Reasons of State - Final Choice

[Willowhugger]

Reasons of State - Final Choice

I found the choice to be harder than I expected, going back several times. I'm not metagaming because I don't make the choice based on whether Nilfgaard wins or not because of the death of King Radovid. I do it on a purely emotional level, depending on how I think my Geralt would react. On one hand, Vernon Roche was an individual who was Geralt's friend and companion which resulted in him fighting against the Wild Hunt. That, right there, should be the final straw and decide everything.

Except, when did Saruman the Wise exchange reason for MADNESS?

Not seconds earlier, Geralt heard Roche and Thaler confess to selling Aedirn and Lyria to Nilfgaard. It's a MAMMOTH betrayal of countless people's lives in exchange for the sovereignty of Temeria.

To quote a character from Martian Successor Nadesisco: "This isn't a truce, this is surrender!"

My Geralt HATES Sigi as all round scum but he's not surrendering to Nilfgaard either.

Either way, Geralt has rarely felt so betrayed.

I've gone back and forth, reloading several times.

 

[stevevnomes]

i didnt like dikstra. he seemed like just an ass the whole time so killing him was satisfying for me, especially seeing his fat carcass flop over after geralt stabed the life out of him. he was a thug anyway.

 

[PiperHecht]

Well, I was much more of a fan of independent in all but name Temeria versus all "freaks" get burned free north, so it wasn't very hard for me.

Plus, come on, Roche and Ves are your bros. Djikstra's just a contact. This quest was one where I honestly didn't have to think twice.

Also, in terms of long terms consequences, in my ending

Spoiler

Ciri becomes empress of Nilfgaard, so everything turns out pretty much perfectly anyways.

 

[Willowhugger]

Well, I was much more of a fan of independent in all but name Temeria versus all "freaks" get burned free north, so it wasn't very hard for me.

Plus, come on, Roche and Ves are your bros. Djikstra's just a contact. This quest was one where I honestly didn't have to think twice.

Also, in terms of long terms consequences, in my ending

Spoiler

Ciri becomes empress of Nilfgaard, so everything turns out pretty much perfectly anyways.

I love Roche and Ves, they are amongst my Geralt's friends but I couldn't get around the fact he's selling Saskia's Kingdom into perpetual slavery.

Worse, the next time Nifgaard invades, it'll be with Temerian soldiers and coin.

On the plus side, Ves' biography doesn't contain any mention of her being killed unlike Roche and Thaler. I like to think she got away.

Albeit, I'm sure she's well and truly pissed at Geralt for walking away.

 

[PiperHecht]

I love Roche and Ves, they are amongst my Geralt's friends but I couldn't get around the fact he's selling Saskia's Kingdom into perpetual slavery.

Worse, the next time Nifgaard invades, it'll be with Temerian soldiers and coin.

On the plus side, Ves' biography doesn't contain any mention of her being killed unlike Roche and Thaler. I like to think she got away.

Albeit, I'm sure she's well and truly pissed at Geralt for walking away.

Saskia controls Vergen, which isn't mentioned. Temeria is formerly Henselt's, now Radovid's realm, so Saskia and presumably Iorveth never get fucked with. I sided with them in TW2, so I would never do anything that lets Vergen get messed with.

As for Nilfgaard, if you side with Roche and Ves, they win. Period. There is no "next time Nilfgaard invades." They just win. And they're a hell of alot more tolerant than the northerners. Whereas the north kills nonhumans, the biggest Gnomish city in the witcher world is alive and thriving in Nilfgaard. Plus, even though Temeria is "technically" under Nilfgaard's control, it's explained in the ending that Nilfgaard pretty much lets them do whatever they want, and all's well.

And, if Ciri becomes empress, then it's even better.

Really, if you think about it, siding with Roche is just the best overall choice.

 

[DuranA]

Geralt heard Roche and Thaler confess to selling Aedirn and Lyria to Nilfgaard.

Something you may bother to notice about that situation is that the deal was agreed with Dijkstra, it was written by Thaler and Dijkstra. It was the best they could get following Radovid's death. Until Dijkstra is told by Geralt that Emhyr's hold on power is frail.

Dijkstra didn't bother to share that information with Thaler and Roche, that if they just fight on for a bit longer Emhyr would be removed from power and they could beat back Nilfgaard in the political chaos that would follow. Roche and Thaler would have been on board then if they would have gotten Temeria back.

