Emhyr - The Game Non-Character vs the Book.

[wichat]

So why don't you put Emhyr is his right place as books have always explained it? He was teach and trained to be the successor to the throne. Greast ambition. In his adolescence, when the personality is more brittle and ductile, he suffers a curse and exile. He lose all his humanity and his great and wished future. Alone, for years, like an animal, feeling the hatre and the revenge as unique reasons for surviving. Seduce the heiress daughter of a queen is a possible way of getting recover his inheritance in the near future, acquiring a position and strength of a Kingdom respected and feared as Cintra.

But Geralt appears. Saves him from the curse at the same time (even without knowing it, he ruins his plans). Vilegortz goes into action and tells Emhyr of a detail that he unknown: Pavetta carries the Old blood and her and his daughter, which he promised to give Geralt for saving his life, will be the mother of the Master of the World to stop the freezing cold . He plots the shipwreck and murder of his wife, presented in Nilfgaard with his future wife, the heiress of Cintra is the official version. The real is to be the father of Master of the World. If he can not prevent his birth at least he has to try to be the father and thus double the strength of his genes of his offspring.
Because, after all, a father prepares the world for his son conquer him.

Only till here, you can see a cold, calculator and very smart and intelligent psicopath. Not reading the books, and only taking off some text from the whole context will no give any real reference who is really Emhyr: a verey complex human being. Expecting that CDPR explain all this in a open world RPG it's a little naive. CDPR have do the almost best the can do (because everthing is improvable) and I can recognize in the game Emhyr character.

And sorry for my English, google tanslator have made the major part

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Even if this plane carries a nuclear device, and will go off over New York killing hundreds of thousands? If you shut it down, the bomb will go off over the Atlantic, and only the passengers will die. By the way, the passengers will die anyway, whether you shoot the plane or not. So you are saying, you'll just watch the show without doing anything because you do not want to violate some abstract principle? Well, this is probably something most people would disagree. I know I would. I would always prefer to save the lives of real people over a preservation of some principle.

A lot of ifs. You cannot really answer that without being in exactly the same situation.

But humanity is not some abstract principle. It's the very core of what we are. The world is not worth saving if we can't stay "human" while doing so.

 

[CostinRaz]

Expecting that CDPR explain all this in a open world RPG it's a little naive. CDPR have do the almost best the can do (because everthing is improvable) and I can recognize in the game Emhyr character.

You mean it's naive to expect them to make more then non-characters? Hey how about removing Dijkstra then cause he's also a very complex past with a great deal of baggage. Oh wait they actually did implement him well in the game....until they spat on him in Reasons of State.

There's no reason they couldn't have made Emhyr a complex game character, no justification. They didn't care to do it, just like they didn't give a fuck to make Radovid anything more then an evil maniac.

I constantly hear this bloody argument that "we shouldn't expect X in an open world game". Why they fuck shouldn't we? No one forced them make it open world, it was their damned decision.

I don't know about you, but the story is the single most important aspect of any CDPR game, because if you remove the story the gameplay is quite frankly mediocre and there are FAR better titles out there in terms of gameplay, even open world gameplay, but they botched it. Not just with Emhyr, but Eredin, Triss, Letho, Radovid and many other instances.

 

[luc0s]

@CostinRaz Just my 2 cents on what you just said:

1) I don't agree the gameplay of TW3 is mediocre. It's not the best of the best, but it's still good.

2) Despite it's major flaws, TW3 still has a better story than the vast majority of videogames out there. Still, it could have been better.

That's all.

 

[Songborn]

After Ciri leaves in a huff durng Battle Preparations in the Nilfgaardian camp, Geralt can say "She got her personality from her father." and in the empress ending it says "She inherited the political instincts from her father". What do you think about that? Are Cir and Emhyr truly similar in the games?

 

[Willowhugger]

After Ciri leaves in a huff durng Battle Preparations in the Nilfgaardian camp, Geralt can say "She got her personality from her father." and in the empress ending it says "She inherited the political instincts from her father". What do you think about that? Are Cir and Emhyr truly similar in the games?

