Politics in TW3

[Inariele]

well i think noone would be mad, if they at least got a mentioning a meaningful mentioning. like kalkstein, we never saw him, but we know he died and he died with a firework. Shani, we know she is alive and is on the front, never saw her in the game though. these mentioning are fine and more then enough. aryan? mhh mom could have said something, same with anais. iorveth? saskia? Stennis? Zoltan could have said something. The point is to get a meaningful mentioning, they dont have to show up. new players wont know anyway and returning players having a little moment to say goodbye.

 

[DuranA]

The scene hit me like a gut punch because while I was spoiled, I never imagined the context.

1. Roche would trade Temeria's independence for helping Nilfgaard invade other lands with coin and soldiers.
2. Stabbing Lyria and Aedrin in the back.
3. Trust Emhyrs to honor his word for murdering a King when he's already betrayed Letho over the same thing.

I wanted a stronger. "What the ****, dude!?" reaction

Roche makes it clear he only cares about Temeria, but no he's not gonna help Emhyr invade other lands. Stabbing Lyria and Aedirn in the back? What exactly does he owe them or what does he owe Redania? Answer is nothing. You assume Roche has to give a damn about the North as a whole, he doesn't.

He makes the only deal he can that will rebuild his country even as a vassal state since it's the only way. I'm sure you'd prefer if Roche fought to the bitter end but that's ridiculous. Wars for the most part settled through a settlement, not through complete annihilation.

Dijkstra himself was the one who wrote the terms of that deal with Thaler because he doesn't want Radovid to destroy everything he build in Redania but also knows that without Radovid the north would be very destabilized..until he is told by Geralt that opposition to Emhyr is very strong leading to Dijkstra realizing that if he merely holds on with the North's forces he will win. So he betrays Roche and Thaler.

As for Emhyr's word, a promise given to a witcher is not the same as the a written treaty whereby one becomes a vassal state. Besides the deal with Letho was to rebuild the school of the Viper, not giving Letho a chance at a good and long life in the Empire.

The realistic argument is a pretty lame excuse
TW is a RPG series that means you make choices that are supposed to have consequences

Who cares about realistic in that regard?

Sacrifice realism in TW series for the sake of choices having consequences and then the story losses all it's charm, but this ain't a thread about imported decisions.

 

[CTPhipps]

Roche makes it clear he only cares about Temeria, but no he's not gonna help Emhyr invade other lands. Stabbing Lyria and Aedirn in the back? What exactly does he owe them or what does he owe Redania? Answer is nothing. You assume Roche has to give a damn about the North as a whole, he doesn't.

No, what ROCHE did is entirely in character and was set up by Ves' mission where he wants the Nilfgaardians to think Temerians are civilized by sparing one. **Geralt**, historically, has cared about the North though.

He also, potentially, knows that Roche's settlement permanently places Saskia's lands under Nilfgaardian occupation if he took the Iorveth route.

Roche is doing his best but Geralt knows this is not what Foltest would have wanted.

He makes the only deal he can that will rebuild his country even as a vassal state since it's the only way. I'm sure you'd prefer if Roche fought to the bitter end but that's ridiculous. Wars for the most part settled through a settlement, not through complete annihilation.

I agree but part of the issue of feudalism and why it failed as a system is because conquering territory is a lot easier than assimilating it. History shows what happens when places separated by language as well as culture are taken into a larger Empire. Largely, they break away or violently resist assimilation unless economic ties are made and even then that's not a guarantee.

Dijkstra himself was the one who wrote the terms of that deal with Thaler because he doesn't want Radovid to destroy everything he build in Redania but also knows that without Radovid the north would be very destabilized..until he is told by Geralt that opposition to Emhyr is very strong leading to Dijkstra realizing that if he merely holds on with the North's forces he will win. So he betrays Roche and Thaler.

It's a very badly written scene, in that context since you'd think Roche would realize this as well.

As for Emhyr's word, a promise given to a witcher is not the same as the a written treaty whereby one becomes a vassal state. Besides the deal with Letho was to rebuild the school of the Viper, not giving Letho a chance at a good and long life in the Empire.

