Nilfgaard is Actually Not that Bad

[Lanaya]

No matter how much you feel or you are addicted to a subject (or to a fictional empire), calm down, stay polite and express your opinion with clearness and calmness. Topic will be immediate lock and people involved will get a ticket to relaxation resort if necessary.

Also....
what's the point of upvoting your own posts guys?

Everyone is being civil /> no need for locking my lovely moderator. ow how much I missed you /> but I have to report your for going off topic. sorry =/ just kidding /> you are my favorite mod />

abt the +1s yeah, me and Wichat have to do it occasionally when its a negative vote =/ i mean, if you hate nilfgaard you dont have to hate me and down vote. its not a healthy system in my opinion. a personal suggestion is to take it down. I mean not long ago that poor misguided guy that made a certain post got -27 negatives, some of which gave him a -1 only based on racism. his point was valid but badly repretesented. and he fled the forums. If you want to keep the system then only keep the +1 and remove the -1 like warframe forums, they have done the same and everyone loves them more and more everday. also when you do that remove the chance of +1 yourself. I mean you both use the same IPB, then the setting should be available.

 

[secondchildren]

Let's move on please.

 

[Lanaya]

Foltest (despite all his crimes) is the only King I read worrying for his citizens and innocents. The Lodge is the only Institution I read they worry for Human and Non-Human Kind. Emhyr's doesn't care at all about that. So, no, to me, comparatively he is NOT better than the other kings.

well, yeah. but i mean king material. I dont know man. I just kinda feel him to be awesome. and using Charles Dance as his voice actors just makes him even more appealing. I need to see how he is in the Witcher 3. But for now, I still think he is more king material than the others. I mean look at all the land he has. He won them fair and square. with little involvement of mages, and dirty tricks that the norths often use. just good old human brutality.

 

[Senteria]

No no no!!! None of that crap of what COULD have happened. SHOW ME FACTS of WHAT DID happen. Every day we humans tempt and lust for eachother. some of us have thoughts darker than the void, and yet we do not ACT upon it. No, if anything! Emyr is a better person for restraining himself and not doing it WHILE HE COULD.

Spoiler

He would have, if he had not made a promise to Yennefer. It was something along the lines of never doing anything that will hurt Ciri. Then he realised afterwards how badly Ciri was hurt emotionally. So he let them all go, because he had already given his word. I think he said afterwards: Funny how destiny works.

 

[sfinx]

My dear friend, calm down. No need to get angry.

I am not angry, believe me or not. I said, I respect your opinion, I don't have any problem with that, I just disagree.

You are clearly biased towards mages. same as the people that are for the gun act.

First - yes, second - no. Gun act? Yes - that is good example for Emhyrs acts.

Mages are a solution to a problem they caused. we dont have mages in the real world, tell me how would the Witchers world mages could have changed our history? would they be used for anyting other than producing weapons of mass destruction? they do more harm than good.

That's are just your fantasies, nothing more. Why you still put mages and mass destructuion and killing together? Where you take examples and reasons for that. If you want to see mass destruction, look on previous wars. Not on mages. When did they use that?

I remember only one case, but even that was against army, which already fighted. What else?

they save who they want to save, and kill when it suits them.

And who acts differently? Or you are using two meters for the same acts again?

"They save, who they want.." so what - they are obligated to save everyone? They can do what they want and what they consider as good. But that is not reason to think, they are bad. And on Sodden hill? When they were dying, they again did what they want and just cared about themselves? - No, they made big sacrifice, because some idiot wanted to fight and they were called to end that.

the lodge proved just that. why didn the lodge use a pacify spell in henselts war? why use a spell that devastated the earth so hard that a curse appeared just in its wake? Mages and sorceresses are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse than Emyr, this is a fact.

No, they aren't, that is just your opinion, which is based on your emotions.

One sorceress destroied two armies - really terrible.. But worse than Emhyr? Where did you get that? He destroied maybe hundred, maybe thousand times larger armies, but he is better? Funny.. And what about civilian victims? How many of tham have sorceresses on their hand and how many has Emhyr?
That is uncomparable - you just take one example, where Lodge destroied army and two world wars and you still think, Lodge is worse.. That is really strange.

They have power and misuse it badly. I dont expect them to heal the world, but they should also stop contrinuting to it as well.

If they use all of their powers, like you said, there wouldn't be life anymore.
Just Emhyr is using all of his powers for killing, not Lodge or mages. Don't change that. They are very powerfull, but how many wars did they started? How many times did they try to conquere the world?

And even if they would try that, they wouldn't be worse than Emhyr, which is already trying that for the third time.