I was confused by that line because I assumed it was Avallach misunderstanding Geralt.

"No, she got it from me."

Because I think Ciri are about as far removed from someone as you can be on a spherical globe, North and Soul poles.

Ciri is passionate, heroic, idealistic, and loves the common people.

Emhyr is cold, ruthless, cynical, and loves the superior Nilfgaardian race.

 

[Songborn]

I was confused by that line because I assumed it was Avallach misunderstanding Geralt.

"No, she got it from me."

That was my first thought too, but then Geralt's reply pretty much confirmed he meant Emhyr. Which weird because Emyhr is about as fiery as an icecube.
I don't think though that Emhyr loves Nilfgaard or Nilfgaardians, at least not in the way elves love themselves. Nilfgaard is too ethically diverse for that to actually make sense and Emhyr always seemed more the kind of person who cares about what you can do for him instead of what or who you are. Instead I think he just cares about his empire because it is HIS.

 

[Willowhugger]

That was my first thought too, but then Geralt's reply pretty much confirmed he meant Emhyr. Which weird because Emyhr is about as fiery as an icecube.
I don't think though that Emhyr loves Nilfgaard or Nilfgaardians, at least not in the way elves love themselves. Nilfgaard is too ethically diverse for that to actually make sense and Emhyr always seemed more the kind of person who cares about what you can do for him instead of what or who you are. Instead I think he just cares about his empire because it is HIS.

Emhyr is basically Henselt with less charisma and more intimidation.

 

[juanplay]

In the end of lady of the Lake Geralt makes it clear Emhyr and Ciri are very alike, basically when ciri refuses to accept Geralt´s and Yennefer´s execution the way she talks, moves and behaves resemble those of Emhyr´s

Here is the quote:

He who lives by the sword,’ Emhyr var Emreis said dully,’ dies by the sword. They both fought with me and lost. But they lose with dignity.’

Ciri, in three steps stood before him, Geralt silently gasped. He heard Yennefer sigh. Bloody hell, he thought, anyone can see it! Everyone in the Black Ones army will see it! The same attitude, the same sparkling eyes, the same gesture with her mouth, the way she crosses her arms over her chest. Fortunately she inherited her mother’s ashen mane. But even so, those who aren’t blind can see whose blood she is.

 

[Songborn]

Yeah, I cann see the similarities in the books, but for somebody who only played the games this would probably fell odd. Game!Emhyr is much more subdued than Ciri, so maybe they should have included a scene like in The Lady of the Lake to transport it into the game.
Skellige would be a good opportunity. Does the game really expect me to believe that Emhyr gives you his army and doesn't want to talk to Ciri (esp. if you did not bring her to him)? You'd think he'd have some opinion on your battle plan too.

 

[carlos2033]

If ice age suppose to happen in 3000 years why he had to rape his own daughter ts save world, it`s because he is not interested in saving world instead he want to rule it that is why he conquer other lands constantly, he is interested more in other part of prophecy where it say that Ciri child will rule half of the world that is why he want that kid be his too to strenghten his position, if he wanted to save world he just could wait for her to have kid with someone she want.

 

[Willowhugger]

If ice age suppose to happen in 3000 years why he had to rape his own daughter ts save world, it`s because he is not interested in saving world instead he want to rule it that is why he conquer other lands constantly, he is interested more in other part of prophecy where it say that Ciri child will rule half of the world that is why he want that kid be his too to strenghten his position, if he wanted to save world he just could wait for her to have kid with someone she want.

Don't miss that this is ironic. Emhyr doesn't understand the Prophecy. All of this is completely unnecessary.

It's part of why I like Alvin as the revelation about the Wild Hunt and Ciri is about demythologizing her heritage. At the end of the day, Ciri's specialness is not because of any fate or destiny but that she's the result of an elvish science experiment.

It makes Ciri's situation all the more absurd as people chase her for ridiculous reasons.

 

[Songborn]

Don't miss that this is ironic. Emhyr doesn't understand the Prophecy. All of this is completely unnecessary.