But Dijkstra doesn't want to give Temeria back it's independence. He's just as ambitious as Radovid in wanting a Northern Empire.

Worse, the next time Nifgaard invades

There won't be any invasion. With Radovid dead the northern resolve crumbles and with Dijkstra betraying Roche and Thaler and dying there's no left to make a deal with Nilfgaard from Redania, so Roche stands down, Emhyr crosses the Pontar and conquers everything minus Kovir and Temeria, which he restores.

 

[Willowhugger]

Saskia controls Vergen, which isn't mentioned. Temeria is formerly Henselt's, now Radovid's realm, so Saskia and presumably Iorveth never get fucked with. I sided with them in TW2, so I would never do anything that lets Vergen get messed with.

Yeah, but it's in Aedirn which is one of the two lands which Roche hands over to the Nilfgaardians.

There is no "next time Nilfgaard invades." They just win. And they're a hell of alot more tolerant than the northerners.

The Nilfgaard butchered Cintra and are eradicating the Northern religions. Which, yeah, **** the Eternal Fire and Crones but includes the goddess Melethil. They're every bit and WORSE than the North in terms of cultural genocide.

They just don't judge you by your pointy ears.

Dijkstra didn't bother to share that information with Thaler and Roche, that if they just fight on for a bit longer Emhyr would be removed from power and they could beat back Nilfgaard in the political chaos that would follow. Roche and Thaler would have been on board then if they would have gotten Temeria back.
But Dijkstra doesn't want to give Temeria back it's independence. He's just as ambitious as Radovid in wanting a Northern Empire.

Yeah, that made no damn sense.

Geralt would tell Roche, if nothing else.

There won't be any invasion. With Radovid dead the northern resolve crumbles and with Dijkstra betraying Roche and Thaler there's no left to make a deal with Nilfgaard from Redania, so Roche stands down, Emhyr crosses the Pontar and conquers everything minus Kovir and Temeria, which he restores.

The ending is perfectly happy if Ciri is Empress but, if not, then Emhyr is going to continue with his horrific crimes with the assistance of Phillipa Eilhart.

So, really, it's a HORRIBLE ending unless you go "All Nilfgaard" which I have no intention of doing. All Nilfgaard? Yeah, it's lollipops and sunshine and I do not begrudge the players who do that.

I just have my reasons why.

 

[DuranA]

The Nilfgaard butchered Cintra and are eradicating the Northern religions. Which, yeah, **** the Eternal Fire and Crones but includes the goddess Melethil. They're every bit and WORSE than the North in terms of cultural genocide.

So what about it? Why should I care about a fantasy religion of backwards, racist, discriminatory kingdoms?

Why I should care about things Nilfgaard did in the past wars in relation to this one? Sorry to break it to you but no game is consistent with the books and TW3 is not consistent with the "horrific crimes" of Nilfgaard in the books.

Expecting anyone to give two shits about hating Nilfgaard based on what they did in the books is unrealistic.

You're entire justification in siding against Nilfgaard has nothing to do with Geralt or how he would view but rather on some high minded political ideals on the notion that the North is superior to Nilfgaard or more "moral".

I find that notion hard to swallow. After spending three games seeing Geralt spat on and shat on for being a mutant by the nordlings, after watching friends suffer greatly due to northern discrimination and watching racial conflicts kill thousands due to the kings of the north using the non-humans as scapegoats while they wage petty wars my only statement on the matter is simple:

Fuck the North. Fuck it's rulers and fuck it's backwards, racist, scumbag people.

 

[Willowhugger]

So what about it? Why should I care about a fantasy religion of backwards, racist, discriminatory kingdoms?

I dunno, why should you care about a bunch of pointy ears and Scottish accented miners/blacksmiths? Because they're people and get hurt horribly.

Why I should care about things Nilfgaard did in the past wars in relation to this one? Sorry to break it to you but no game is consistent with the books and TW3 is not consistent with the "horrific crimes" of Nilfgaard in the books.

They get mentioned in the games as crimes conducted by Nilfgaard by the current ruler. Which, bluntly, means they are capable of such and may do so in the future. It's a book called, "The Butcher of Cintra" for a short explanation of what happened.

Expecting anyone to give two shits about hating Nilfgaard based on what they did in the books is unrealistic.

I hate Nilfgaard because of what their collaborators did in Velen. The Bloody Baron was awful, who replaces him is worse and those are the people who will remain in power when Temeria is handed over to Nilfgaard.

