threat or joker card for all three sides in this outcome of war depending what they want to do with Temeria.
Radovid plan from W1 was to be Temeria ally that is why he married Adda or try to do so, in W2 he wanted Anais so he can make Temeria his protectorate he never wanted to took Temeria by force, why he changed his mind in W3 dunno so Anais to him is either a threat or joker card depending what he want,
Nilfgard helped kidnap Anais and sold her to Henselt to invitation to summit, but now with Henselt dead Anais could be threat to them or they want conquer Temeria or they could use her if they want to make Temeria vassal state but have Anais as leader,
To Djikstra too she could be threat if he wanted to anex north, so all three sides in this conflict need Anais so quest could play around that

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Yes, unfortunately, in the game Radovid is constantly presented as lunatic, insane, and , hmm, evil. Which makes people VERY CONFUSED in evaluation - if a person is insane, he is not morally responsible for his actions. In essence he would be not a moral agent at all, and thus, NOT EVIL. So people should either stick with insanity, or his evil character. You can't have them both, you know.
This representation is unfortunate, but this kind of slanting is nothing new for CDPR. Saskia, for example, was always presented as a kind of Jeanne D'Ark, all heroic and shit. May be I just want things to be more elaborate, but, if you remember, in Saskia I see not a hero, but a sort of a cult leader, who lures people into the war by deception and charismatic speeches, makes them die for her, but when things get bad, she just flies away, leaving all her supporters to be massacred. Unlike all these peasants and non-humans, whatever happens, she does not loose anything. Exactly as Philipa and Co, she just shrugs it off, and starts anew. I know, it is not what CDPR intended, but it is what we got, if we analyze the events in TW2.
Probably, I am doing the same with TW3 and going beyond their intended meaning, but as I wrote in other thread, I don't see Radovid as insane. He is clearly not insane in a technical sense. He is under stress, a lot of pressure, constant fear for his life, with a lot of psychological baggage, and clearly sleep-deprived. He is using and drinking. Sure, he has some crazy moments, but who wouldn't? About Chess metaphor - I've heard so many of them, and used to know so many chess players, that I was actually surprised how people react to it.
In the ending slides the only bad thing I remember is about persecutions. There is nothing about him going completely nuts, or anything. Persecutions - so bloody what? He has to consolidate his realm, make it as homogeneous as possible, so in a good medieval fashion he massacres a shit out of mages and non-humans. He started it in TW2, didn't he? So why would he suddenly stop? Again, as with Saskia, it is person's actions that speak for him, and Radovid is bloody consistent since TW2. I wouldn't imagine any other ending with him. So why was he all right in TW2 and suddenly bad in TW3?

You are right in general, though. There should be more details, things should be more subtle, and there should be more character development and interactions with major political players. But, as CDPR explained, this game's focus is on Geralt's personal journey, so it may be an intended omission. Otherwise we would be focused exclusively on the war and politics, and would forget that Geralt has a world to save, alien invasion to stop, and a jinn to catch.

 

[carlos2033]

Yes, unfortunately, in the game Radovid is constantly presented as lunatic, insane, and , hmm, evil.

Even Geralt thinks he is evil, i mean he is only one Geralt don`t even consider to ask for help for battle of Kaer Morhen even if it make sense to ask him

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

So why was he all right in TW2 and suddenly bad in TW3?

You are confused as to my opinion about Radovid.

I for one never used the word "insane" and "evil" to describe him, I use "lunatic" in its mainstream definition, as in someone who behaves and talks like a raving irrational erratic idiot. I would not bother making an mental diagnosis, simply because he is a very poorly written character that does not warrant such analysis. Loredo on the other hand, who is mentally deranged, is more interesting. Radovid not only acts like a lunatic, but is constantly referred to as such by everyone, and the game keeps hammering the point across. Since he is not a real person, but a character, when we call him a lunatic, we mean that his portrayal is so simplistic and undeveloped that he's just a comic book lunatic who is meant to be hated.

Secondly, no one is actually saying that Radovid wouldn't persecute mages, though the persecution of nonhumans comes out of nowhere. Yes, many including myself have observed, this starts with TW2. There are two problems with how Radovid's policies are portrayed:

A. The primary reason as to why he is doing what he is doing is because he's a lunatic. There is perhaps one mention by Triss that he is doing it for money and for populism, perhaps another mention somewhere else, but for the most part, his primary drive is his lunacy. We don't actually explore the underlining reasons behind his actions, as someone who is referred to as a cold hearted politician in TW2. Instead, the game is content with making him a raving lunatic and for you to buy it.