Given Letho is the last of the School of the Viper, that's truly splitting hairs. On the other hand, I will say Emhyr did lend his Navy to fight the Wild Hunt so he's not completely scummy.

 

[DuranA]

**Geralt**, historically, has cared about the North though.

Geralt also would never walk away and let three friends die. If you want to talk about him.

He also, potentially, knows that Roche's settlement permanently places Saskia's lands under Nilfgaardian occupation if he took the Iorveth route.

Redanian Empire rule, Nilfgaarding Rule. It's all the same.

Roche is doing his best but Geralt knows this is not what Foltest would have wanted.

You assume much. Foltest would have wanted for his country to continue existing not being swallowed up by a Northern Empire.

Given Letho is the last of the School of the Viper, that's truly splitting hairs.

He's not.

I agree but part of the issue of feudalism and why it failed as a system is because conquering territory is a lot easier than assimilating it. History shows what happens when places separated by language as well as culture are taken into a larger Empire. Largely, they break away or violently resist assimilation unless economic ties are made and even then that's not a guarantee.

Well good that Redania ain't a feudal kindgom right? It's more of a modern state then anything else, at least what Dijkstra built with Vizimir.

 

[CTPhipps]

Geralt also would never walk away and let three friends die. If you want to talk about him.

Geralt would never hand the North to Nilfgaard either.

Roche is also a "friend" who is betraying Geralt by making him a part of a Nilfgaard backstab of two nations Geralt once fought to protect and may have done so recently.

It's an enormous betrayal and Roche had to have known Geralt would have never participated had he known. Otherwise, he would have told him.

Redanian Empire rule, Nilfgaarding Rule. It's all the same.

Except the Nilfgaard, according to that drunk in the White Orchard Tavern, are exterminating the religions and cultures of the North. Ciri can put a stop to that but if Geralt has no intention of crowning her, then there's no reason to help the people who butchered Cintra.

You assume much. Foltest would have wanted for his country to continue existing not being swallowed up by a Northern Empire.

Foltest married Adda to King Radovich when she was his only heir and sealed a permanent military alliance. He was also leader of the Anti-Nilfgaard alliance during the Second War.

He wanted to make a Northern Empire. The only difference was he wanted it as a Temerian one.

He's not.

Letho's friends were the only Viper school Witchers left and Geralt killed two.

 

[carlos2033]

So judging by map ambasador show you in Vizima nilfgard conquered everything till pontar, so dod they just overrun Brokilon completly like nothing, or avoided it

 

[FrostKaiser]

Geralt would never hand the North to Nilfgaard either.

Roche is also a "friend" who is betraying Geralt by making him a part of a Nilfgaard backstab of two nations Geralt once fought to protect and may have done so recently.

It's an enormous betrayal and Roche had to have known Geralt would have never participated had he known. Otherwise, he would have told him.



Except the Nilfgaard, according to that drunk in the White Orchard Tavern, are exterminating the religions and cultures of the North. Ciri can put a stop to that but if Geralt has no intention of crowning her, then there's no reason to help the people who butchered Cintra.



Foltest married Adda to King Radovich when she was his only heir and sealed a permanent military alliance. He was also leader of the Anti-Nilfgaard alliance during the Second War.

He wanted to make a Northern Empire. The only difference was he wanted it as a Temerian one.



Letho's friends were the only Viper school Witchers left and Geralt killed two.

Geralt doesn't care about politics. Yes, he might have a slight preference for the North over Nilfgaard, but he would NEVER, I repeat, NEVER would let his friends die. Maybe your Geralt, on your game alone doesn't care about his friends, but not the original Geralt.

---------- Updated at 06:05 PM ----------
Also, there is no reason to help the people that butchered Cintra? What about the horrible things that Radovid did? And the lack of good political administration of Stennis? Or the constant raids coming from Skellige? You're hating on Nilfgaard, and that's fine, but you're conveniently lefting out the horrors that the northern kings commited. And, also, how weak most northern rulers are.

