Roche or Dijkstra

[iCake]

It's a vassal, not annexed territory. The state will remain with partial autonomy, but will answer to Nilfgaard and is forced to a military alliance. People will still rule themselves and keep their traditions, but without being able to go against Nilfgaardian interests. That's more than nothing.

Being against people because they occupy your country is not racism. Racism is being against Elves and Dwarves because they are Elves and Dwarves. Being against occupiers is a healthy attitude, being against other races is not.

Huh? This is related to what I wrote how? Temeria is just one country to succumb to Nilfgaard, so making focus on it is not what you should have done at all. Answering to your other statement... I didn't know people can be so naive these days. Distrust and hatred are a very fertile soil for racism.

 

[wright1978]

So he's sick. You're not choosing to benefit or punish a leader, you're choosing to benefit the people, that's what drives you.

You can't have racism, it's a no-no. Only the fact that he wants so many groups of people dead, should make people detest Radovid.

Dijkstra is a mobster, you can't let the people under a mobster that until recently ruled a city together with 3 other sick criminals.

I am against monarchy aswell, but what else is there in that world.

No matter how bad Emhyr and Nilfgaard is, I can't see how it can get worse than the others. Their negatives are just too much to tolerate in the slightest.

Racism is pretty endemic in the world. Radovid comes across as completely unhinged, hence why he needs deposed, which was the original goal of the plotters.
Roche sells everyone down the river so he can play pretend that Temeria is independent when it is Nilfgaard in all but name and even that won't likely last past the next time Nilfgaard wants to flex its muscles. Utter cowardice imo. That certainly doesn't benefit temeria in the long run or the rest of the north in the short-term.
In reality Dijkstra and his ilk are businessmen, no better or worse than a monarchy, likely they'll have a puppet monarchy in place anyway. They also act as a bulwark against Nilfgaard who are a bunch of unpleasant slavers with world domination goals. In the long run anyone with desire for true Temeria independence would surely vastly prefer a fractured political landscape with Redania and Nilfgaard eyeing eachother up rather than one where Nilfgaard power is unchecked

 

[dragonbird]

Djikstra, definitely. For the good of ALL of the North. Geralt isn't Temerian, and what chance does Kaer Morhen have it Nilfgaard takes over? Vesemir was worried about the possibility.

 

[KingHochmeister]

The choice will largely depend on whether Geralt sided with Roche in Witcher 2 and if Roche and Ves helped him in Kaer Morhen, but even then, I doubt Geralt would allow them to be killed like that, especially why I think the Djikstra at the end of the Reasons of State quest went full retard.


I would side with the Djikstra that was before that damn quest.

 

[Sam2305]

Nothing is ideal, what matters is what you do with what you have depending on your ideological values and priorities.

And what happens with those who chosed Iorveth's path in TW2? There is no option for this. Nilfgaard could be less racist than Redania but, in the end, they don't want the scoia'tel anymore.

Also, it is really a good option to side with Nilfgaard if you chose Roche's path? It was all about keeping Temeria as an independent kingdom and a vassal state doesn't sound like an option for Roche. In the end, he is a patriot.

In my personal case, I've played the games two times and I chose both options but I liked more siding with Dijkstra. I hate Nilfgaard despite that now they are the good ones

 

[Goodmongo]

So what proof is there that Nilfgaard doesn't turn a blind eye on slavery, genocide and other such acts? Wasn't there a quest from a mother looking for her son that deserted where he couldn't take the baseless slaughter of innocents anymore? It's been months since I read some of the books but I don't ever recall where servitude, slavery, genocide were strongly punished by Nilfgaard.

 

[dragonbird]

And what happens with those who chosed Iorveth's path in TW2? There is no option for this. Nilfgaard could be less racist than Redania but, in the end, they don't want the scoia'tel anymore.

I think this would probably come down to the reasons WHY you supported Iorveth. It's the "ideology" path in TW2, but the game gives you two options - you can support Iorveth because you believe in Saskia's dream for a free state for non-humans, or because you want to help the dwarves protect their land against an invading army.