It's part of why I like Alvin as the revelation about the Wild Hunt and Ciri is about demythologizing her heritage. At the end of the day, Ciri's specialness is not because of any fate or destiny but that she's the result of an elvish science experiment.

It makes Ciri's situation all the more absurd as people chase her for ridiculous reasons.

One one hand I am a big fan of the trope of the Chosen One not being the Chosen One or special in any way, on the other it just makes me pity Ciri. Apart from Geralt and the witchers she has nobody in her life for a longer time that doesn't want to manipulate her. And then she proceeds to throw herself into Nilfgaardian politics with her only backup being Emhyr and maybe Voorhis. And I can't imagine Game!Emhyr being the supportive kind of dad.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Don't miss that this is ironic. Emhyr doesn't understand the Prophecy. All of this is completely unnecessary.

Is that so? I think the understood the prophecy pretty well.

 

[Willowhugger]

Is that so? I think the understood the prophecy pretty well.

The very fact that Ciri won't live to see the White Frost kind of says otherwise.

But yeah, boiled down to it, Emhyr learned about the prophecy from Vilgefortz.

I.e. a man who thinks it's not Ciri's heritage but her LITERAL BLOOD that is the power.

They're both morons.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

The very fact that Ciri won't live to see the White Frost kind of says otherwise.

I don't understand what you mean. Ciri was never meant to see the White Frost anyway. Her job was to give birth to a child. Emhyr knew that pretty well.

I.e. a man who thinks it's not Ciri's heritage but her LITERAL BLOOD that is the power.

He wasn't just interested in her blood in the literal sense. That's why he wanted her placenta...


But I guess you mix up book lore and game lore here which makes no sense at all since they obviously treat the prophecy in different ways (sadly)...

 

[Willowhugger]

I talk about book lore to talk about game lore, Scholarr.

Please.



If you want to discuss just the books, then Emhyr is just an asshat.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I talk about book lore to talk about game lore, Scholarr.

What ???

If you want to discuss just the books, then Emhyr is just an asshat.

Just another proof why it was a bad idea to change the lore for no good reason. It just leads to one inconsisteny after the other...

I'm still waiting for the explanation why Emhyr misunderstood the prophecy though.

 

[luc0s]

That is something I simply can't take your word for it. I would prefer to see some philosophical argument, with all true premises, and a conclusion that actually follows. It would have to deal with the meaning of "good", "evil", "morally permissible", "obligatory", etc.



Actually, it is exactly the opposite of what I claim. What I said that Emhyr being her father is completely irrelevant to moral evaluation. It is concent that matters, not a matter of DNA.



What reasoning are you talking here? Also, even if we accept that something is wrong, doing it still may be morally permissible because of some good justification. So everything depends whether we accept Emhyr's justification for his actions and his future plans.



Science has nothing to do with morality Science deals with questions about "what is a case" (objective questions), and not with "what should be the case" (normative questions). Whether normative questions are actually pseudo-question is something that should require A LOT OF PHILOSOPHICAL WORK to defend, and simply can't be decided withing sciences.

Good source of knowledge:
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415803888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435793178&sr=8-1&keywords=contemporary+introduction+to+ethics
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0415891779/ref=pd_sim_14_12?ie=UTF8&refRID=1C2R3DX7XWSJHJ3YE888

I suggest you read this on why objective morality is unscientific and quite frankly just doesn't exist in reality:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

The burden of proof is on the people who claim objective morality is true. So far, no such proof has been provided, and everything we see in society points to morality being subjective.

So, when we all agree that morality is inherently subjective, then we come to the conclusion that saying Emhyr was objectively immoral is a false statement.

 

[Willowhugger]

Whether it's objective or the product of moral judgements, however, really doesn't matter in the slightest though as all decisions are made on an individual level by individual people with their own values.

We're 7 billion separate universes.

And in my universe, he's a piece of crap.

So, could we get back to that instead of arguing over whether or not his piece of crapness is inherent or not?