B. That's what his entire rule is comprised of. It is how it is presented, in both the game and the ending epilogue. Everything in his rule is presented as shit, with persecution being the center of his policy. So it's not a question of persecution being but a small part of his larger policies, but rather his policy being that of persecution, almost intrinsically at this point. The ending slide further makes it clear that Radovid's rule is completely irredeemable and there is nothing good that comes from it. Aka, it's boring and stupid.

That's the problem with Radovid. Not his policies, but how he is portrayed, presented, and referred to, as well as how his policies are simplified to essentially just be an orgy of mass murder and genocide.

As for Saskia, I disagree completely and I think the idea that everyone needs to be a cynical asshole for moral ambiguity is Game of Thrones-like which I can't stand, but I won' go back to debating TW2 as much as I love it.

 

[CTPhipps]

On an unrelated note, I'm pleased to say my author website just went up: https://ctphipps.wordpress.com/

I don't think an enhanced edition can really fix the inherent problems in the game, as a dev himself admitted in this very thread.

TW2's enhanced edition added more fluff in Act 3 to make it longer and more fun, but it didn't have to fix anything as TW2's plot was not in any way broken. The only way an enhanced edition would be able to fix the mess in TW3 is for to be massive, which they won't do because why would they, it's their best selling game and is a complete commercial success.

At best, an enhanced edition will do a bit of damage control.

I think an Enhanced Edition could have made the final scene with Dijkstra and Roche much more coherent as well as a more viable choice between the two factions. The endings slides could also be enhanced to give more context without requiring massive amounts of changes to the setting.

Some tweeks I'd recommend:

Reasons of State

1. Giving Geralt the ability to ask about "How will this affect the war" when the proposal of assassinating Radovid first comes up.
2. Adding another ending slide for the "Nilfgaard wins" war which explains what the effect of Nilfgaard's triumph is on Non-Temerian lands.
3. Adding clarity to why Dijkstra is going to attack Roche or a scene where they discuss the issue.
4. Give Ves lines during the conversation so she's not a passive bystander durning events. My ideal scenario is you'd also have the ability to have her walk away if you choose to stand with Dijkstra but that's asking a lot from her character.
5. Adding a third option to the event, like, say, "Anyone who attacks anyone else here dies." or, "Lets talk about this" with a potential new ending where Dijkstra forges Redania and Kaedwin into a new state with Temeria joining as a vassal state.

Vizima Palace

1. Add Fake Ciri as a character in the Palace for Geralt to talk to.

Roche's Camp

1. Add Anais as a character who is wandering around the camp, currently under Roche's protection.

Scoia'tael Camp

1. Have Iorveth present as one to give his opinion on the war.

Triss

1. Have Triss give her opinion on the Nilfgaard and Redanian war.

Dandelion and Zoltan

1. Have Dandelion and Zoltan both give their opinion on the war. Dandelion is Anti-Nilfgaard, Zoltan is Pro-Nilfgaard.

Kaedwini Nobles

1. Insert a sidequest or two dealing with them or random dialogue in the Redanian camps where they argue with people.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

5. Adding a third option to the event, like, say, "Anyone who attacks anyone else here dies." or, "Lets talk about this" with a potential new ending where Dijkstra forges Redania and Kaedwin into a new state with Temeria joining as a vassal state..

That's not bad actually, and a good compromise.

But I highly doubt it will happen, sadly.

 

[carlos2033]

Zoltan is Pro-Nilfgaard.

How is he Pro-Nilfgard he fought against them in war, or you mean he could be and he don`t have high opinion in books to live in Nilfgard or i am mistaken

 

[CTPhipps]

A. The primary reason as to why he is doing what he is doing is because he's a lunatic. There is perhaps one mention by Triss that he is doing it for money and for populism, perhaps another mention somewhere else, but for the most part, his primary drive is his lunacy. We don't actually explore the underlining reasons behind his actions, as someone who is referred to as a cold hearted politician in TW2. Instead, the game is content with making him a raving lunatic and for you to buy it.

Actually, I took Triss to be dead wrong and the game engaging in dramatic irony. The depiction of Radovid I took was that she assumed he had a motivation of financial greed and funds to justify his destruction of mages when, in fact, he was actually motivated by his personal hatred of the Lodge of Sorcerers. However, the later prediction of "the nonhumans will next" seems to contradict this and I wonder if we're not meant to take her at her word.

B. That's what his entire rule is comprised of. It is how it is presented, in both the game and the ending epilogue. Everything in his rule is presented as shit, with persecution being the center of his policy. So it's not a question of persecution being but a small part of his larger policies, but rather his policy being that of persecution, almost intrinsically at this point. The ending slide further makes it clear that Radovid's rule is completely irredeemable and there is nothing good that comes from it. Aka, it's boring and stupid.

