Emhyr - The Game Non-Character vs the Book.

[luc0s]

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?

And in my universe, he's not. I don't think Emhyr is exactly a paragon, far from it, I probably wouldn't be big friends with him, but I like him as a character. At least I don't hate him, unlike you.

As long as you're not going to tell me I'm wrong for holding a different opinion on Emhyr, we're fine. You have your opinion, I have mine. As long as we both accept that our opinions are just that; opinions, then we're fine.

 

[CTPhipps]

Well there's no objective Emhyr either. He only exists in our heads.



Taking a moment to speak from Book Experience, In the Books it's implied Emhyr learns from his experience and becomes a better person.,

Game Emhyr is much more back to original Emhyr, the vicious ruthless Machiavellian Warlord.

 

[Songborn]

Game Emhyr doesn't really have much room to show wheter his personality changed or not, TW3 had just too many characters for that. He doesn't even interact with the world in some shadowy form sort of way, because you can pretty much ignore him for the most part, until he drags you and Uma to him and those three minutes where you have to get Vigo. He takes the Ganondorf approach to being involved. When Geralt and him are in the same room he feels like a real presence, but leave and it's just poof.
It's interesting though that he told his men not to shoot you should you happen to swim up to his ship. Like he was expecting Geralt to just pop up in the middle of the night. Probably just meta reasons.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

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.

I am sorry but there is no ARGUMENT there at all, just a bit of explanation what it is, and it's possible origin. Also there is nothing about it being unscientific, because there is no argument that science somehow disproved the existence of objective moral truths.
Everything that is wrong with this article may be presented in this quite:
"Unless there is at least one type of killing that is universally considered to be murder, it cannot be argued that all societies agree that murder is wrong in any meaningful sense."
What it said is that not a single type of act is considered to be murder in every society. So what some societies consider a murder, others - do not. All right, I can agree with it. What does it have to do with the second part - therefore MURDER IS NOT WRONG??? Just because people may disagree that a certain act falls under a category of 'murder' (like we do all the time in murder trials), it does not follow that if an act falls under this category, it is still not wrong.

In general "murder is wrong" is considered to be TRUE BY DEFINITION, just in virtue of meaning of the words. Murder is usually defined as "unjust killing". The question is not whether this sentence is false. It simply can't be false because it is analytic (true by definition), similar to "all bachelors are unmarried". To use it as an argument against objectivity of morality is possible only for someone who never ever took even Philosophy 1.

By the way, this matter is much more complicated, not just an objective/subjective distinction. Something may be a matter of an opinion of an individual, or a group, or a part of social reality. Is police real? Sure as hell it is, just try to break the law. How objective it is? There sure won't be any police if all humans die out, for example. The same may be with morality. There is no need to ground it into a will of god, or some eternal abstract principle in Platonic Heaven. Morality well may be species-specific, and grounded in our shared physical and psychological make-up, preservation instinct, avoidance of pain and suffering, and so on.
Personally I am not objectivist about morality, I think it is constructed based on our biology and similar goals, but it is very far from it being subjective.

 

[CTPhipps]

I work in academia.

This argument hasn't been resolved in 2500 years, it's not going to be resolved now.

 

[541K4T]

Here's my questionnaire for it:

1. Should Emhyr's sordid past with Ciri have been brought up with game?

2. Should Cintra have been brought up in game?

3. Should the Prophecy of Ciri's son and grandson been brought up?

4. Would Fake CiriTM have been a good character to have in Vizima to talk about Emhyr's softer side? Or does she raise too many questions? Should she have been a romance option in a loveless marriage of convenience?

5. Should Geralt have been able to strike at Emhyr in some way? Not necessarily one of the assassins but assisting them or his political enemies somehow?

6. What other means could have been done to make Emhyr more a presence in the games?

1. Yes & No. CDPR diluted the past so that the newcomers & those only played the game does not feel lost in the complexity of the issue here.
2. No need. Cintra loses its importance if Emhyr past is diluted.
3. No, but mentioning them would have been interesting add would have added more layer to the story.
4. fake Ciri would have raised more question that requires more screen time than CDPR could have spared for.
5. totally out of character.
6. Adding more past details drawn directly from the books diluting as liitle as possible for the games sake, as it is very hard to describe a character in such short time frame. Even if they did write a viable biography numerous pages long encompassing his past deeds, most of the gamers probably would not bother reading them. so one option could be using some flashbacks & written material. And Obviously a better voice actor than Mr. Tywin . It is not that I hate Chrales Dance i liked him as Tywin very much but being a novice in Voice acting he tried to bring the same persona with Emhyr which did not work well at all IMHO, kinda ruined the character for me.

---------- Updated at 08:46 AM ----------

I was under the impression Vilgefortz directed him to Pavetta rather than the other way around.

No Vilgefortz came to Emhyr after Ciris birth, and probably twisted the words of the prophecy to suit his own means, but that does not diminish the terrible role Emhyr supposed to play in the plan.

Spoiler

After the birth of Ciri, Vilgefortz secretly visited me in Cintra. He introduced himself as a confidant of those who remained faithful to me in Nilfgaard. He offered me his help and soon demonstrated that he could help. When I asked incredulously the motives for his actions, he did not deny relying on my gratitude. His plans were to win wealth and power, which the future Emperor of Nilfgaard would provide him – me. A mighty ruler who would rule half the world and raise offspring, who would dominate the whole world. The wizard bluntly admitted that he wish to achieve a high position. The he pulled out a scroll tied with snakeskin and acquainted me with the content. So I knew of the prophecy, I learned about the future fate of the world and I realised what I must do. And I have come to believe that the end justifies the means.’