How do we know Phillipa didn't cast a spell of stupidity over the entire cast, in order to have her revenge on Radovid? She's rather devious, after all . . . .
Damn, this type of abuse of powers only serves to prove Radovid right.
He tried to warn us, but did we listen?
Right or not, I still don't feel very sorry for him -- nor any of the three Radovids, in fact.
You are right!!! How could I be so dense as not to see it??? It is exactly like in TW2, when Assire, before she died, cast a spell on Renauld! Without this my most favorite TW2 conspiracy theory, to murder an ambassador who is not going anywhere and can be just thrown overboard on their way back, before the summit, in front of a dozen of high-born witnesses, and thus to destroy the entire Emhyr's plan does not make any freaking sense!
Well, CDPR sure know how to start, it is with finishing they have big problems.
"Forgive him
I seem to recall noticing something odd about that in Assassins of Kings, at the time, but I can't recall the details just now.
"Shove Dijkstra aside, forcefully."There is solution for Reason of State, save Dijikstra`s life
One hell of an understatement.
An RP game, the mechanics of which actively encourage the player to take part in every quest thrown at them. If one chooses not to do it, their choice is often not acknowledged - instead they get a failed quest.
Geralt probably has his own motivations to let the plan go through - he needs allies that will fight against the Hunt, a number of whom would die or not be able to operate as freely as possible it Radovid doesn't get bumped off (although to be fair I still expect the witch hunt to continue for some time even after one of its top patrons gets taken out), not to mention his feelings for some of the sorceresses. The Stern King has in game been established on multiple counts as against Geralt's personal interests - and Geralt, with his own sense of justice, has more than on one ocassion step out of his boundaries to intervene in situations that does not even concern him that personally.
But then again, I completely agree that this quest is horribly underwritten.
Last edited:
That what happens when he forgot Thanned, and thinks he is hulk and try to scare Geralt
---------- Updated at 09:19 PM ----------
yes it was, but he deserved it cuz he is stupid, think he is hulk and can beat witcher and sorceresess
The logical choice should be that Roche and Dijkstra will continue the war. And for one big reason for that: Novigrad is under redanian control and, with the city, it's fleet, money and army. As the OP said, no one acts like themselves: Why Roche should abide the agreement with Nilfgaard when there is a chance to win the war? Why he should abide an agreement with the man who conspired against his king (and eventually killed), killed his comrads and destroyed his country? Especially when Dijkstra could explain why Emhyr will betray him. This could happen before Dijkstra's treason and (this is a suggestion for the devs) and Geralt could stop this and force him to join forces with the temerians guerrillas. This is logical for the majority of the players. For me, Reasons of state is one of the big holes in the story
Look what happened after Foltest's murder back in TW2: no one support Natalis even when it was clear that he was the "strong guy" and the best option for a transition. Why Redania is different? Do you really think that the aristocracy would support Dijkstra? Especially when it was clear that he wasn't a beloved man between the nobles.
Emhyr didn't respect the agreement with Letho and Nilfgaard didn't respect the peace that they signed with Temeria in the Second War. Why the Emperor of a mighty empire should respect a treaty with a common fighter with no right to negotiate in behalf of an entire country?
Speaking about Natalis and Anais I think that they MUST be implemented in the game and this option you mentioned could explain much but, if the miracle happens and the devs put them in TW3, they should gives us an option to rescue them and give them to the nordlings.
Last edited:
1. Whoever wins the war, without an agreement Temeria looses its independence. It either becomes a province of the Southern empire, or of a Northern one. There is no real unity, and a lot of old animosity between Temeria and Redania. So becoming a province of Redania is not something any Temerian would accept. Just recall all the fuss on the summit in TW2, and it is even given that Radovid got Anais. Here it will be simply a take-over.
With an agreement with Nilfgaard Temeria remains independent, with its own king/queen, army, bureaucracy, coinage, ets. Sure, they will have to pay taxes to the federal government, so to speak, but Nilfgaard is sooo faaar away, that, as any provincial of any empire knows, it would feel almost non-existent.
2. Anais and Natalis were recognized as legitimate rulers of Temeria in the end of TW2. Emhyr will pretty much return everything the way it was, and after the war, with a real threat of loss of independence, people, nobles included, would accept any deal concerning Temerian independence. Lots of nobles are dead anyway, and the rest, after the war, would think about dealing with their estates devastated by the war, and not about any change of a dynasty. Times of Kimbolt and Maravel are gone.