 

[Ortwyn]

So judging by map ambasador show you in Vizima nilfgard conquered everything till pontar, so dod they just overrun Brokilon completly like nothing, or avoided it

Just my opinion. Attacking Brokilon makes no sense when fighting the Northern realms.

 

[carlos2033]

Just my opinion. Attacking Brokilon makes no sense when fighting the Northern realms.

My opinion exactly, considering dryads are best archers and Geralt is only man left Brokilon alive, but judging by map it look like nilfgard is overrun all to pontar, but dryads ar never mentioned in game so maybe nilfgard just let them considering them too dangerous

 

[CTPhipps]

Geralt doesn't care about politics. Yes, he might have a slight preference for the North over Nilfgaard, but he would NEVER, I repeat, NEVER would let his friends die. Maybe your Geralt, on your game alone doesn't care about his friends, but not the original Geralt.

Dikjstra and my Geralt were friends too. He and Geralt were vitrolic buds. If the option is to murder him to save Roche, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Besides, Thaler and I were never friends in the Witcher 1.

My Geralt didn't let them die, he walked away because they betrayed him. Both of them. He let fate sort things out.

---------- Updated at 06:05 PM ----------
Also, there is no reason to help the people that butchered Cintra? What about the horrible things that Radovid did? And the lack of good political administration of Stennis? Or the constant raids coming from Skellige? You're hating on Nilfgaard, and that's fine, but you're conveniently lefting out the horrors that the northern kings commited. And, also, how weak most northern rulers are.

I consider the North a pretty hellish land and its rulers scum. A vote against Nilfgaard is not a vote for Redania.

 

[FrostKaiser]

Dikjstra and my Geralt were friends too. He and Geralt were vitrolic buds. If the option is to murder him to save Roche, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Besides, Thaler and I were never friends in the Witcher 1.

My Geralt didn't let them die, he walked away because they betrayed him. Both of them. He let fate sort things out.



I consider the North a pretty hellish land and its rulers scum. A vote against Nilfgaard is not a vote for Redania.

Roache and Ves betrayed Geralt? When? I think you're confused.

 

[Ortwyn]

Dikjstra and my Geralt were friends too. He and Geralt were vitrolic buds. If the option is to murder him to save Roche, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Besides, Thaler and I were never friends in the Witcher 1.

My Geralt didn't let them die, he walked away because they betrayed him. Both of them. He let fate sort things out.

I have no idea why you decided to be a friend of Dijskstra. But one thing is sure. For Roche Geralt is a friend, but for Dijkstra he is only an ally.

 

[CTPhipps]

I have no idea why you decided to be a friend of Dijskstra. But one thing is sure. For Roche Geralt is a friend, but for Dijkstra he is only an ally.

Which is entirely a valid choice. I don't put down people who chose Roche and Ves despite the Treaty.

I think all of the options in that scene are valid.

There's no "right" one.

 

[Ortwyn]

Which is entirely a valid choice. I don't put down people who chose Roche and Ves despite the Treaty.

I think all of the options in that scene are valid.

There's no "right" one.

Not saying it is not valid. Just that you might be a friend of Dijkstra, but Dijkstra is not a friend of yours. He is nothing more than an ally who respects Geralt.

Dijkstra's best friend is Redania. If Geralt's death is beneficial for Redania, he will kill him without any remorse.

 

[DuranA]

There's no "right" one.

Ah yes the typical: I don't have any legs to stand on argument so "all choices are valid"

Wrong. That would imply that the quest choices were handled well by writers, which they absolutely fucking weren't or that Geralt would let friends be butchered like that. Perhaps Geralt should let Dandelion die the next time he dies something incredibly stupid. Wouldn't that be a sight.

As for Nilfgaard's supposed atrocities, Isolated cases, perfectly in line with any war being fought in history made by individual soldiers. The only thing that's worth mentioning as a real crime is butchering peasants for aiding the guerrillas in Roche's Eye for an Eye quest because that was given by command. The way the commander in White Orchard is perfectly just: That peasant tried to piss on him after he was generous by asking for only 30 bushels instead of taking the 40 offered and then he presents grain in terrible condition.

