Nilfgaard's + Emhyr's Historical Narrative Role (Books & Games Spoilers)

[Auralius]

Nilfgaard's + Emhyr's Historical Narrative Role (Books & Games Spoilers)

So, I just finished the game- (Congrats, by the way, CDPR: while the game is far from perfect, you've effectly neutered anything that remotely dares to call itself competition)- and I have to admit, I'm rather disappointed that Nilfgaard was more or less a protagonist.

For those who have read the books and played the first two games, while the Northern Kingdoms were far from ideal, Nilfgaard was the ever-looming antagonist- the fundamental greater evil. Emhyr was cold, deceitful, bloody and ruthless, lacking even what little honor the Northern monarchs had; Nilfgaard was ruled with an iron fist, with strict rules, slavery, and a constant flow of corruption, fear, intrigue, and in-fighting used to keep the provinces tamed. Emhyr, likewise, had less than altruistic designs for Ciri.

So the question must be begged: What happened between TW2, where the Nilfs are still portrayed and scheming antagonists, and TW3 where Emhyr is relatively honorable and his followers are, generally at worst, stuffy and pompous? One would expect, per true witcher tradition, at least an even split morally and effectively, between factions, but that's just not the case. Redania and Northern rogues are almost exclusively the enemies, and while those stories are great, Nilfgaard is left- in my opinion at least- as a fairly muted, dull and utterly uninteresting ally.

Please, by all means, correct me if you think I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm simply sour that such a despicable man as Emhyr somehow managed to be a lesser evil, (and that I didn't get a chance to throw him down a well), but I can't help but feel that Nilfgaard has suddenly shifted narrative roles.

 

[TheDespondentMind2]

You seem to have had your own idea of Nilfgaard, I never saw them as antagonists because you know that's how the witcher universe and politics works.

They are not supposed to be your Star Wars Empire.

 

[saricc]

To some extent I agree. Nilfgaard is portrayed too nicely. With that being said I think both sides could have and should have been worse.

Slavery should havr been shown in white orchard and Velen for instance. The plight of nonhumans in the North should have been explored more as well. I think they could have shown more devastation from the war as well.

 

[CTPhipps]

You seem to have had your own idea of Nilfgaard, I never saw them as antagonists because you know that's how the witcher universe and politics works.

They are not supposed to be your Star Wars Empire.

Their introduction in the books is committing genocide on Cintra.

Nilfgaard is meant to represent something WORSE than the Crapsack World of the North because they're more efficient, ruthless, and advanced than the North. They also represent Germany, Hungary, the Ottomans, Russians, and just about everyone else who has treated Poland as its own personal set of Experience Point generators.

I say that as their fan.

 

[sidv88]

Their introduction in the books is committing genocide on Cintra.

It makes Emhyr particularly cruel in that he lived in Cintra for a while before becoming Emperor. He basically ordered to wipe out people he knew and lived among for years.

 

[CTPhipps]

It makes Emhyr particularly cruel in that he lived in Cintra for a while before becoming Emperor. He basically ordered to wipe out people he knew and lived among for years.

It's a weird-weird thing because I *LIKE* morally ambiguous Nilfgaard but the problem is they make Nilfgaard seem BETTER than the North.

And you can't do that without addressing Cintra.

Ciri REMEMBERS wandering through an entire city butchered to the last man and the organized slaughter of all of her countrymen but those who fled to Skellige. Eventually, they resettle back in the lands but you can't really just gloss that over.

I wonder if Nilfgaard destroyed Cintra because of Sodden Hill. Sort of a "Carthage must be destroyed" sort of thing. I've only read the translations so that was before, right?

 

[wright1978]

Yeah they seemed to have Nilfgaard showing its good side constantly and not representing the wartish side at all. I'm guessing its because they didn't want to put people off Empress ending anymore than they might be as is. I'd have preferred to see some of the real darkness in game(we see some in one of the epilogues) alongside the Emperor's pragmatic side.

 

[CostinRaz]

And you can't do that without addressing Cintra.

You somehow want CDPR to make Cintra a big deal and something of a major negative against them.

But exactly how do you phantom that anyone that is a book fan wold give two shits about Cintra? An event that occurred over a decade ago by the start of TW3. It would be pretty foolish of CDPR to focus on that as a main reason for why people should dislike Nilfgaard, especially given there are plenty of reasons that they could have used ( but didn't ) for why players and Geralt dislike Nilfgaard and Geralt does but it's never explained why.