Mages in battles are like guns vs guns. its the same deal, the north would have been there without them, if not better.

No, it wouldn't. It's clearly mentioned in the books. Sheala's intervention in Kovir brought money, without them they wouldn't even create strong army. And Sweet Kitten and others? Also her work - and don't you think Pretty Kitty and whole Free Company played very important role? They changed result of war, so don't ignore that.

And in Sodden? The same - mages sopped Nilfgaard's invasion.

i can tell your a mage lover, me too, they are cool and would love to see more of them, but we should not be blinded by our passion towards someone. Emyr is a criminal, I know. Im just comparing them to the others

Next time, please, do that precisly.
I gave you counts, examples etc, if you want I'll bring you more and than you can compare their acts. But yet you just said "they are worse" with no examples, no arguments, no proofs.

If you want, bring me here that bad acts of mages (Lodge) and we will compare it. But now we have just two destroied armies on one side and milions of dead soldiers, but also civilians on the other side. We also have controlled power on one side and three times released full power on the other side. We also have one goal - stability on one side and goal to rule the world in one Emhyr's empire on the second..

 

[Kodaemon5924]

Regarding the incest:

Foltest got his sister pregnant. Because he loved her.

Emhyr pretended to love a woman, had a child with her, got her killed, slaughtered a city to kidnap his daughter, planned to impregnate her. Because elven prophecy.

Clearly, Foltest is the evil monster.

 

[username_3671363]

If I'm to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all.

 

[Senteria]

The Northern kings may not be as sly and sleek as the emperor, but they do try to govern over the their country. Let's not forget it's because of Nilfgaard that pogroms on non-humans were initiated by the northern kings. Basically Nilfgaard uses the elves. He does not care if they all die. Pretty easy solution btw, giving them Dol Blathanna. It's not like it's in their empire anyway. That combined with slavery and burning all the villages they come across. Murdering all the inhabitants just to move people from their own empire there.

 

[Eri94_user70]

Hating someone, usually comes with good reason. Whomever this someone might be. Also, in a war, ALL sides commit crimes, injustices, inhumane and barbaric acts. People of the north are united from love of the north, people of Nilfgaard are united by fear of one man and the consequences of not obeying him at the hands of his ruthless minions. Nilfgaard is a patched, stitched, huge piece of land, with many different people from different cultures, and origins. Just like real life examples of such places (huge mass of land, with different people of different ethnicities, brought together by war, conquest and tyranical rule with fear of law as a motive, not love for common, ancestral land/origins/heritage and lack of both own history or history knowledge of said place), its rule won't last long, because the foundations are weak, if non-existent. People can blend, but they never assimilate, especially when different cultures, religions, races and ethnicities are thrown into the very same, small picture.

Nilfgaard, which forces itself on other countries, makes them shamed and drags them in servitude, with the pretense of bringing them laws and culture. Making them by force "allies" and dragging them in war or various endeavors behind them like puppets or dogs, pretty much remind me of very real countries. Which i grew up to hate. Which i grew up to notice their REAL evil, masked as "greater good", ruin other countries for their own, petty profit. Which mixes in the politics of other countries by violation and force, claiming like Nilfgaard that it will benefit the foreign people themselves. Which dispatches diplomats to wander like stray dogs in foreign lands as if they own them, to blackmail their rulers and demand "land and water" as if they had any real rights or power over them.

I like that in game, unlike life which is unfair, you are being given both the choice and the ability to cut them up and bleed them dry; wrongdoers, warmongers, powerhungry villains. In real life they are untouchable. In the Witcher, they feel so good when they are gutted properly and have their brains fed to the ghouls. And, between foltest and emhyr, i would choose foltest anytime. At least he loved his sister, he did not want to use her like emhyr his one and only, own child does...

 

[AsTheDeath]

What I don't get (and this has only been mentioned once, and then ignored): let's say we all agree, Emhyr/Nilfgaard is slightly 'better' than the Northern kings, he is the 'lesser evil'.

Does anyone really think it's a good idea to have him invade and occupy all Northern countries? Really, I doubt many Northerners are waiting for Nilfgaardian 'liberation'. Compare it to current day situation: if we think that Western democracy is better than a particular non-democracy, does that mean we should invade and 'liberate' that particular country? Of course not, because the civilian population will feel oppressed.

Same goes for Nilfgaard. If they were truly better than the North, they would keep the peace and defend their own borders, not try to take over the rest of the world.

 

[CostinRaz]

Except Nilfgaard is not there to liberate a country and then install a puppet democratic government that will play ball by it's rules. Which is exactly what the US does, and I might add the US is very ineffective at that.