3. Actually, it was Foltest who broke the treaty when he sent his troops to fight in Lyria under Temerian banners. He obviously signed this treaty in bad faith just to bade his time. Nilfgaardians honored the treaty with Henselt, and Henselt would have gotten Lormark, were Nilfgaard to win at Brenna. Also a lot of lands Emhyr conquered, remained semi-independent protectorates. So Emhyr is very realistic about it, and if locals comply, he sees no need to waste money and resources in order to build new provincial administrative structures.
I would prefer in a story this offer to be a Nilfgaardian initiative, with official guarantees made to Natalis and Anais, and not just Roche suddenly getting this idea and sending Thaler to Vizima. It would make much more sense, and would fit nicely into a Byzantine nature of Nilfgaardian diplomacy (you can't win by the strength of arms - try other means), and Roche's character. And Var Attre would get at last something useful to do, and not just provide a background info for Geralt and look for fencing tutors for his daughter. Ambassadors should be hard at work, you know.
Last edited:
1. Whoever wins the war, without an agreement Temeria looses its independence. It either becomes a province of the Southern empire, or of a Northern one. There is no real unity, and a lot of old animosity between Temeria and Redania. So becoming a province of Redania is not something any Temerian would accept. Just recall all the fuss on the summit in TW2, and it is even given that Radovid got Anais. Here it will be simply a take-over.
With an agreement with Nilfgaard Temeria remains independent, with its own king/queen, army, bureaucracy, coinage, ets. Sure, they will have to pay taxes to the federal government, so to speak, but Nilfgaard is sooo faaar away, that, as any provincial of any empire knows, it would feel almost non-existent.
2. Anais and Natalis were recognized as legitimate rulers of Temeria in the end of TW2. Emhyr will pretty much return everything the way it was, and after the war, with a real threat of loss of independence, people, nobles included, would accept any deal concerning Temerian independence. Lots of nobles are dead anyway, and the rest, after the war, would think about dealing with their estates devastated by the war, and not about any change of a dynasty. Times of Kimbolt and Maravel are gone.
3. Actually, it was Foltest who broke the treaty when he sent his troops to fight in Lyria under Temerian banners. He obviously signed this treaty in bad faith just to bade his time. Nilfgaardians honored the treaty with Henselt, and Henselt would have gotten Lormark, were Nilfgaard to win at Brenna. Also a lot of lands Emhyr conquered, remained semi-independent protectorates. So Emhyr is very realistic about it, and if locals comply, he sees no need to waste money and resources in order to build new provincial administrative structures.
I would prefer in a story this offer to be a Nilfgaardian initiative, with official guarantees made to Natalis and Anais, and not just Roche suddenly getting this idea and sending Thaler to Vizima. It would make much more sense, and would fit nicely into a Byzantine nature of Nilfgaardian diplomacy (you can't win by the strength of arms - try other means), and Roche's character. And Var Attre would get at last something useful to do, and not just provide a background info for Geralt and look for fencing tutors for his daughter. Ambassadors should be hard at work, you know.
Man, with all due respect, you are clearly oriented to Nilfgaard. Much of the things that you just said doesn't make sense with the characters or with a consistent view of the world of the Witcher.
Everyone has his preferences, including myself but this shouldn't be an obstacle for thinking in a neutral way: of course that everything it's not wonderful between Redania and Temeria but it's clear that they hate more Nilfgaard. They join forces against the black ones back in the second war. And Temeria never broke the peace, they were in a weak position. I've never read that in the books
Last edited:
The only thing that felt massively OOC about that quest was Djikstra's stupidity at the end.
TW2 is a political story, Geralt is serving a king at the start and has to choose sides during it. Yes, you can argue he's trying to clear his name, but he's there because he involved himself in politics in the first place. He may often say he's "not getting involved" but actually he gets involved in stuff all the time.
The TW3 "Killing Monsters" trailer uses a book quote - "If I'm to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all." But he does exactly that. Vesemir is heard telling him not to get involved "for once". It establishes that whilst he often uses the "Witchers are neutral" line, it is nothing more than a handy excuse for him. He will choose between evils.
So, TW3, and Reason of State. Djikstra spends time in the game if not becoming Geralt's best buddy, acting in a way that makes him an ally and one that Geralt would understand - e.g. the reasoning he gives for helping Triss evacuate the mages is an honest one (he's doing it to advance himself) but he is also helping a friend of Geralt's to survive. And Geralt values friends over politics.