Instead of focusing a massacre that occurred a decade ago they could have focused on things like Nilfgaard being partially responsible for the Witch Hunts, for the north descending into chaos, for the fact they murdered two rulers of the North...and yet that's never brought to attention, never used.

 

[jj284b]

Actually, its up to you how you let game to end... you can chose the ending with these Nilfgardian actions in mind...

 

[CTPhipps]

You somehow want CDPR to make Cintra a big deal and something of a major negative against them.

But exactly how do you phantom that anyone that is a book fan wold give two shits about Cintra? An event that occurred over a decade ago by the start of TW3. It would be pretty foolish of CDPR to focus on that as a main reason for why people should dislike Nilfgaard, especially given there are plenty of reasons that they could have used ( but didn't ) for why players and Geralt dislike Nilfgaard and Geralt does but it's never explained why.

Instead of focusing a massacre that occurred a decade ago they could have focused on things like Nilfgaard being partially responsible for the Witch Hunts, for the north descending into chaos, for the fact they murdered two rulers of the North...and yet that's never brought to attention, never used.

Dude, Ciri hasn't been seen in SEVEN YEARS.

And Cintra is Ciri's HOMELAND.

That's....not a small thing.

You're acting like this wasn't a central defining thing in the Saga like Alderaan blowing up or, hell, just Luke's uncle Owen and Aunt Beru dying.

If you're really going to argue, "Ciri should be Empress" then maybe you should mention, "You know, Emperor Emhyr invaded my homeland and burned my home city to the ground. They defaced my grandmother's corpse."

We can argue, "Fine, the books don't matter." But the game is all about Ciri and Yennefer!

 

[CostinRaz]

You're acting like this wasn't a central defining thing in the Saga like Alderaan blowing up or, hell, just Luke's uncle Owen and Aunt Beru dying.

It's completely and utterly irrelevant to the games and would mean fuck all for anyone that has only played the games and you attach for more significant to the massacre of Cintra then Ciri ever did.

The books do not matter insofar as players making decisions based on events that we only see in the books. Cintra is barely mentioned in all the games, and we see no one that's from there besides Ciri. The idea of making Cintra a crucial factor in Ciri's decision is nonsensical. Ciri hasn't been there for a long time and has other things on her: The Wild Hunt, Geralt, Yennefer, Triss.

So yes Cintra is a small insignificant thing. It literally does not matter in the context of the games.

 

[mekros]

Their introduction in the books is committing genocide on Cintra.

That is war for you. It wasn't genocide.

 

[CTPhipps]

It's completely and utterly irrelevant to the games and would mean fuck all for anyone that has only played the games and you attach for more significant to the massacre of Cintra then Ciri ever did.

The books do not matter insofar as players making decisions based on events that we only see in the books. Cintra is barely mentioned in all the games, and we see no one that's from there besides Ciri. The idea of making Cintra a crucial factor in Ciri's decision is nonsensical. Ciri hasn't been there for a long time and has other things on her: The Wild Hunt, Geralt, Yennefer, Triss.

So yes Cintra is a small insignificant thing. It literally does not matter in the context of the games.

Neither did Ciri until Episode 3.

You can't have all the callbacks to the book and then pick and choose like a buffet.

Did they happen or not?

---------- Updated at 02:17 AM ----------

That is war for you. It wasn't genocide.

Yeah, it really was.

In war, you don't tend to destroy everything and everyone.

Dandelion explains to Geralt VERY CAREFULLY that, "No, Geralt, this isn't war. War is bad, we get it. This is something different."

Geralt is still confused.

So Dandelion has to explain it across a couple of pages. "They are doing something much-much worse than the most terrible thing we have ever experienced and are pretty jaded about in the North."

Then he explains, at length, what that was.

Just saying.

 

[CostinRaz]

Neither did Ciri until Episode 3.

You can't have all the callbacks to the book and then pick and choose like a buffet.

Did they happen or not?

Well you can, CDPR has done this time and time again in every game they've made.

Which is why Sapkwoski is perfectly well within his rights to tell game fans to bugger when it comes to making the games cannon. CDPR has no notion of consistency across their games, let alone from books to games.