You're entire justification in siding against Nilfgaard has nothing to do with Geralt or how he would view but rather on some high minded political ideals on the notion that the North is superior to Nilfgaard or more "moral".

I don't think Nilfgaard is remotely inferior to the North. I'd prefer to live there than in the North.

...

I bet that surprises you. I just don't approve of conquest and imperialism by people who claim to be the superior culture. I'd prefer to live in Nilfgaard, I'd hate for Nilfgaard to invade me if that makes sense.

I find that notion hard to swallow. After spending three games seeing Geralt spat on and shat on for being a mutant by the nordlings, after watching friends suffer greatly due to northern discrimination and watching racial conflicts kill thousands due to the kings of the north using the non-humans as scapegoats while they wage petty wars my only statement on the matter is simple:

Easy to say burn Novigrad's racist genocidal scumbags.

Harder to say that every man, woman, and child in Skellige should be destroyed because they will never submit to Nilfgaard.

 

[DuranA]

I bet that surprises you. I just don't approve of conquest and imperialism by people who claim to be the superior culture. I'd prefer to live in Nilfgaard, I'd hate for Nilfgaard to invade me if that makes sense.

And you'd replace that with another Empire hellbent on conquering those weaker then them. As in Redania.

Brilliant.

 

[FreelancerWhisky]

Harder to say that every man, woman, and child in Skellige should be destroyed because they will never submit to Nilfgaard.

Oh yeah this sentence makes so much sense considering that all 3 endings you get for Skellige shows them left untouched by Nilfgaard. *Rolls eyes*. You're trying to make Emhyr out to be like Radovid, who truly does have genocidal ambitions. Notice how the only negative repercussions shown in the endings that Nilfgaard wins is Emhyr exterminating the "domestic opposition" who were conspiring to kill him anyways. Whereas even in Dijkstra's ending Dandelion notes that he rules in his "patently ruthless and cynical manner" while "forcing resettlement for the good of the people" - even though it is against their will. Even Dijkstra, the best option for a united North, isn't considered that great by Dandelion.

 

[Willowhugger]

And you'd replace that with another Empire hellbent on conquering those weaker then them. As in Redania.

Brilliant.

It's a choice of evils.

It's a choice of evils, save Roche and Thaler only to betray thousands of innocents to Nilfgaard.

Turn against Roche and Thaler, betraying your friendship with them for the so-called greater good.

In the end, my choice was to do as Geralt.

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

It's just Dijkstra won.

---------- Updated at 07:07 AM ----------

Oh yeah this sentence makes so much sense considering that all 3 endings you get for Skellige shows them left untouched by Nilfgaard. *Rolls eyes*. You're trying to make Emhyr out to be like Radovid, who truly does have genocidal ambitions. Notice how the only negative repercussions shown in the endings that Nilfgaard wins is Emhyr exterminating the "domestic opposition" who were conspiring to kill him anyways. Whereas even in Dijkstra's ending Dandelion notes that he rules in his "patently ruthless and cynical manner" while "forcing resettlement for the good of the people" - even though it is against their will. Even Dijkstra, the best option for a united North, isn't considered that great by Dandelion.

Emhyr's ambitions is to conquer the North and that will eventually include Skellige but you're right, it's hyperbole. It is good, however, that Skellige is there because they show that not all Northerners are ignorant backwards psychopaths.

In the end, it's like Westeros, there is just no damned good rulers.

 

[DuranA]

It's a choice of evils.

It's a choice of evils, save Roche and Thaler only to betray thousands of innocents.

Betraying them implies you ever swore loyalty or kinship with them, you don't.

Greater good? Greater good is allowing the continued existence of kindgoms perfectly willing to massacre all those that aren't human, to put on the throne someone who will crush all resistance against Redania's great empire with brutal force.

You know, you're worthless to talk to, you made your mind long ago on the ridiculous notion that the North is righteous and Nilfgaard is evil and nothing one can say will change that. Skellige you mention? A island bound kingdom where engaging in brutal raids against villages and raping, murdering and plundering is what's considered fine.

Cerys is the only exception.

Coincidentally I didn't go in TW3 with the idea that I'd help Nilfgaard, far from it in fact but I changed my mind. There's no redeemable quality about the North versus Nilfgaard.