Nilfgaard is there to conquer, and unlike what some people might think there were actually plenty of people throughout the course of history who not only accepted to be conquered and submit to large empires but also welcomed it. Two large cases: The Romans and Mongols. Both these Empires were famous for their large military conquests, and yet there were many cases where cities, towns and villages willingly joined their empires. Partly due to the benefits that came from having the protection of such a large Empire, their justice system education system and so, and partly because resistance meant the looting and pillaging of your city and in the case of the Mongols the massacre of the vast majority of the population besides scholars.

Personally there are several reasons to side with Nilfgaard: They treat other races better. Yes they did give up the Scoia'Tael officers, but that was under pressure from the North who destroyed their armies. Nilfgaard was in weaker bargaining positions and couldn't refuse the North. Just for the record it was the Lodge who came up with the idea and the North who used the elves and dwarves for scapegoats for the economic woes of the Northern Kingdoms.

Another reason is that Nilfgaard seems to be more civilized and developed then the Northern Kingdoms. Yes Emhyr is the supreme leader just like the Northern Kings are and he can do whatever he wants, yet it seems to Nilfgaard has better law and order in their provinces and a more effective system.

 

[wichat]

Except Nilfgaard is not there to liberate a country and then install a puppet democratic government that will play ball by it's rules. Which is exactly what the US does, and I might add the US is very ineffective at that.

Nilfgaard is there to conquer, and unlike what some people might think there were actually plenty of people throughout the course of history who not only accepted to be conquered and submit to large empires but also welcomed it. Two large cases: The Romans and Mongols. Both these Empires were famous for their large military conquests, and yet there were many cases where cities, towns and villages willingly joined their empires. Partly due to the benefits that came from having the protection of such a large Empire, their justice system education system and so, and partly because resistance meant the looting and pillaging of your city and in the case of the Mongols the massacre of the vast majority of the population besides scholars.

We are talking about th Nilfgaard which Spakowski create, not any real Empires. No one of the RL leaders in our History lived such a traumatic curse as Emhyr did. We are not talking about the Nilfgaarrian but about the reason Emhyr atcs.

One can expect the protection of an invader if it acts in a more benign than the legitimate leader, not if the invader is dedicated to raze villages, forests and fields of crops and forcing peasants to practice cannibalism to survive.


Edit:

Another reason is that Nilfgaard seems to be more civilized and developed then the Northern Kingdoms. Yes Emhyr is the supreme leader just like the Northern Kings are and he can do whatever he wants, yet it seems to Nilfgaard has better law and order in their provinces and a more effective system.

Destroying all the invaded commercial network, stealing all their resources and forcing them to purchase commodities traders nilfgaarians, and incidentally to convince them that their products are cheaper?
Lord! Emhyr's plans are far more Machiavellian than one can imagine if one hasn't read the 7 books ...

 

[CostinRaz]

not if the invader is dedicated to raze villages, forests and fields of crops and forcing peasants to practice cannibalism to survive.

A quote from Dandelion on the policies of scorched earth is not enough to convince me that Nilfgaard engages in the practice of burning fields and forests in territories where they are advancing. Razing villages and cities is one thing, but burning fields which your own army can use to relieve a lot of the presure on your supply lines is beyond idiotic.

I can grasp brutality of Nilfgaard in the war, I can grasp idiocy of commanders and generals, but I cannot grasp the sheer IMBECILITY of destroying food supplies that your own armies need!

Scorched Earth was a tactic used by retreating armies to deny the invader usage of the resources in their land. It was not used by an offensive force given that said force would make use of said resources themselves.

 

[wichat]

A quote from Dandelion on the policies of scorched earth is not enough to convince me that Nilfgaard engages in the practice of burning fields and forests in territories where they are advancing. Razing villages and cities is one thing, but burning fields which your own army can use to relieve a lot of the presure on your supply lines is beyond idiotic.

Don't you read me, do you?

 

[CostinRaz]

I did, but why I am supposed to believe that Nilfgaard was responsible for that and not the Northern Kingdoms in their desperate retreat?

Seeing a scorched field does not indicate who was responsible for it. Of course Northern Propaganda would place the blame on the Nilfgaardians.

 

[dragonbird]

I honestly don't think that we'll have to make this decision in TW3, as it seems to go against what they said about it being personal rather than the big politics. I can see there being little incidents, sometimes involving the North, sometimes involving Nilfgaard, where we need to choose, but I think that Geralt would always pick based on the specifics of that particular decision, and not on some bigger ideological/political picture.