I'm not sure the Nilfgaard ending is presented so unambiguously that the very fact he defeats them and drives them home with Emhyr assassinated is not, by itself, a positive thing. The quote-unquote "Free North" alternative is a rather poor subtitute for the genocide of the less fortunate, though, as you are correct in saying.
Honestly, I'm kind of wondering if the pogrom of nonhumans is entirely so they can make it CLEAR that he's evil because some players might consider 2000 dead mages to be a worthy price for a free North.

---------- Updated at 06:57 PM ----------

That's not bad actually, and a good compromise.

But I highly doubt it will happen, sadly.

Probably not, but would go a long way to fixing my problems with the quest without being a major change.

---------- Updated at 06:57 PM ----------

How is he Pro-Nilfgard he fought against them in war, or you mean he could be and he don`t have high opinion in books to live in Nilfgard or i am mistaken

In the case of Zoltan, I would assume he would be Pro-Nilfgaard in the context of Roche in that as much as he despises them it would be a contrast against Radovid.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I'm not sure the Nilfgaard ending is presented so unambiguously that the very fact he defeats them and drives them home with Emhyr assassinated is not, by itself, a positive thing. The quote-unquote "Free North" alternative is a rather poor subtitute for the genocide of the less fortunate, though, as you are correct in saying.
Honestly, I'm kind of wondering if the pogrom of nonhumans is entirely so they can make it CLEAR that he's evil because some players might consider 2000 dead mages to be a worthy price for a free North.

Even if we agree that pushing Nilfgaard is a positive thing, Dijkstra does the same without all the shit.
Radovid's ending is irredeemable and is presented as the worst ending of the 3. It is boring.

 

[CTPhipps]

Even if we agree that pushing Nilfgaard is a positive thing, Dijkstra does the same without all the shit.
Radovid's ending is irredeemable and is presented as the worst ending of the 3. It is boring.

As stated, there's just not enough explanation for a lot.

In my DREAM enhanced edition, Roche would have a much larger role.

I'd also show him losing faith in the cause.

Because the Roche of AOK2 wasn't really the kind of compromising realistic pragmatic sort. You'd think he'd be all over a plan to fight onward and it would be someone like Ves (who was significantly more down-to-earth) who would be thinking about the people.

Oh well, we could be agreeing about that for days I'm sure.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Because the Roche of AOK2 wasn't really the kind of compromising realistic pragmatic sort. You'd think he'd be all over a plan to fight onward and it would be someone like Ves (who was significantly more down-to-earth) who would be thinking about the people.

Oh well, we could be agreeing about that for days I'm sure.

I agree actually, I think Roche is acting OOC in the game, but I didn't want to open that can of worms.

 

[daveyido]

How is Dijkstra able to control Redania, I get the impression that the nobility woul rather bend to Nilfgaard than him. I think Rad should have had an infant son or something like that that Dijkstra could rule through.

I do wish that other Northern Rulers could have been mentioned, the king of Cidaris could have been in exile in Skellige for example and I've always liked Meve.

My preferred ending would have involved Ciri ruling an independent Cintra and most of the Northern Kingdoms regaining independence. But that have been too happy and unrealistic I suppose.

 

[CTPhipps]

I agree actually, I think Roche is acting OOC in the game, but I didn't want to open that can of worms.

I'd be interested in how you would envision the role of Roche and Ves in the hypothetical, "Knight of Phoenix Edition" of Wild Hunt.

Also, perhaps the larger Temerian Resistance.

After all, this exists to be fun.

---------- Updated at 08:17 PM ----------

How is Dijkstra able to control Redania, I get the impression that the nobility woul rather bend to Nilfgaard than him. I think Rad should have had an infant son or something like that that Dijkstra could rule through.

I do wish that other Northern Rulers could have been mentioned, the king of Cidaris could have been in exile in Skellige for example and I've always liked Meve.

My preferred ending would have involved Ciri ruling an independent Cintra and most of the Northern Kingdoms regaining independence. But that have been too happy and unrealistic I suppose.

The game is smart enough to say that Dijkstra is only "Chancellor" of the Redanian Empire and ruling it somehow, so it's presumably through some sort of puppet. The existence of Nilfgaard, the promise of possibly turning over Novigrad, and his immense amount of information/network of spies means he could probably push himself into a position of leadership.

However, we don't get any of these details. I imagine, though, Dijkstra looks much better after a few years under Radovid's rule.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Even if we agree that pushing Nilfgaard is a positive thing, Dijkstra does the same without all the shit.

Yeah, but unfortunately, any motivation to go with Dijkstra is shit. I don't see any bloody sense to support him from in-game perspective. Meta-gaming and a nice ending sequence should not be a primary motivation for doing things in-game.
I agree with you that CDPR push an agenda concerning Radovid, and present his as a local version of the Mad King, which is pretty bad. It is simply unbelievable given his presentation in TW2. I wish they would change it in CE. I am really trying to see him as a version of Stannis Baratheon (with an added benefit of not having a family to burn), which is not that hard to do because most negative shit is learned from others' testimony, and may be chalked off as propaganda.