CIntra? A foot note. Let's talk important things: Geralt's companions, the bloody battle at Stygga Castle, Stefan Skellen maiming Ciri. Barely ever mentioned in the games.

 

[Ortwyn]

Why OP did not use Willowhugger's thread about Nilfgaard? Now I will discuss with him both here and there.

Anyway Nilfgaard is not that bad. In books, TW1 and TW2, Geralt has a lot of friends from the North and then is basically working for Temeria. In TW3 he cooperates with Emhyr to find Ciri (and Radovid gets insane). Just different point of view. The depiction of Nilfgaard might be better, but still it is good enough. As TheDespondentMind2 said, it is not the Star Wars Empire. The only thing I lack is some corrupted Nilfgaardian who cares only about money (sth like Houvenaghel in books).

I wonder if Nilfgaard destroyed Cintra because of Sodden Hill. Sort of a "Carthage must be destroyed" sort of thing. I've only read the translations so that was before, right?

As I said in the second thread, this is not true.

 

[mekros]

Yeah, it really was.

In war, you don't tend to destroy everything and everyone.

Dandelion explains to Geralt VERY CAREFULLY that, "No, Geralt, this isn't war. War is bad, we get it. This is something different."

Geralt is still confused.

So Dandelion has to explain it across a couple of pages. "They are doing something much-much worse than the most terrible thing we have ever experienced and are pretty jaded about in the North."

Then he explains, at length, what that was.

Just saying.

Still it wasn't genocide. As war prolongues barbaric acts happens (see how Gengis handled the Khwarezmid empire, or the japanese handled Nanking, just for a couple of examples), but Nilfgaard's army wasn't there with the specific intention to annihilate the entire population because their race or religion or any other distinctive trait. That would have been a genocide.

There was a massacre yes, as happens in any prolongued war, but this is not Nilfgaard's doing: "Cintran women killed their children, the women were in turn killed by the men and the men then committed suicide. Calanthe asked someone to finish her off, but nobody had the courage to do it, so she leaped headfirst out of the castle tower and died instantly upon hitting the ground".

Dandelion is hardly an authority on these kind of matters anyway. Witcher 3 is clear about how naif his view of reality can be sometimes. Deadly naif, if Geralt wasn't there to save his sorry ass.

 

[carlos2033]

Emhyr was cold, deceitful, bloody and ruthless, lacking even what little honor the Northern monarchs had; Nilfgaard was ruled with an iron fist, with strict rules, slavery, and a constant flow of corruption, fear, intrigue, and in-fighting used to keep the provinces tamed. Emhyr, likewise, had less than altruistic designs for Ciri.

He was also stupid in books and games, he lost two wars and start the third one and would lost it too if Geralt don`t help him, and he attacks Skellige while losing war on continent that is pretty stupid.

 

[CTPhipps]

He was also stupid in books and games, he lost two wars and start the third one and would lost it too if Geralt don`t help him, and he attacks Skellige while losing war on continent that is pretty stupid.

It's funny but the books actually paint a rosier picture of Nilfgaard even as they also show them as terrifying. Nilfgaard is only invading the nations to the North because Emhyr keeps driving them forward like Alexander the Great.

The reason people want to assassinate him is because he married a foreigner, yes, but also because tens of thousands of their countrymen have died in his stupid pointless wars.

I think most of Nilfgaard's conquests were under him personally.

 

[carlos2033]

It's funny but the books actually paint a rosier picture of Nilfgaard even as they also show them as terrifying. Nilfgaard is only invading the nations to the North because Emhyr keeps driving them forward like Alexander the Great.

The reason people want to assassinate him is because he married a foreigner, yes, but also because tens of thousands of their countrymen have died in his stupid pointless wars.

I think most of Nilfgaard's conquests were under him personally.

It was just something it`s crossed my mind that he lose three wars if Geralt don`t help him, i mean imagine you kill Radovid and he still lose to guy who think that is smart idea to attack witcher and his friends, well that must be hurt.

 

[CTPhipps]

It was just something it`s crossed my mind that he lose three wars if Geralt don`t help him, i mean imagine you kill Radovid and he still lose to guy who think that is smart idea to attack witcher and his friends, well that must be hurt.

It's really kind of interesting as everyone is like, "Nilfgaard will eventually conquer the North because they're unstoppably powerful" and they get their ass kicked every time in increasingly worse fashions.

Say what you will about the North but they're not pushovers.