He fights monsters. If today a representative of the North acts like a monster, he'll fight the Northerner. If tomorrow a representative of Nilfgaard acts like a monster, he'll fight the Nilfgaardian. If either are suffering from an attack by some other kind of monster, he'll help them.

In TW1, he agreed to help Foltest against the Grand Master because he was planning to go after the GM anyway, so he thought he may as well get paid for it.

In TW2, on Roche path, he aided Henselt when Henselt was under a curse, despite not approving of the invasion or of Henselt's politics, because that's what Witchers do. And on Iorveth Path, he joined forces with Iorveth to fight off the invaders to help the dwarves, not out of any agreement with Iorveth's political views. I really don't see it being any different in TW3.

 

[wichat]

I did, but why I am supposed to believe that Nilfgaard was responsible for that and not the Northern Kingdoms in their desperate retreat?

Because YOU READ it how they're doing it! Spakowski wroted this way. If you don't lke the cruel image of Nilfgaarian army, please, adress you to Spakowski.

 

[CostinRaz]

So you're telling me that Nilfgaard was burning fields in the books while on the offensive and Geralt saw this?

I honestly don't think that we'll have to make this decision in TW3, as it seems to go against what they said about it being personal rather than the big politics.

Well no, what they said was that the main story was about Geralt's personal story rather then big politics. However they did state that the main story for each of the regions: Skellige, No-Man's Land, Novigrad would be political in nature.

So it's like main story: Geralt's personal stuff.
Secondary story, or main story for individual regions: Political.

I don't believe they would hire an actor like Charles Dance if Emhyr would not play a major role. Major role means major choices involving him as a character, which means political choices.

 

[Lanaya]

Because YOU READ it how they're doing it! Spakowski wroted this way. If you don't lke the cruel image of Nilfgaarian army, please, adress you to Spakowski.

So you're telling me that Nilfgaard was burning fields in the books while on the offensive and Geralt saw this?Well no, what they said was that the main story was about Geralt's personal story rather then big politics. However they did state that the main story for each of the regions: Skellige, No-Man's Land, Novigrad would be political in nature.So it's like main story: Geralt's personal stuff.Secondary story, or main story for individual regions: Political.I don't believe they would hire an actor like Charles Dance if Emhyr would not play a major role. Major role means major choices involving him as a character, which means political choices.

Whichat I like you a lot as a friend and witcher lore master, but I have to side with Costin on this one. He makes a really good point.

He is also right on the Emyr part, if he was only going to be a side plot they would not have paid that much to get one of the most expensive and famous voices they ever had. and they would have not chosen Charles at that. Charles killed the enitre main cast of Game of Thorens and people still love him. this means that if they chose him as Ehmyr is because they want to create a likable side to that character, and charles would be the perfect voice. I think that there will definitely be a choice where you will side with him. Similar to how we sided with Roche, we didnt really sided with Temeria, we just sided with him. Same thing here, maybe we side with Emyr but not the Nilfgaard. See where im going with this?

I honestly don't think that we'll have to make this decision in TW3, as it seems to go against what they said about it being personal rather than the big politics. I can see there being little incidents, sometimes involving the North, sometimes involving Nilfgaard, where we need to choose, but I think that Geralt would always pick based on the specifics of that particular decision, and not on some bigger ideological/political picture.

He fights monsters. If today a representative of the North acts like a monster, he'll fight the Northerner. If tomorrow a representative of Nilfgaard acts like a monster, he'll fight the Nilfgaardian. If either are suffering from an attack by some other kind of monster, he'll help them.

In TW1, he agreed to help Foltest against the Grand Master because he was planning to go after the GM anyway, so he thought he may as well get paid for it.

In TW2, on Roche path, he aided Henselt when Henselt was under a curse, despite not approving of the invasion or of Henselt's politics, because that's what Witchers do. And on Iorveth Path, he joined forces with Iorveth to fight off the invaders to help the dwarves, not out of any agreement with Iorveth's political views. I really don't see it being any different in TW3.

Exactly. good point.
I think the the nilfgaard siding will somehow fit in geralts personality. I think he will make sense if he sides with them. From what I have seen, he killed monsters for them. So there is a big chance he is willing to do more. My guess is Wild hunt. and/or Emyr and geralt trying to find ciri together or something.

 

[MarcAuron]

Nilfgaard is systematic, kill everything or collect as slaves, collect the art, and technology , burn everything down, and then repopulate with Nilfgaardians removing even the memory of the Northerners. Very common actually and realistic, the leftovers of the previous cultures are often only found by archeologists.
Also their racial superiority complex is undeniable.