Dijkstra accomplishes the same thing, only better, and without the lunacy. Roche (with Thaler) is the only one who fails against Nilfgaard, and I saw that coming a mile away.
No, Radovid is persecuting mages because of his wounded pride and hatred rotted in extreme cultural prejudice and unhealthy obsession with Eilhart.
Of course the Church of The Eternal Fire is using it to spread their influence, I agree on that. But Radovid? He's a madman. Don't whitewash him.
Did i understand something wrong, but didn`t in game mage hunt in novigrad doing of church of ethernal fire and mage hunters novigrad doing, not redania and radovid its free city after all
I accidentally didn;t pick simulate save when I started the game because I was in a hurry to get into the game so when I saw that Radovid was the most powerful northern ruler and that the other nations like Kaedwen and Aedirn were unimportant it was because in that save Henselt was killed and Aedirn was conquered and so forth. It is actually really disappointing how little what you did in TW2 matters, Either because of the open world (which is excessive) or because they thought newcomers wouldn't understand or both. I actually expected Kaedweni troops (for example) to be in Oxenfurt and Novigrad if Henselt lived and Saskia to help you if she lived...
I wouldn't have minded the Witch Hunters had their motivations been explained beyond "they're evil fanatics". Instead, all we got were a bunch of cartoon villains. The game didn't explore their reasons at all. What drives a man to become so intolerant? What are the events that lead him to come to these conclusions? The way religion was handled in this game was pretty poor overall and was a missed opportunity. We didn't even get a proper cathedral in Novigrad.
EDIT: Ah yes, and the an Craites were pretty much just one-dimensional stock characters.
Hjalmar is the hothead who acts before he thinks (because he's a man. All men are violent and stupid right?) while Seris favors cooperation to violence (because women are smarter than men right?). If anyone other than CDPR done this (like BioWare) it would have been deemed feminist propaganda.
Djkstra was the FUCKING MAN though. Everything about him is so awesome. He is obviously extremely intelligent, progressive and ruthless when he has to. I initially supported Nilfgaard but Djkstra is the far better option. Easily my favorite character in the game.
I wouldn't have minded the Witch Hunters had their motivations been explained beyond "they're evil fanatics". Instead, all we got were a bunch of cartoon villains. The game didn't explore their reasons at all. What drives a man to become so intolerant? What are the events that lead him to come to these conclusions? The way religion was handled in this game was pretty poor overall and was a missed opportunity. We didn't even get a proper cathedral in Novigrad.
EDIT: Ah yes, and the an Craites were pretty much just one-dimensional stock characters.
Hjalmar is the hothead who acts before he thinks (because he's a man. All men are violent and stupid right?) while Seris favors cooperation to violence (because women are smarter than men right?). If anyone other than CDPR done this (like BioWare) it would have been deemed feminist propaganda.
Djkstra was the FUCKING MAN though. Everything about him is so awesome. He is obviously extremely intelligent, progressive and ruthless when he has to. I initially supported Nilfgaard but Djkstra is the far better option. Easily my favorite character in the game.
Last edited:
Whereas the ending makes it clear he does annex the entire North, Roche mentions as much in the game.
By positioning his army near Novigrad he's put Nilfgaard in a bad position
He's actually doing for political reasons as well. Oh I don't disagree that's he's partly doing it because of hatred but still consider politics and what's said.
The King of Beggars mentions that Novigrad is ruled by the City Council but that Council ultimately is the Church's bitch. The Church in turn answers to Radovid because he's supporting their Witch Hunts. Hell he controls the Witch Hunters in the so called Free City.
That's not a deduction on my part, that's what the King of Beggars actually says. In Act 3 we see Redanians in Novigrad, soldiers that is, and Radovid's ship is there. I wondered how in fuck he made that happened but I remembered that conversation with the King of Beggars.
Through the Church Radovid will gain control of the largest and wealthiest city in the world.
I'm kind of confused by that myself. Of course, the problem with the game making a comparison between mages and Jews (with all the Holocaust imagery they were appropriating with the secret families being sheltered and so on), is that mages in the Witcher tend to be terrible people. You have Triss talking about saving Phillipa's life and I'm like, "You realize she murdered thousands of people pointlessly during the Battle of the Pontar Valley, enslaved minds, and did countless other horrible evil deeds. You ask why people are afraid of mages in this place? The reason is HER."
Then again, I'm wondering where the Church of Meletile was.
