If not for Fringilla Vigo, there wouldn't be any Geralt or Yennefer no more...
I almost forgot about it.One more reason to love Fringilla
I almost forgot about it.One more reason to love Fringilla
Vilgefortz was easily THE most powerful singular being in the witcher world. And he actually was "just" a mage. Every combat skill he had was of magical nature. He beat a perfectly healthy Geralt to crap on Thanedd. He could have killed him there but he was too arrogant and self-absorbed for that (and obviously Sapkowski still needed Geralt...
I agree. It would have been cool to have a villain (whether on a main or a secondary quest) in TW3 on his level. An enemy that would give a level-40 Geralt a run for his money.
Vilgefortz was easily THE most powerful singular being in the witcher world. And he actually was "just" a mage. Every combat skill he had was of magical nature. He beat a perfectly healthy Geralt to crap on Thanedd. He could have killed him there but he was too arrogant and self-absorbed for that (and obviously Sapkowski still needed Geralt...
---------- Updated at 07:39 PM ----------
Vilgefortz was easily THE most powerful singular being in the witcher world. And he actually was "just" a mage. Every combat skill he had was of magical nature. He beat a perfectly healthy Geralt to crap on Thanedd. He could have killed him there but he was too arrogant and self-absorbed for that (and obviously Sapkowski still needed Geralt...
Which can only mean the he somehow magically cheated. Hence why I say he is a battle mage.
As that is what he does. Battle
Geralt of that moment was still somewhat tired though.
I'd like to support a new Brotherhood of Sorcerers, with competent people and not again with selfish ones. I know hard to find, but actually i know 2-3 sorceresses
I don't trust the royal idiots and Emhyr, well, yes, it could be better for the common folk to live in an Nilfgaard Empire, but at the same time Witchers and Sorcerers will have a really bad time, since both are not really welcomed in Nilfgaard, even hunted to a certain degree.
IMO even the lodge wasn't such a bad idea either, their execution was just not so good.
Edit: that post was in April this year...
I can support a mad man disguised as a king,
i can support an Emperor, who destroys and demolish everything.
I can support a criminal leader.
I can support rebels.
But i can't support a political movement from sorcerers...even though i know half of them and with half of them i already slept with, sigh.
Last edited:
Which can only mean the he somehow magically cheated. Hence why I say he is a battle mage.
As that is what he does. Battle
Geralt of that moment was still somewhat tired though.
Did you read the book? I seem to remember Geralt could barely see Vilgefortz as the latter was moving so fast. Tired or not, there was no way Geralt was going to win that fight. He even later says that he should have run.
Yes I have... duh...
I mean that he must be using some kind of battle magic. Or magical enhancements.
It is impossible for a normal human, no matter how experienced, to win THAT much bar "magical cheating".
And I wont blame him here for it. I would too...
or just shoot the opponent...
---------- Updated at 08:39 PM ----------
Yes I have... duh...
I mean that he must be using some kind of battle magic. Or magical enhancements.
It is impossible for a normal human, no matter how experienced, to win THAT much bar "magical cheating".
And I wont blame him here for it. I would too...
or just shoot the opponent...
I didn't want to join them, but support a new Brotherhood just the way i can support anybody else.
Without the sorcerers the Northern Kingdoms would be already gone after the first war with Nilfgaard, Philippa also saved their asses in the 2nd war, too.
Thanks for all replies..
There will be hard (imposible) to attack them. Also they have shields, they can be invisible, they can control and read in minds,.. How it looks in game, they are just weak feared persons. Especially, when you can kill dozens of their most powerful oponents just with assistance of one sorceress
And if Geralt can cooperate with Hitl ... excuse me ... Emhyr or become a bodyguard for Foltest or Henselt, why he can't help also some better people?
They maybe can't make teleport, but they don't have to Triss can do that for them and when they would have at least one powerful mage, he/she would be able to open teleport for them and he/she would not even has to be in Novigrad.
They still have to get very close to them to use that. If I would be in danger and if I could not fing in regular fight, I would hide myself in some tower/fortress. Damn ... even Stregobor had one.
There will be hard (imposible) to attack them. Also they have shields, they can be invisible, they can control and read in minds,.. How it looks in game, they are just weak feared persons. Especially, when you can kill dozens of their most powerful oponents just with assistance of one sorceress
Actually mages have good chance to bring some order and peace. In fact they ruled northern kingdoms for many years.
And if Geralt can cooperate with Hitl ... excuse me ... Emhyr or become a bodyguard for Foltest or Henselt, why he can't help also some better people?
Last edited:
If Geralt saves Triss in W2, the Conclave exists and Radovid has some mages at disposal. Many of them are weak, but Carduin of Lan Exeter is quite powerful (was in the previous Council). Maybe mages in Novigrad are afraid that they might be detected if they use magic too often.
Carduin probably looks after the Lodge, but the mages in Novigrad might not be well-informed.
