Does the game promotes imperialism?[spoilers]

[TouPoutsou]

Does the game promotes imperialism?[spoilers]

The thread is not meant to critise, but rather serve as food for discussion. Judging by the endings, Nilfgaard winning the war is the clear "good" ending. There is peace and prosperity. On the other hand, North winning in both occassions is the far less "good" option. Radovid's regime is full of hate and racism, and Dijkstra's regime is basically a totalitarian state. Industry grows(like it did in Nazi Germany), with great loss of liberty and rulling through fear. I found this strange, especially considering that problems in North started appearing due to Nilfgaards imperialistic politics. So, the answer of peace and prosperity is a great Imperial force conquering the weaker individual states that seem to be incapable of Flourising and developing on their own?

Edit: Before playing the game, after reading the books and playing the previous games, i wanted to oppose Nilfgaard at any cost, but i ended up supporting it. The game did not leave me much choice. I beleive that ending regarding the political situation should have been abit more balanced, or let's say "grey". I personally hate imperialism, but the other option were just plain worse.

The thread is not so much about imperialism. I wanted to be something like "Why is Nilfgaard the clear "good" choice", but i wanted to keep the titles spoiler free.

 

[TudorAdrian]

Well, history is pretty much the best source of inspiration when trying to craft a believable plot in such a game Could have been the same though had Emyr been the one in Radovid's shoes..who knows.

 

[Madoga]

Unless you think they wrote this whole story around a preconceived notion of 'imperialism', the game doesn't promote anything, it simply portraits it and brings the story to a logical conclusion. The 'imperialism' is there to facilitate the story, not the other way around.

 

[DuranA]

I found this strange, especially considering that problems in North started appearing

The problems of the North existed long before any war between Nilfgaard and the North occurred. The North was always a place of discrimination, racial hatred, prejudice against magic and petty rulers vying for control while using non-humans as scapegoats.

The wars with Nilfgaard magnified these issues, in particular the non-human one, but Nilfgaard cannot be blamed for the root cause of the problem.

TW3 does not promote Imperialism, it does not white wash Nilfgaard, but it doesn't present the North as being righteous or moral or any nonsense but rather as they are and as they've always been. It does present Radovid in a very negative light, which I feel goes way too far and ruins him, but at the same time Nilfgaard has it's own sins.

On the other hand the way they handle the choice of who wins and how, the way it's all presented to the player in Reasons of State is quite frankly shit.

 

[OutgoingHermit]

I think in the books it's pretty heavily implied that Nilfgaard eventually takes over the North at some point (i.e. 100-200 years in the future) regardless of the outcome of this particular war.

 

[TouPoutsou]

The problems of the North existed long before any war between Nilfgaard and the North occurred. The North was always a place of discrimination, racial hatred, prejudice against magic and petty rulers vying for control while using non-humans as scapegoats.

The wars with Nilfgaard magnified these issues, in particular the non-human one, but Nilfgaard cannot be blamed for the root cause of the problem.

TW3 does not promote Imperialism, it does not white wash Nilfgaard, but it doesn't present the North as being righteous or moral or any nonsense but rather as they are and as they've always been. It does present Radovid in a very negative light, which I feel goes way too far and ruins him, but at the same time Nilfgaard has it's own sins.

Fair points. North had it's fair share of problems, especially on racial discrimination. However, even though Emhyr supposedly supported non humans, in the books it's clear that it was just to deriorate the North's internal affairs, since he shitted on them later. As for discimination against magic, that was mostly on Nilfgaard. In the north sorecers were higly respect and served as advisor's to kings. In the south they were treated like crap, in the books at least.

The thread is not so much about imperialism. I wanted to be something like "Why is Nilfgaard the clear "good" choice", but i wanted to keep the titles spoiler free.

 

[DuranA]

Fair points. North had it's fair share of problems, especially on racial discrimination. However, even though Emhyr supposedly supported non humans, in the books it's clear that it was just to deriorate the North's internal affairs

Except that non-humans are treated considerably better in Nilfgaard then in the North, and have been long before the wars ever started. Yes Emhyr took advantage of it but elves would never have fought for Nilfgaard if life wasn't already better there.

As for discimination against magic, that was mostly on Nilfgaard. In the north sorecers were higly respect and served as advisor's to kings. In the south they were treated like crap, in the books at least.

On a higher political level yes the North did treat mages better, because they could use them, but regular people always disliked mages and magic.

Worth noting that book canon wise there were always going to be Witch Hunts in the North.

 

[carlos2033]

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

 

[sundust]

I don't think the game promotes imperialism, much as it does not promote sexism, but it certainly makes you think about it. I think the whole point of the witcher series is to deconstruct the usual "hero" narrative commonly seen in games of this type, where you are a "good guy" who does "the right thing" and creates a "happy ending". If one of the endings is obviously "good", everyone will just keep replaying until that reach it, and then it's like that is the only actual ending and the rest don't really count.