The worst thing I saw Nilfgaard ever do, and this was an individual officer doing against his own military code, was ordering his soldiers to kill POW and then branding those men that refused to do it as deserters and killing them.

You want to talk about atrocities? State atrocities of racism, discrimination, genocide, lynching and witch hunting under Radovid or under precious Dijkstra of forced resettlement. I can talk about individual cases of atrocities, murder, rape, looting, plundering, torture for hours when it comes to the North.

No this does not make Nilfgaard some shinning beacon of good, that notion is ridiculous, but it's ridiculous to justify aiding Dijkstra on some moral grounds when the North has zilch in terms of morality to stand on.

 

[CTPhipps]

You should totally post that info in the Imperialism thread.

It's good stuff!

No this does not make Nilfgaard some shinning beacon of good, that notion is ridiculous, but it's ridiculous to justify aiding Dijkstra on some moral grounds when the North has zilch in terms of morality to stand on.

I never said Dijkstra was superior morally to the Empire. He's basically Emhyr in that he's an utterly ruthless politician and expansionist dictator.

You want to talk about atrocities? State atrocities of racism, discrimination, genocide, lynching and witch hunting under Radovid or under precious Dijkstra of forced resettlement. I can talk about individual cases of atrocities, murder, rape, looting, plundering, torture for hours when it comes to the North.

Yeah, the North sucks.

What else is new?

I don't get the idea I think the North is better than the Empire. The Empire has its worse qualities but three games and the short stories have made it clear the North is a pit.

 

[ekrolo]

You should totally post that info in the Imperialism thread.

It's good stuff!



I never said Dijkstra was superior morally to the Empire. He's basically Emhyr in that he's an utterly ruthless politician and expansionist dictator.



Yeah, the North sucks.

What else is new?

I don't get the idea I think the North is better than the Empire. The Empire has its worse qualities but three games and the short stories have made it clear the North is a pit.

This was a large contributing factor to me being 100% behind Letho's whole scheme: everyone in the North is a bastard and the system is about as broken as it can get so surely the much feared and hated Nilfgaard coming couldn't break anything even more. Hell, Radovid causes the worst atrocities in the game, not Nilfgaard who everyone's ready to throw under a buss. Hell, Emhyr was even willing to let Temeria be a mostly independent but vassal and kept his word to Roche. Which is ironic since Vesemir states Radovid, the North guy apparently promised to restore the old borders.

 

[CTPhipps]

This was a large contributing factor to me being 100% behind Letho's whole scheme: everyone in the North is a bastard and the system is about as broken as it can get so surely the much feared and hated Nilfgaard coming couldn't break anything even more. Hell, Radovid causes the worst atrocities in the game, not Nilfgaard who everyone's ready to throw under a buss. Hell, Emhyr was even willing to let Temeria be a mostly independent but vassal and kept his word to Roche. Which is ironic since Vesemir states Radovid, the North guy apparently promised to restore the old borders.

I stated over in the Imperialism thread that there's really no choice for the "Old World" as Change or Die is a theme of the Witcher series, both games and books. If The North wins, it becomes a Redanian-led modernized industrial state which is almost identical to Nilfgaard. It may burn witches and have a state religion but, either way, it's modernized.

Still, I choose Dijkstra by inaction. I didn't WANT the Citadel Council to die but I did let them die so to speak.

In the end, Geralt couldn't get behind any treaty with Nilfgaard which let them have the South North. He also wasn't about to get involved in a fight between Dijkstra and Roche.

So he just left.

 

[carlos2033]

But what is exactly point by Nilfgard side to restore Temeria borders and then go and take Novigrad and Redania why not take all

 

[CTPhipps]

But what is exactly point by Nilfgard side to restore Temeria borders and then go and take Novigrad and Redania why not take all

Well, the Temerian deal is basically the same one Emhyr gave the Elves. They get to have their own nobility, laws, ruters, and so on but pay taxes as well as contribute soldiers to the kingdom's war effort.

Which is kind of hilariously the typical Feudal Relationship which everyone claims Nilfgaard avoids.