I like the addition of the Eternal Flame to the Witcher canon but the developers keep acting like the Goddess worshipers don't exist instead of being the largest religion in the North.
I tought that ruler of skellige will influence outcomes of war in some way, but whoever you chose seems insignificant
He reaps the benefits from the reasons you mentioned above, but he is too personal, too driven in his quest to torture and kill all mages. Where's the cold and calculating politician in this? If he was smart enough, he could offer amnesty to some of them, especially to those who came willingly to him like Keira Metz, to use their indubitable power and immense capabilities, and to prevent them from unifying; I could see some of them ratting on each other, and what is better than having your enemies take themselves down for your purposes? Divide et impera. But no, Radovid has to make them suffer because mommy Eilhart gave him a stink eye once...
Anyway, to me he is rationalizing it as doing it for state/politics sake, but in the end, deep down, it's all about hatred for a certain person which grown on already unfavorable towards mages settings and strong cultural/historical prejudice towards mages tracing to the times of Raffard The White, the founder of Conclave who ruled Redania as the main adviser, just like a certain miss Eilhart did.
Philippa is not stupid. If she really abused the king, the whole court would know. Besides, Radovid was how old when he ascended the throne, 13, 14? He couldn't be younger than 13 if he is in his twenties in TW2/TW3. This is too old to be spanked or locked in cupboard under the stairs. By 'abuse' he perhaps means Eilhart didn't bow to him with fear in her eyes, like the rest of his yes-men. He's paranoid like that, with a huge victim complex. This is why I could never like or respect him. Even in his final moments he turned into a little scared boy screaming for help, like he really was all along. Not a king fit to rule a powerful nation.
Phillipa and Sigi were the rulers of Redania as he grew up and Phillipa was widely declared to be the REAL ruler of Redania while he was alive. All of the people Radovid grew up with her puppets.
Plus, she's a mage. She can inflict staggering punishments without damaging him.
Saskia loved Phillipa like a second mother and was lobotomized by her.
Correct me if i am wrong but if nilfgard wins war, and you pick Hjalmar on skellige why would he attack most powerful empire from this side of blue mountains and corath desert, or if ciri is empress even worse they were childhood friends
Last edited:
I think you vastly overestimate Eilhart's capabilities and influence. She was seen as the power-behind-the-throne, yes, but in the end it was up to Vizimir, then to Radovid to decide Redania's matters. There's a passage in the books where Dijkstra , who was loyal to the king, mentions to Geralt the orders he and only he received, not Philippa. Hence those two were cooperating and competing with each other at the same time, just like when Philippa helped Geralt pursue Rience against Dijkstra's plans, or when she saved Ciri instead of capturing her and taking straight to Redania.
And about the staggering punishments you speak of... Tell me, if Philippa was indeed that mighty, why didn't she make Radovid utterly obedient, or even more, fall in love with her? It'd save so many lives and eyes after all. As you see, we are operating in the realm of 'if' possibilities. Let's stick to the facts.
Saskia didn't love Philippa like a mother. She respected her as a wise and powerful adviser, but she had no problems ordering her around, or disagreeing with her, see the cutscene when they first met Geralt.
Honestly, Phillipa's reach exceeds her grasp. She acted like Radovid was completely a nonentity and suitably cowed right up until he went, "And now I take your eyes." She wants everyone to think she's all powerful and wise but the entirety of AOKs is Geralt watching the massive fallout from her horribly ineffective scheming.
---------- Updated at 12:54 PM ----------
Skelliges aren't afraid of the Black Ones.
Ciri is not the Empire even if she's The Empress.
I really wish that Geralt had flexed his power somewhat during the Radovid assassination. People underestimate him far too much in the third game. He could have easily killed all of Radovid's guards.
Radovid's anti-mage policy is not a problem to his characterization. It is evident from TW2 that this is the sort of policy he would prefer to pursue, to get rid of them once and for all (he smirks at what happens in Loc Muinne, should a mage pogrom happen). It is a populist move, designed to appease the population and the Order of the Flaming rose (which apparently doesn't exist anymore), and to satisfy his own personal hatred.
That's fine, characterization wise.
What is not fine, is turning a cold calculating politician into a raving lunatic, who speaks and acts as such. In such a way, that even fucking Loredo looks saner and a lot more subtle. The whole chess scene was the worst scene I have seen of the game. It was just ridiculous, nonsensical, and just stupid.
It would have been a lot more terrifying to see someone who is sane, and yet still pursues such policies. It would have been a more interesting observation to the things humans are capable of doing in cold blood, for reasons of state.