When he wants to convince Geralt to help - not to murder a king himself, but to help - he relies heavily on presenting Radovid to Geralt as a clear and immediate threat to people and things he holds dear. Don't forget, when Geralt arrives in Novigrad the first thing he sees is two people he knows being burnt at the stake. It's not stretching things to believe that he could imagine Yen, Triss, Zoltan suffering that same fate. He's met with Radovid and seen that revenge on Philippa wasn't enough, he's now completely insane.
Geralt is a monster slayer; he has been given every reason to believe that Radovid is a monster. What is happening in Novigrad - what Triss and others say will happen once the mages have gone and the witch hunters move onto the non-humans - Geralt has experienced before, in Rivia.
Djikstra knows Geralt well enough to hit every nerve that drives the witcher through life. Killing, or helping to kill, Radovid is an evil true - but compared to the evil that Radovid is inflicting? It's a minor one. He's not thinking of the political consequences but the personal ones - what it means for those he cares about.
Why doesn't he mention Philippa? Well, he knows that Phil's interest in Ciri means she's unlikely to do anything to endanger his prime objective, which is dealing with the Wild Hunt. He may not agree with Phil's plans, but for the moment she isn't a danger. She wants to revenge herself on Radovid, nothing more.
What is OOC is that Djikstra, having shown repeatedly he knows how to motivate Geralt, would then utterly fuck up in the last few minutes. There is no way that Geralt would let Djikstra murder Roche - the man who saves his life in TW2, who has been a good friend - in cold blood.
TW2 is a political story, Geralt is serving a king at the start and has to choose sides during it. Yes, you can argue he's trying to clear his name, but he's there because he involved himself in politics in the first place. He may often say he's "not getting involved" but actually he gets involved in stuff all the time.
The TW3 "Killing Monsters" trailer uses a book quote - "If I'm to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all." But he does exactly that. Vesemir is heard telling him not to get involved "for once". It establishes that whilst he often uses the "Witchers are neutral" line, it is nothing more than a handy excuse for him. He will choose between evils.
So, TW3, and Reason of State. Djikstra spends time in the game if not becoming Geralt's best buddy, acting in a way that makes him an ally and one that Geralt would understand - e.g. the reasoning he gives for helping Triss evacuate the mages is an honest one (he's doing it to advance himself) but he is also helping a friend of Geralt's to survive. And Geralt values friends over politics.
When he wants to convince Geralt to help - not to murder a king himself, but to help - he relies heavily on presenting Radovid to Geralt as a clear and immediate threat to people and things he holds dear. Don't forget, when Geralt arrives in Novigrad the first thing he sees is two people he knows being burnt at the stake. It's not stretching things to believe that he could imagine Yen, Triss, Zoltan suffering that same fate. He's met with Radovid and seen that revenge on Philippa wasn't enough, he's now completely insane.
Geralt is a monster slayer; he has been given every reason to believe that Radovid is a monster. What is happening in Novigrad - what Triss and others say will happen once the mages have gone and the witch hunters move onto the non-humans - Geralt has experienced before, in Rivia.
Djikstra knows Geralt well enough to hit every nerve that drives the witcher through life. Killing, or helping to kill, Radovid is an evil true - but compared to the evil that Radovid is inflicting? It's a minor one. He's not thinking of the political consequences but the personal ones - what it means for those he cares about.
Why doesn't he mention Philippa? Well, he knows that Phil's interest in Ciri means she's unlikely to do anything to endanger his prime objective, which is dealing with the Wild Hunt. He may not agree with Phil's plans, but for the moment she isn't a danger. She wants to revenge herself on Radovid, nothing more.
What is OOC is that Djikstra, having shown repeatedly he knows how to motivate Geralt, would then utterly fuck up in the last few minutes. There is no way that Geralt would let Djikstra murder Roche - the man who saves his life in TW2, who has been a good friend - in cold blood.
I agree. This quest is one of the worst quests.
When Roche and Thaler told me they were signing a treaty with nilfgaard I was shocked. "What the hell, MORONS !". I don't think Emhyr would betray them. There are many provinces under the rule of Nilfgaard ( the elven kingdom etc ) but Temeria becoming a province and Roche/Thaler being ok with it ...eh ?
