Dijkstra and the origins of the Witch Hunters

[Ghaisos]

Dijkstra and the origins of the Witch Hunters

I've been playing the original Witcher game recently, and was given the following book after having one drink too many with Thaler:

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Shadow_People,_or_the_story_of_His_Majesty's_Secret_Service

It recounts how Dijkstra aided the Order of the Flaming Rose when it was first founded, and how he believed that 'It [was] good to have fanatics and sorceress-scarers on one's side'.

In effect, this implies that Dijkstra helped lay the foundations for Radovid's later persecution of anyone with a whiff of magic about them.

I was wondering if this book was still considered 'canon' by CDPR when The Witcher 3 was made, as it makes the sincerity of Dijkstra's comments about the persecution of mages and sorceresses in the Witcher 3 even more doubtful than it already is.

Has anyone else thought about this?

 

[Riven-Twain]

I believe the book indicates that Dijkstra disliked fanatics being based within the realm, and enjoying direct royal patronage, regardless of their occasional value.

"It's good to have fanatics and sorceress-scarers on one's side, but it's even better when they live beyond one's borders.

Fundamentalists always cause trouble, so it's best to transfer this trouble to somebody else. Like the Temerians, for instance. And if we need fanatics, if we need to unleash them against the sorceresses or Nilfgaard, we'll just whistle. They will not be far — just beyond the border."

From this, I read that he may have found them useful pawns, sometime allies, when it served Redania's interest, but preferred to keep them at arms-length, rather than at the right hand of a (mad) king.

 

[Ghaisos]

Well, yes - but to help reform an order one of fanatics believing that they can then be summoned and, assumedly, dismissed at will seems a bit naive, doesn't it?

In any case, if we take the text from The Witcher to be part of the backdrop to The Witcher 3, Dijkstra bears at least some of the guilt of inciting ethnic and religious strife in the North, which I think changes the way he should be perceived as a character. After all, why trust him to put a stop to the witch hunt?

 

[Riven-Twain]

to help reform an order one of fanatics believing that they can then be summoned and, assumedly, dismissed at will seems a bit naive, doesn't it?

Based on the character in Witcher III, at least, I'd say he was capable of some rather foolish miscalculations, from time to time. (He mayn't have been quite as clever as he may have liked to believe himself.)

After all, why trust him to put a stop to the witch hunt?

Personally, I never did, which is part of the reason I never let him win in the quest Reason of State (wherein he also exhibits fatal megalomania).

 

[Ghaisos]

Haha, yes - true. But then he's also the most honest of the lot. After all, he tells Geralt what he has in mind for Redania almost from the get go, and it's pretty clear it's not going to mesh that well with any kind of peace deal that leaves Nilfgaard empowered.

I would have liked the ability to ask 'critical questions' early on in the Reason of State quest, as it seems evident early on that it will ultimately result in a conflict between the main conspirators, but I guess that would have made it difficult to get the quest to play out in full (or for the plot to be reasonably convincing) as the conflicts of interest would become too apparent.

 

[VanDerBass]

The whole witch hunters, including Menge, were the most poorly executed part of TW3 for me.
Dijkstra aiding them would have been a good explanation.