Personal view: If you picked the first reason, then Nilfgaard is probably the better option. They're not perfect, but they definitely don't seem as racist as the Temerians and Redanians. If you picked the second reason, then Djikstra makes more sense, as he's the one saving the North against an aggressive neighbour. Either way, Radovid would be an option only if you hadn't completed Now or Never - a pro-Iorveth Geralt isn't likely to support a king who is already carrying out a pogrom against non-humans.

To be honest though, as it's still going to be a snap decision, even without the violence, I don't think he'd necessarily analyse it this much. So unless you see Geralt as having extremely strong ideological views on the matter, it wouldn't be a major factor.

Also, it is really a good option to side with Nilfgaard if you chose Roche's path? It was all about keeping Temeria as an independent kingdom and a vassal state doesn't sound like an option for Roche. In the end, he is a patriot.

In TW2, he was willing to hand Anais over to Radovid and put on Redanian armour, you need to talk him out of it. He seems to be fairly pragmatic, and to take a long view. So no, I don't think he'd be happy in the long-term with Temeria being a vassal state, but I do accept that he'd take this route as a short-term solution.

---------- Updated at 08:46 AM ----------

So what proof is there that Nilfgaard doesn't turn a blind eye on slavery, genocide and other such acts? Wasn't there a quest from a mother looking for her son that deserted where he couldn't take the baseless slaughter of innocents anymore? It's been months since I read some of the books but I don't ever recall where servitude, slavery, genocide were strongly punished by Nilfgaard.

I tend not to see this as Nilfgaard being inherently better (except on the racism against non-humans), but just the fact that, for the common people, the important thing is to have peace and the restoration of order. Who sits on the throne, and the colour of the uniforms and flags, is less important than the ability to farm and trade without some marauding army or bandits destroying everything.

 

[saladin1701]

Without applying any hindsight to the situation, there are no guarantees that Djikstra can even ascend to the throne of Redania, let alone win the war against Nilfgaard so on the balance of averages, Roche wins out because he's been a friend to Geralt over the last two games, helping him when needed, trusting him when he has no cause to.

Clearly with hindsight applied Djikstra becomes the better choice but so far as The Witcher 3 goes, Geralt has no interest in politics beyond how it affects his friends and family so siding with Roche also seems more in-keeping with Geralt's personality, especially since regardless of whom you romance, they end up living in Kovir anyway.

The choice though pissed me off because Richard Hawley in the English language version gave such a great and humorous performance. Because of him, Djikstra remains one of my favourite characters of all time.

 

[Fateless0001]

Since the thread specifically said no bloodshed I would go with Dijkstra. However, since there IS bloodshed I sided with Roche on all but one of my play throughs when doing that quest.

Yeah that's my ultimate choice as well! Just wish I didn't have to betray Roche to get it. To be honest I'm surprised Roche would be willing to accept Nilfgaard's offer. I mean this is a guy that would wear Tamerian PJ's, he'd fight to restore it until his last breath so why settle just because the north is powerful?

---------- Updated at 01:39 AM ----------

Vesemir was worried about the possibility.

LOL, can you imagine a giant war waging between a powerful empire and the few remaining resistant states, people are dying, villages are burning and Vesemir is holed up in the ruins of Kaer Morhen hoping no one will take his scrapheap away from him
Thanks for the mental picture, made my day!

To be honest though, occupying Kaer Morhen will cost Ehmyr more trouble than its worth. First his army has to scale treacherous terrain to even get up there, then they need to spend time rebuilding it, after which they'll lose days moving units to and from that base. It's a lot of trouble for some ruins.

 

[dragonbird]

To be honest though, occupying Kaer Morhen will cost Ehmyr more trouble than its worth. First his army has to scale treacherous terrain to even get up there, then they need to spend time rebuilding it, after which they'll lose days moving units to and from that base. It's a lot of trouble for some ruins.

Totally agree.

 

[mj12]

Dijkstra. Simply because he is this kind of son-of-the-bitch you don't want be your enemy.