 

[Pescador7]

Before release I feared the game would portray nilfgardians as the evil guys.

Turns out it was the other way around... Radovid was the last king of the north and became a madman. He wanted to create his own empire... Hunted everything magic, and would soon turn to the non-humans.

If the choice is between two evil empires, I would rather take the one where people live better.

If Radovid wasn't portrayed as being totally nuts I would support him... In one of my playthroughs in The Witcher 2 I helped Radovid and he seemed a fair ruler to me.

 

[DuranA]

It is strange that everyone say nilfgard treats nonhuman better yet we never see any nonhuman nilfgardian

It's never shown but Cynthia says as much in TW2 and I believe there's journal entries in TW3. It's also no coincidence that the Dwarf blacksmith comes to like them in White Orchard.

More importantly Nilfgaardians pride themselves on sharing blood with elves and they speak in Elvish, in fact Emhyr's title is in elvish if I ain't mistaken.

Now obviously there's no high ranking non-human Nilfgaardian since they value mixed blood the most.

i dont think all north is bad for nonhumans and mages its mostly Redania or Radovid realms after invasion

Witcher 1: Non-humans live in ghettos and treated like trash along with Geralt. Also mention of the pogrom in Rivia during which Geralt was killed.
Witcher 2: All of the major northern kingdoms treat non-humans like trash with people like Roche brutally crushing non-human revolts...also Loredo, Demavend and Henselt treat them very badly.
Witcher 3: In Velen, Novigrad and White Orchard people are racists towards them.

So no. It's not just Redania.

 

[Tyrvar]

I don't think it is really a good or bad ending since Nilfgaard winning and Emhyr returning to "cleanse" anyone who was remotely involved in plots attempting his deposition is not much better than burning mages.

Radovid is insane, but his personal hatred of Mages/Sorceresses makes sense. All the plots and scheming they do only adds to the instability of the Northern Realms, not to mention Philippa's involvement on his earlier years seems to have scarred him.

Dijkstra is a competent ruler who rules through fear and some loss of freedoms, but stability and prosperity ensues which is not a common feature of the Northern Realms. I'd also assume Emhyr rules in a similar way.

The best thing about the Witcher series is the endings all have their strengths and weaknesses. The morality of what's good and bad is hazy at best and dependent on personal preference.

 

[carlos2033]

You got a point but it is not all that bad either, i mean they dont live to bad in vergen or mahakam atleast dwarves, also i think life was beter for mages in north before invasion they had schools in Temeria and Kedwen, am not saying nilfgard is bad its just all had its own flaws

---------- Updated at 03:51 PM ----------

It's also no coincidence that the Dwarf blacksmith comes to like them in White Orchard.

they also dont pay him just using him for weapons

 

[TouPoutsou]

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).

 

[leinad312]

I don't think the game promotes imperialism, rather it just shows that Emhyr is willing to make concessions to stabilize his empire. He was willing to give Elves their own homeland with Dol Blathanna, he was willing to grant amnesty to the Lodge of Sorceresses for their aid against the Wild Hunt, and he was willing to make Temeria a vassal state to bring about a quicker end to the conflict. If anything the game just shows that Emhyr is a capable administrator.

 

[Zyvik]

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).

The Northern Kindoms were always disrespectful of mages,they just had more freedoms there,than in Nilfgaard.

 

[Ortwyn]

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.

I agree with your post, but the part dedicated to the mages is not correct.

1) Aretuza and Ban Ard are prestigious, but quite frankly we don't have enough information about the Imperial Academy. From the saga we only know that propaganda is incorporated into the education process of young mages and that many of them believe that sorceress which excessively cares about her apperance is supposed to be less concentrated. Nothing about the academic reputation.

2) It is not true that in Nilfgaard they despised magic of all forms. Mages in Nilfgaard are perceived as normal people, they are well-paid, but under control (Emhyr really despises them, but in his case it is a bit personal). If a Nilfgaardian mage behaves well (means being obedient and loyal), he has no problem. Have you read the the Season of Storms? There is a mage who decides to migrate to Nilfgaard.

3) The Lodge was formed, because Philippa is ambitious and wants to establish the New World Order. When Lodge was formed there was a crisis in the North (disintegration of the Brotherhood of Sorcerers after the Thanedd coup), not in the South.

Yes, Nilfgaardian mages do not engage in politics and they must be obedient. But maybe it is better. Just look at what happens in the North, where nobody controls the mages - genetic experiments in Rissberg, the Thanedd coup, the Lodge - one disaster after another.