The 2nd problem with Radovid is that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about him. His victory outro is pretty much saying "well it would have been completely better in every way possible to let Nilfgaard win." And him uniting the North could have been the only positive outcome, except Djistkra accomplishes the same, and does it better.
So the game is pretty much telling you that Radovid winning (through your inaction btw, and not an active choice) is the worst possible outcome. The bad ending.
I would have much preferred a nuanced ending, with no ending being clearly superior to the others (in this game, there IS a good happy ending, and that's Nilfgaard winning). Instead, each ending has its pros and cons, and people would weight them in and make their choice.
EDIT: I would have also liked being able to call Djiskra on his BS and remind him that he was the one who funded the Order of the Flaming rose and help them expand in the North.
That's fine, characterization wise.
What is not fine, is turning a cold calculating politician into a raving lunatic, who speaks and acts as such. In such a way, that even fucking Loredo looks saner and a lot more subtle. The whole chess scene was the worst scene I have seen of the game. It was just ridiculous, nonsensical, and just stupid.
It would have been a lot more terrifying to see someone who is sane, and yet still pursues such policies. It would have been a more interesting observation to the things humans are capable of doing in cold blood, for reasons of state.
The 2nd problem with Radovid is that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about him. His victory outro is pretty much saying "well it would have been completely better in every way possible to let Nilfgaard win." And him uniting the North could have been the only positive outcome, except Djistkra accomplishes the same, and does it better.
So the game is pretty much telling you that Radovid winning (through your inaction btw, and not an active choice) is the worst possible outcome. The bad ending.
I would have much preferred a nuanced ending, with no ending being clearly superior to the others (in this game, there IS a good happy ending, and that's Nilfgaard winning). Instead, each ending has its pros and cons, and people would weight them in and make their choice.
EDIT: I would have also liked being able to call Djiskra on his BS and remind him that he was the one who funded the Order of the Flaming rose and help them expand in the North.
Last edited:
Even Djikstra win outro has some flaws, plus you kill your friends while nilfgard wins is perfect happy ending with no flaws
Indeed. The way it is, the endings are ordered from good to bad thusly:
Nilfgaard with Ciri as empress > Nilfgaard with Emhyr > Djikstra > Radovid.
Nilfgaard is the perfect happy ending, Djikstra is the nuanced ending with pros and cons except they made it accessible in such a way that Geralt has to act woefully OOC and weirdly for it to occur, and Radovid is the irredeemable bad ending.
There is no debate, there is no nuance, there is little to no room for discussion. The game spells it out for you. And I find that very dull, implausible, and boring.
Nilfgaard with Ciri as empress > Nilfgaard with Emhyr > Djikstra > Radovid.
Nilfgaard is the perfect happy ending, Djikstra is the nuanced ending with pros and cons except they made it accessible in such a way that Geralt has to act woefully OOC and weirdly for it to occur, and Radovid is the irredeemable bad ending.
There is no debate, there is no nuance, there is little to no room for discussion. The game spells it out for you. And I find that very dull, implausible, and boring.
A lot of people here are arguing about the degree of realism regarding the off-panel events that led to the political state in Witcher 3, but I personally think part of the problem is the lazy nature of it all. I mean, having someone like Henselt just magically killed off screen is such an easy way out it makes me roll my eyes. Sure, it might have been possible, sure it isn't completely unrealistic . . . but why have us decide his fate in Witcher 2 (and the fate of Kaedwin)?
Again, I haven't beaten the game and most of what I am speaking about is from videos I've seen and discussions with people on forums but the general gist I'm getting here is that the developer seemed to try very hard to create a "blank slate" that trivializes what happened in the past game for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of thought they'd have to put (eliminating the need to worry about different world starting states).
Whether or not it was realistic isn't my primary concern here but the fact that it feels like an obvious cop-out.
Again, I haven't beaten the game and most of what I am speaking about is from videos I've seen and discussions with people on forums but the general gist I'm getting here is that the developer seemed to try very hard to create a "blank slate" that trivializes what happened in the past game for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of thought they'd have to put (eliminating the need to worry about different world starting states).
Whether or not it was realistic isn't my primary concern here but the fact that it feels like an obvious cop-out.
Precisley the way game handle endings i dont see reasons for supporting north at all, for me in this scenario it would be beter to have canon ending with nilfgard win and war as background story, and focus only on geralt personal story