 

[Shamerida]

Roche and Ves helped me to defend Ciri at Kaer Morhen, Dijsktra told me "I owe you nothing", I think the answer for everyone is clear, only a idiot is going to follow the guy who wanted dead your daughter

 

[Goodmongo]

Without applying any hindsight to the situation, there are no guarantees that Djikstra can even ascend to the throne of Redania, let alone win the war against Nilfgaard so on the balance of averages, Roche wins out because he's been a friend to Geralt over the last two games, helping him when needed, trusting him when he has no cause to.

Only problem is the game actually tells you that Nilfgaard is about to lose.

During the American Revolution and the war of 1812 was the British actually less racist in regard to the Indians than the US? Or was it as history shows the English only using them for their purpose and they really had no plans to honor most of their deals. Nilfgaard would subjugate the elves just as fast as Radovid or Roche.

 

[TheImpZA]

I would love to see how this quest would have played out if the Scoia'tael plotline wasn't changed/cut significantly. Would Iorveth and Isengrim have sided with Dijkstra, or would Roche (especially after having fought with Iorveth at Kaer Morhen) and the Temerian's have made an uneasy alliance? Perhaps the Scoiatel would have had their own ideas. A missed opportunity for sure.

I sided with Roche because he helped me fight the Wild Hunt. If he hadn't, or if the in-game consequences were different, I would have gone with Dijkstra. Regardless though, that quest doesn't reach its potential and as a player, the choice isn't really satisfying either way.

 

[Coltaine123]

Without bloodshed? Maybe with telling Roche to stop being so damned stupid and starting fighting for the North instead of selling 4/5 to Nilfgaard for a promise from Emhyr. What a beautiful dream
:smiling2:
Yes I would side with Dijkstra.

Only a dead black one is a good black one.

But in my game I sided with Roche and Ves. I just could not let them die. Although they were doing totally the wrong thing.

 

[killkenny1]

If bloodshed wouldn't be the part of the quest I would have liked to go with Dijkstra. He might be an ass, but he's a smartass. Unfortunately it went for it went and I chose Roche, because he's mah bro, and my Geralt looks out for his bros.

 

[SDZald]

Roche and Ves helped me to defend Ciri at Kaer Morhen, Dijsktra told me "I owe you nothing", I think the answer for everyone is clear, only a idiot is going to follow the guy who wanted dead your daughter

In the books he even tried to have Ciri Killed. I can never side with Dijsktra, I think he is a self serving slimeball. With that said Geralt refuses to get pulled into politics and for the most part would side with who he sees as a friend. I doubt he would ever side with Dijsktra unless Dijsktra was giving him something he needs and can't get any other way, normally information.

 

[Scryar]

I would have chosen Djikstra if it didn't mean to kill Roche,Thaler and Ves. Though I believe this dillemma made this choice one of the better ones in the game. I can see people, who didn't play Witcher 2 and therefore didn't really spent much time with Roche/Ves (respectively Thaler/Witcher 1) choosing Djikstra even if it means Roche/Ves/Thaler would have been killed.
Naturally this quest is still stupid with almost every character acting ooc and/or dumb. Djikstra would have poisoned the wine at the end of the quest to kill the others and not attacked 2 experienced fighters and Geralt with his few henchmen. Or he would have just waited the few minutes till Geralt left
Still hoping for an enchanced edition which changes this quest..

 

[sv3672]

Naturally this quest is still stupid with almost every character acting ooc and/or dumb. Djikstra would have poisoned the wine at the end of the quest to kill the others and not attacked 2 experienced fighters and Geralt with his few henchmen. Or he would have just waited the few minutes till Geralt left

The writers somehow had to create this choice (which might not even have been planned earlier in the development of the game), so they could not just make Dijkstra win without Geralt being able to decide the outcome, like it would probably be the case if he poisoned the wine or waited until the witcher left. But how it ended up being implemented in the game is indeed contrived.

 

[BayonetHipshot]

Vernon Broche ftw ! Djikstra is a douche.