Not sure if mages are better people. We are inclined to like them (I would say I love them, for me they are the best part of Sapkowski's universe), because they are awesome, but...have you read the books? Gathering of mages at Thaness is a meeting of pricks and bitches. They are arrogant, envious and egoist. Even Triss (when she was under Philippa's influence) agreed to betray Yennefer because it was the Lodge's interest.
What kind of people are the leaders of the community of mages?
Vilgefortz - book-readers know what a wonderful person he was.
Philippa Eilhart - she is extremely ambitious and selfish, ordered the assassination of two kings and Dijkstra, never cares about casualties (if someone dies because of her she feels no remorse)...it may seem that she is doing all for the greater good (saving the world and magic), but she is doing all for herself, because she is absolutely sure to be the most important and valuable person ever born.
Carduin probably looks after the Lodge, but the mages in Novigrad might not be well-informed.
Not sure if mages are better people. We are inclined to like them (I would say I love them, for me they are the best part of Sapkowski's universe), because they are awesome, but...have you read the books? Gathering of mages at Thaness is a meeting of pricks and bitches. They are arrogant, envious and egoist. Even Triss (when she was under Philippa's influence) agreed to betray Yennefer because it was the Lodge's interest.
What kind of people are the leaders of the community of mages?
Vilgefortz - book-readers know what a wonderful person he was.
Philippa Eilhart - she is extremely ambitious and selfish, ordered the assassination of two kings and Dijkstra, never cares about casualties (if someone dies because of her she feels no remorse)...it may seem that she is doing all for the greater good (saving the world and magic), but she is doing all for herself, because she is absolutely sure to be the most important and valuable person ever born.
And she would be correct! I kid.
If we are going to invoke Godwin's Law, I would say that Radovid fits the bill far more than the Emhyr ever could. Temperamental? Check. Scapegoating and encouraging the mass murder of minorities? Check. Power hungry with imperialistic tendencies? Check (look what he did to Kaedwen). Making decisions that do not really serve his best interests based on passionate and irrational fears and phobias? Check. And the list goes on and on. It's interesting because while he exhibited some of these tendencies loosely at the end of Witcher 2, he still retained some strategic depth in his decision making while also being savvy about his political maneuvering. Unfortunately, this was thrown to the dogs in Witcher 3.
I see the Emhyr more like a Otto von Bismarck.
Last edited:
Books:
Without The Battle of Sodden Hill (Vilgefortz was also there) and Philippa's (in place of the Lodge) influence on Kovir we wouldn't even have a 3rd war, because the Northern Kingdoms wouldn't exist anymore.
So two of the worst sorcerers are also the ones, who defended the Northern Kingdoms.
So two of the worst sorcerers are also the ones, who defended the Northern Kingdoms.
Well, she is probably my favourite in-game character.
Vilgefortz was there and became even more influential aftermath. But he had good relations with Emhyr and planned to massacre all the anti-Nilfgaard and neutral mages during the Thanedd meeting. The consequences? Brotherhood of Sorcerers, one of the main obstacles for Emhyr, disintegrated. And alliance between monarchs and mages was shattered. That was more important than the Sodden Hill.
And Philippa planned the counter-attack against Nilfgaard with other Northern rulers. Emhyr was prepared and used this provocation as a casus-belli for 2nd war.
Almost everything Philippa did was because it benefited her, sometimes it helps other people, sometimes not. But we know what her priorities are ("Let's talk about future. My future."). One of the few powerful mages who had good intentions was Tissaia de Vries.
I agree with you, it's just the lack of things, events like that in TW3 is a pity.
They were always involved in one way or another, but in TW3 they are only used as fire wood.
They were always involved in one way or another, but in TW3 they are only used as fire wood.
Yes I read them (many times
). And for example this Thanedd coup - it's nothing special, when it happens if each mage also represented one side of conflict.Francesca and some others fighted for Nilfgaard (speaking of her, I understand her effort to create her own state, when non-humans were treated like that in some kingdoms). They just represented opposite sides and Ciri's vision started big fight.
But much more happened during and after Thanedd coup. For example Philippa saved Ciri's life, Triss saved Geralt's life and future members of Lodge learned big lesson about sides and states.
She thought Lodge is the best for Ciri. And I think even Ciri would agree with her if there won't be that troubles in Rivia. She also confessed to Nenneke that she wasn't forced to work for Lodge, she said other sorceresses were so rational, that she couldn't have objections.
Vilgefortz - there will be alsways some psycho on each side. Emhyr is not different, Radovid in game is the same, Henselt was nearly the same.
Philippa - I like her very much - yes she is egoist, but that is every second mage and every king (expect one or two).
But on the other hand and if I look on that from Geralt's point of view. He was pin in her ass, he went against her plans, he could ruin them etc. But what she did? When they searched for Rience together, she stopped him without hurting him and explained him, why was so important for her to do what she did. She gave him promise and she really tried to keep her word. Even at this points she is very different from many others, which just lied to Geralt, tried to kill him etc.
She could kill him many times (during hunt on Rience, on Thanedd, by the hands of Fringilla etc). But what did she do, when they argued about Rience? She quite patiently explained to him that she did it for greater good (maybe future of whole north) and after that she saved his life, when she (and Shani) cared about his wounds.