I agree, CDPR writers should elaborate on all these things mentioned in the posts above, give a larger presence to major political players, or, at least, as a bare minimum, for "beep" sake, give us a normal motivation to choose Dijkstra over Roche.

 

[CTPhipps]

Yeah, but unfortunately, any motivation to go with Dijkstra is shit. I don't see any bloody sense to support him from in-game perspective. Meta-gaming and a nice ending sequence should not be a primary motivation for doing things in-game.

My motivation was Roche keeping me out of the loop regarding the whole Treaty with Nilfgaard thing and the fact Emhyr was someone I worried about coming after Ciri. Plus, my Geralt was friends with Dijkstra just like he was friends with Roche.

I couldn't imagine Geralt SIDING AGAINST Roche but I couldn't imagine my Geralt going AGAINST Dijkstra for him at that point either. I think part of the problem was most gamers really disliked Dijkstra from the ass-ish way he was portrayed while I found him endearing.

I also took him at his word he wanted to help Mages globally.

I agree with you that CDPR push an agenda concerning Radovid, and present his as a local version of the Mad King, which is pretty bad. It is simply unbelievable given his presentation in TW2. I wish they would change it in CE. I am really trying to see him as a version of Stannis Baratheon (with an added benefit of not having a family to burn), which is not that hard to do because most negative shit is learned from others' testimony, and may be chalked off as propaganda.

I agree, CDPR writers should elaborate on all these things mentioned in the posts above, give a larger presence to major political players, or, at least, as a bare minimum, for "beep" sake, give us a normal motivation to choose Dijkstra over Roche.

The problem with Radovid as Stannis is that's HENSELT not Radovid.

Radovid is a snake.

* In the Witcher 1, he's secretly allied with the Church of Eternal Fire and Adda to undermine King Foltest and force him into an alliance.
* In the Witcher 2, he's allied with the Order of the Flaming Rose officially despite them being racist religious fanatics.
* In the Witcher 2, he can and does intend to partition Temeria into his own territory with Henselt like Hitler and Stalin.
* In the Witcher 2, Radovid can also trigger a massive pogrom of witches throughout the land to make up for his past abuse at the hands of Philippa.

Radovid is an evil-evil bastard.

It's just he's never been a STUPID evil-evil bastard.

Radovid is also FRIENDLY to Geralt in the two games because he seems to sense he's the protagonist and is probably not a man to get on the bad side of.

It's why I thought they were portraying Radovid as friendly to Geralt by having him do favors for Geralt and hire him to get Philippa.

I would have liked Radovid never suspecting Geralt of duplicity and considering him a friend--even as Geralt leads him to his doom.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Radovid is an evil-evil bastard.

I prefer to describe Radovid as a calculating politician at heart without the moral judgement. But yes, he's never been a lunatic, even if one thinks he was "evil" in TW1 and 2 (I don't, but that's a different discussion).

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Radovid is an evil-evil bastard.

I don't see Radovid as evil at all. For me a person is evil only if his or her primary motivation is to promote pain, suffering and misery. Loredo was evil because he was a high-functioning psychopath who got his rocks off on rape and torture.
The most atrocious thing for me would be to present the persecutions of mages and non-humans as a purely sadistic act aimed at some sort of Radovid's personal satisfaction. He is simply not this kind of guy. His motivation in TW2 (and, for me, by extension, in TW3) is purely political, with pain and suffering being simply a natural part of this "burn the witch" package deal. If anyone tells different - it is just propaganda and an attempt of character assassination.

 

[CTPhipps]

I don't see Radovid as evil at all. For me a person is evil only if his or her primary motivation is to promote pain, suffering and misery. Loredo was evil because he was a high-functioning psychopath who got his rocks off on rape and torture.
The most atrocious thing for me would be to present the persecutions of mages and non-humans as a purely sadistic act aimed at some sort of Radovid's personal satisfaction. He is simply not this kind of guy. His motivation in TW2 (and, for me, by extension, in TW3) is purely political, with pain and suffering being simply a natural part of this "burn the witch" package deal. If anyone tells different - it is just propaganda and an attempt of character assassination.

Evil is a value judgement which exists entirely within the context of the viewers heads and has no objective truth. My general opinion of Radovid is that he's a deeply vicious, ruthless, and dangerous person with several large prejudices.

If he had been portrayed as a religious fanatic killing mages and nonhumans for reasons of faith, I'd have had less of a problem with his portrayal than doing it because "Chessman, I want to break them open and eat them!"