But since you can't get over the simplistic notion of "Conqueror is always evul" then this entire conversation is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[FreelancerWhisky]

---------- Updated at 07:07 AM ----------

Emhyr's ambitions is to conquer the North and that will eventually include Skellige but you're right, it's hyperbole. It is good, however, that Skellige is there because they show that not all Northerners are ignorant backwards psychopaths.

In the end, it's like Westeros, there is just no damned good rulers.

I'll admit that if someone like Cerys or Saskia was ruling the North instead of Mad Rad or Dijkstra the choice between the North and Nilfgaard would be a lot harder. Problem is, there's no equivalence. Even if Foltest was still alive, charismatic as he is, he got Temeria involved in stupid wars because he literally couldn't keep his **** in his pants.

 

[Willowhugger]

I'll admit that if someone like Cerys or Saskia was ruling the North instead of Mad Rad or Dijkstra the choice between the North and Nilfgaard would be a lot harder. Problem is, there's no equivalence. Even if Foltest was still alive, charismatic as he is, he got Temeria involved in stupid wars because he literally couldn't keep his **** in his pants.

That was the most ridiculous damned war and really said everything you need to know about Foltest.

"He's going to war to get back his two bastard kids who are rallying cries for a rebellion because he won't marry their mother who is the most lovely charming woman in the kingdom--and not his sister."

I swear, this is why Temeria never grew on me.

---------- Updated at 07:23 AM ----------

Betraying them implies you ever swore loyalty or kinship with them, you don't.

I'm a Witcher so I have an obligation to do what I think is good....or just say, "Screw it" and collect my fee.

Greater good? Greater good is allowing the continued existence of kindgoms perfectly willing to massacre all those that aren't human, to put on the throne someone who will crush all resistance against Redania's great empire with brutal force.

I think Dijkstra is as bad as Phillipa Eilhart who is only better than Radovid because she's not a racist--but both are scum. You act like I think Redania is sunshine and roses.

You know, you're worthless to talk to, you made your mind long ago on the ridiculous notion that the North is righteous and Nilfgaard is evil and nothing one can say will change that. Skellige you mention? A island bound kingdom where engaging in brutal raids against villages and raping, murdering and plundering is what's considered fine.

I very much respect your opinions and have enjoyed this conversation since healthy debate is the foundation for good academiac discussion. I also have learned a great deal about my own opinions by discussing it with you.

I'm sorry you don't feel the same.

But since you can't get over the simplistic notion of "Conqueror is always evul" then this entire conversation is a waste of everyone's time.

It's kind of hilarious but I went into the game with the attitude of, "Geralt doesn't care about Nilfgaard or the North. One is as bad as the other."

The game convinced me otherwise with the horrific brutalizing of the citizenry in White Orchard and Velen.

Again, I see why people support Nilfgaard. I just wish they'd respect my right to think otherwise.

I was actually leaning to Pro-Nilfgaard (albeit keeping Ciri away from the Emperor) until the mission with Ves and Roache. Ves is one of the most moral, noble, and decent people in the game. Which makes me think she'd HATE Roche's plan--and she hates Nilfgaard. Her mission takes you a town the Nilfgaardians are going to exterminate because they MIGHT have helped the resistance.

I can't get behind that.

Really, I would have helped Dijkstra if it hadn't meant going against Ves. I couldn't do that.

 

[carlos2033]

It's kind of hilarious but I went into the game with the attitude of, "Geralt doesn't care about Nilfgaard or the North. One is as bad as the other."

then dont get involved in politics just break Djikstra leg again

 

[Willowhugger]

then dont get involved in politics just break Djikstra leg again

If it helps, my Geralt's view on the final choice is, "Oh sweet Melethil, what the **** have I gotten myself into?"

 

[carlos2033]

Like Vesemir said in tavern in White Orchad dont get involved, yea Radovid wins that way but its not like its Geralt fault, than you wait DLC where you go on a mission to kill Radovid fisstech or alcohol suplier whatever he is using maybe he become W2 Radovid ruthless but not a madman

 

[BiggusD1]

I don`t get why Geralt supposed to care about every geopolitical shtick in the world. He is a witcher, not member of Potsdam conference.
Nobody gives a shit about his opinion anyway. I will let Radovid live this time around

 

[DuranA]

That's why TW3 went to great lengths to present the assassination as something personal to Geralt, because Radovid's actions threaten Triss, Yennefer, Zoltan directly along with Geralt himself and people who sympathize, Ciri and Dandelion included.

Most of Geralt's friends are either sympathetic or are part of that group that's being discriminated against.