And there is more from her non-selfish acts - she was for example on Sodden hill. She just risked her life for people of North. And I understand if she wants to try it another way, when she sees how world goes to another war. She also (with Sheala and others) helped to win second war. And she gave her vote to Ciri
..When I look on the other sides - there is more blood on their hands, there is more lies and there is just effort to gain more power for each one of them. Her attempt with Pontar and Lodge was quite different. And in list of other choices I would definitelly choose this one.
I know I know ... but when it comes to Emhyr, I can't resit some comparison.
Maybe he fits more.
But when I see some crazy guy, who brought world into second world war (and now third additionaly), who probably has his hands in fanatic believe that only Nilfgaardian empire is somehow better and Nilfgaardians are the best and on the North there are just barbarians. And when it comes to death of million of innocent people, armament, sick mind and fanatic belief in himself, I still see that crazy führer.
And for bonus I have murder of Ciri's grandma, accidental death of her mother and sick plans how to save the world through marriage with own daughter.
And when it comes to Geralt point of view - to save someone's life and his rewd - death for Geralt is also great.
Last edited:
Some mages do good, some do bad. They're just like any other group. Are a lot of them cocky as hell? Do many consider themselves better than everyone else? Yes. But they also cure plagues. They help people in their times of need. They create monster hunters who destroy the horrors of the world. They do their best to avoid wars, negotiate peace to wars that they couldn't avoid, and advise King's to do the same. Sometimes they do the opposite of all of that, though I'd say the majority stay on the goodside of things (if there even is one).
---------- Updated at 10:24 AM ----------
This is where I'll have to completely disagree. Triss did not betray Yennefer, Geralt, and Ciri because she thought it was best for Ciri. She did it because it was best for her, because it was best for the lodge to have Ciri. The Lodge only cared about Ciri because of her powers, because of what her child and grandchild would become. They only wanted to keep her safe because they wanted to use her. That's that. Triss did it because she wanted political power, because she wanted to put the lodge in the most powerful position. She did what she did for the same reason the rest of the Lodge did what they did. It's not for Ciri. Triss practically admits this when Yennefer calls her out. She admits to her actions being morally wrong. Because betraying loved ones for political influence, even if you think this influence is for the greater good, is wrong. No matter which way you look at it.
---------- Updated at 10:24 AM ----------
This is where I'll have to completely disagree. Triss did not betray Yennefer, Geralt, and Ciri because she thought it was best for Ciri. She did it because it was best for her, because it was best for the lodge to have Ciri. The Lodge only cared about Ciri because of her powers, because of what her child and grandchild would become. They only wanted to keep her safe because they wanted to use her. That's that. Triss did it because she wanted political power, because she wanted to put the lodge in the most powerful position. She did what she did for the same reason the rest of the Lodge did what they did. It's not for Ciri. Triss practically admits this when Yennefer calls her out. She admits to her actions being morally wrong. Because betraying loved ones for political influence, even if you think this influence is for the greater good, is wrong. No matter which way you look at it.
Last edited:
Uhm aren't also mages responsible for the downfall of witchers in Kaer Mohren, I think Triss reminiscent of that in the first novel.
And really In my mind mages and rulers in the Witcher Universe are pretty much the same, most of them selfish, self absorbed and ambitious. The most "reasonable" rulers that are not that cruell or psychopathic to me would be Foltest, Vizimir of Redania, Emhyr, Meve of Lyria and Esterad Thyssen of Kovir.
And really In my mind mages and rulers in the Witcher Universe are pretty much the same, most of them selfish, self absorbed and ambitious. The most "reasonable" rulers that are not that cruell or psychopathic to me would be Foltest, Vizimir of Redania, Emhyr, Meve of Lyria and Esterad Thyssen of Kovir.
I love the Lodge and it is hard to me that Cdpr in a some kind demonises them. As it was told in the books the Lodge wanted to make a big, beautiful and strong empire of the north. When I started to play games, I went to the witcher wiki and what I saw there? "Philippa wants to rip apart northern kingdom". Why? Because they needed big bad girls to be the evil of the games? Shame.
Second goes to book lore, where after witch hunt they became even stronger, Phil was proclaimed saint, Sheala and Assire was "The great sorceresses I want to be like" (c) Nimue. And what I see? Phil is blinded and helpless, Shil is written off like trash, Assire was killed in AoK and hardly told 2 sentences. Well, that hurts a lot. I expected a better treatment for girls, for the lore sake, maybe.
Second goes to book lore, where after witch hunt they became even stronger, Phil was proclaimed saint, Sheala and Assire was "The great sorceresses I want to be like" (c) Nimue. And what I see? Phil is blinded and helpless, Shil is written off like trash, Assire was killed in AoK and hardly told 2 sentences. Well, that hurts a lot. I expected a better treatment for girls, for the lore sake, maybe.
The way they handled Shille pissed me off, ok at least you can give her dignity in her death, but I can't buy it that those witchhunters would have been able to get her.