 

[CTPhipps]

The thread is not meant to critise, but rather serve as food for discussion. Judging by the endings, Nilfgaard winning the war is the clear "good" ending.

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.

Ciri can stop them but Emhyr won't.

 

[FrostKaiser]

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.

Ciri can stop them but Emhyr won't.

The game does portrait Niflgaard as being good, at least the better option compared to the other current northern kings.

But wait, I forgot, it's Willowhugger: "Ooh, Nilfgaard is soo evil. Oooh, Cintra, the atrocities of the Evil Sith Empire."
:troll:

 

[CTPhipps]

I started playing the game from the perspective of Geralt as a Witcher. I've always been a fan of Nilfgaard and was hoping that CD_Red would portray them neutrally. I like the "Heroes on Both Sides" sort of thing and the idea that in a world as morally repugnant as the Witchers (save Geralt, of course) that both the North and Nilfgaard have their good and bad points. I think they succeeded in doing so but I do think the white-washing people talk about in the game ignores a lot of the game's context. The Pro-Nilfgaard faction pretty much has also cariactured the ending to something which doesn't reflect reality.

In the end, there's no good decision to support game-wise with politics save Ciri as Empress and that requires you to make your daughter miserable for the so-called greater good. I couldnt' do that and I think the North and South need to get their **** together on their own.

What were the events which convinced me Nilfgaard was not a good thing for the North?

1. White Orchard: We see the destruction of a village right underneath the one we come into during the game and it is a horrific scene of bruality and horror. The Nilfgaard, for all of their claims of civilization, are just as thuggish as the Northerners in that the locals are not in any way threats to their reign. During the whole "Drunken Massacre" scene, one of the Drunks talks about how the Nilfgaardians are raping and burning the Temples of Melethil which Geralt has a Book Relationship to.

Given that we meet one of their ex-sisters in Tomira, it says what sort of people are being targeted for extermination by the Nilfgaardians. We also get a sense of how Nilfgaardian "justice" works with the hanging of the arsonist within minutes because it was a crime against a military asset and the fifteen lashes delivered to the snivelling peasant for defective goods. The scary thing about all this? This is under a good Nilfgaard commander. Yes, the extermination of a peaceful religion and wholesale massacre of a village is normal behavior.

2. Velen: This is where a lot of pro-gamers ignore the situation because it doesn't fit their view of Nilfgaard. The Bloody Baron and his forces are Temerian collaborators with the Nilfgaard. While I hesitate to use the Nazi reference, I don't really know any other good popularly known alternatives than Vichy France even though I don't think the Nilfgaard are Nazis save for their preference for black and invading fantasy Poland(I'm not an idiot).

The Bloody Baron's men are, however, soldiers on Nilfgaard and they are pillaging the land to feed Nilfgaard's armies while engaging in wholesale rape as well as plunder. This is all the responsibility of the Nilfgaard because the Bloody Baron is their officer. He's in power because of them and acting with their authority as the General says--even if he sneers at him.

3. Novigrad: We get a much softer depiction of Novigrad here with the humanizing depiction of the Nilfgaardians and their ways by Voormis and his family. They're shown as decent, moral, and fun-people who are more interested in fencing as well as horse-racing than BURN THE WITCH. Really, the Nilfgaard portions of the city are the least depressing part as if ANYONE is a Nazi in Novigrad, it is the Redanians and their murderous genocide of the locals as well as hero-worship of Hitlervid. Even so, Rosa is an open-minded young woman and she thinks murdering two drunks for insulting her is acceptible practice. The Nilfgaardians consider themselves superior to the North and this will be reflected in any occupation.

Conversely

I don't think the Nilfgaard are bad people with rare exceptions (like Emhyr). General Voormis and his daughters are pretty awesome people to hang around and I hope Baroness Lavalette marries into them. I advised the dwarf in White Orchard to leave with the Nilfgaardians. If I was given a choice of living in Novigrad or Nilfgaard, you better damn well believe I would prefer to live under the banner of the Black Sun.

The problem is the politics of Imperialism and culture-clash are not black and white issues. Victorian London (which I consider a much better analogue for Nilfgaard's domination of the North) was one of the most advanced societies in the world with many awesome, wonderful people but I think the people of China had good reason to take issue with it.

This doesn't mean you SHOULD choose to fight against Nilfgaard, though. Radovid is just as bad, if not worse, than Emhyrs. It's a choose between Tywin Lannister (hehe) and Joffrey. Dijkstra requires you to turn against Roche, which is only justifiable if you REALLY object to a peace treaty with the Nilfgaard.

But this is why I think the game did a good job of showing the horrors of Imperialism. If you want to know why Imperialism is bad, then you only have to listen to the alderman's screams for giving rotten food (which is probably what his starving peasants are eating).