Both of them know that Emhyr would not have made this deal if he thinks Nilfgaard could win the war easily, which means there is a big chance the northern Kingdoms might win the war. For me I think Roche and Thaler would have taken that opportunity and continue fighting. Furthermore, what the hell happened to Adda ? She is queen of Redania, why would Dijkstra become the new ruler ? She already tried to take control once in the first game, I don't think she would back off so easily now that Radovid is dead and leave the trhone to Dijkstra.
As Roche I would try to work with her and strike a deal with her, she's Foltests daughter and therefore she surely is interested in a strong Temeria,which makes her the first person Roche should collaborate with. And why would they actually think Dijkstra would be OK with this strange truce. He kills Radovid to take control, why would he want Nilfgaard be strenghtend by a truce at the same time ?
And Dijkstra, he was acting all right. Killing Radovid, getting help from Roche and Thaler by acting as if he would agree to the truce and after that betraying them. No behaviour you could argue with. Except his idiotic move to tell them about his betrayal while Geralt was present. Wtf, he knows Geralt and Roche are buddies and Geralt would not stand aside to watch two three innocent ppl get killed because of politics. He also knows Geralt is kicking ass. Why the hell would he push his luck in a situation like this if he could simply get rid of Roche and thaler otherwise. Plain stupid.
edit: as for geralts motivation to kill Radovid, LadyStoneheart summed it up pretty well.
When Roche and Thaler told me they were signing a treaty with nilfgaard I was shocked. "What the hell, MORONS !". I don't think Emhyr would betray them. There are many provinces under the rule of Nilfgaard ( the elven kingdom etc ) but Temeria becoming a province and Roche/Thaler being ok with it ...eh ?
Both of them know that Emhyr would not have made this deal if he thinks Nilfgaard could win the war easily, which means there is a big chance the northern Kingdoms might win the war. For me I think Roche and Thaler would have taken that opportunity and continue fighting. Furthermore, what the hell happened to Adda ? She is queen of Redania, why would Dijkstra become the new ruler ? She already tried to take control once in the first game, I don't think she would back off so easily now that Radovid is dead and leave the trhone to Dijkstra.
As Roche I would try to work with her and strike a deal with her, she's Foltests daughter and therefore she surely is interested in a strong Temeria,which makes her the first person Roche should collaborate with. And why would they actually think Dijkstra would be OK with this strange truce. He kills Radovid to take control, why would he want Nilfgaard be strenghtend by a truce at the same time ?
And Dijkstra, he was acting all right. Killing Radovid, getting help from Roche and Thaler by acting as if he would agree to the truce and after that betraying them. No behaviour you could argue with. Except his idiotic move to tell them about his betrayal while Geralt was present. Wtf, he knows Geralt and Roche are buddies and Geralt would not stand aside to watch two three innocent ppl get killed because of politics. He also knows Geralt is kicking ass. Why the hell would he push his luck in a situation like this if he could simply get rid of Roche and thaler otherwise. Plain stupid.
edit: as for geralts motivation to kill Radovid, LadyStoneheart summed it up pretty well.
Last edited:
My guess is the greatest patriot Temeria has ever seen has grown exhausted by the war - almost as exhausted as the Nilfgaardians. If the war drags on it's going to incur greater losses for both sides, and I'm sure they're fully aware of that fact. I wonder whether they have already reached an informal agreement of sorts before that point - on the notice board of the Nilfgaardian Camp there's a note from Vattier de Rideaux, ordering that his soldiers must not engage the Temerians unless in self-defense. Besides, it's unlikely that Roche and Thaler conducted this deal behind the backs of Natalis and the likes. The North might win, but that would be a win for Redania, not Temeria, which is never ideal for the latter. Nilfgaard might outright annex Temeria, but Roche's resistance will go on, which would be a nightmare for the Nilfgaardians, who by this point have severely overextended themselves.
As for Redania and Dijkstra...well, Adda has been suspiciously left out in this situation; besides, she's but a consort and is unlikely to ascend to the Redanian throne. Dijkstra on the other hand has the power and the connection to pull off a Regency Council once more, becoming the de facto ruler of Redania. With the full military might of Redania at his disposal he may drive away the war-weary Nilfgaardians.
Although it still boggles me why someone that capable would pull that ill-conceived gambit on Geralt and Roche right in front of them.
Last edited:
Dijkstra is hated by the nobility, there is no way he could pull it off, and if he did they would turn on him the moment Nilfgaard was defeated. Unless he had someone to rule through whilst he stays in the shadows, say Radovid has a young son or something.