So, are there some good reasons why would someone choose Radovid as the king of the North in TW3?

[misho8723]

So, are there some good reasons why would someone choose Radovid as the king of the North in TW3?

I can see why would someone choose Djikstra, or Emhyr (so after 3 wars the people of North discover that the life under Nilfgaard isn't so bad after all?), but why would someone choose Radovid? If the lives of common folk would be great and the prosperity of North would go only up, and the only problem with him would be the witch hunt, I could see why someone would choose him, but that's not what happens under his rule

 

[dragonbird]

Assuming you don't know the outcomes in advance, then "Choosing Radovid" basically means either being unable to carry out the assassination for accidental gameplay reasons (for example, breaking Djikstra's leg instead of bargaining with him), or making a conscious decision to turn down the quest. From a role-play perspective, the most obvious reason would be Geralt not wanting to get involved in politics, especially king-slaying.

 

[saladin1701]

I can see why would someone choose Djikstra, or Emhyr (so after 3 wars the people of North discover that the life under Nilfgaard isn't so bad after all?), but why would someone choose Radovid? If the lives of common folk would be great and the prosperity of North would go only up, and the only problem with him would be the witch hunt, I could see why someone would choose him, but that's not what happens under his rule

By 'someone' I'm assuming you mean someone within the world of the Witcher as opposed to the player? If so, you have to think about the setting. Superstition runs wild and most common folk aren't going to be terribly bothered if Radovid piles Magic users, Witches and Elves on Pyres, especially if it means defeating Nilfgaard.

It is also by no means certain that the North would prosper because if you remember what Djkstra says, the North, or at least his country prospered because of its peaceful, open minded societal structure. Radovid is tearing all that down for a vainglorious war with Nilfgaard (if it was really about defeating the Empire he'd have worked with his neighbors, not conquered them through betrayal) so any post-war Northern Empire's prosperity is uncertain.

 

[Rawls]

Geralt detests politics and already had to spend an entire game clearing his name of false accusations that he was involved in an assassination plot. I think it's totally in character for him to not want to get involved in Radovid's assassination. I didn't choose Radovid, I chose to mind my own business. Radovid is the unfortunate consequence of that choice.

In my subsequent playthrough I chose Roche. But I really think the first playthrough is the "canon" one, because you don't know the consequences of your choices (assuming you don't look in advance). After that you shade your choices based on knowing what the outcome is, which is unrealistic from a roll playing perspective. So in my "canon" playthrough, Radovid won.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

he defeats Nilfgaard, and the northern kingdoms will not be ruled by Nilfgaard, that is the most important reason

 

[moonknightgog]

Yes, the good reason would be to play Geralt as the protagonist of the books, staying neutral.

 

[Zyvik]

Some people just dislike Emhyr and mages more than Radovid.

 

[sv3672]

Some might have just seen this thread.

Yes, the good reason would be to play Geralt as the protagonist of the books, staying neutral.

Was Geralt in the books in a similar situation ? With Radovid being a mad man and a threat to people he cares about, maybe he is willing to give up neutrality in this particular case, even if he needs some convincing first. Who knows. At least those who wrote the game should have considered it a possibility, otherwise the choice would not be there.

 

[Zyvik]

Some might have just seen this thread.

This thread can brainwash turn anyone into Radovid's lover

Was Geralt in the books in a similar situation ? With Radovid being a mad man and a threat to people he cares about, maybe he is willing to give up neutrality in this particular case, even if he needs some convincing first. Who knows. At least those who wrote the game should have considered it a possibility, otherwise the choice would not be there.

I think it's totally in character. Geralt ignores his rules about neutrality when the lives of the people he cares about are in danger.

 

[SDZald]

This thread can brainwash turn anyone into Radovid's lover



I think it's totally in character. Geralt ignores his rules about neutrality when the lives of the people he cares about are in danger.

I would think it would be very much in character. Considering Radovid's stand on magic users and non humans, Geralt being both a non human and a magic user, sooner or later he knows he would become a target. Not to mention most of the people Geralt considers friends fall into that category. Geralt would see this as something outside of politics and he would take it personally.

However from my standpoint Geralt is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Emhyr is no Saint either and has been as much a threat to Ciri as anyone and we know how single minded Geralt is about her. So he could go either way on his decision, which means making either choice, IMO does not break with cannon.

 

[almostfaceman]

Yes, the good reason would be to play Geralt as the protagonist of the books, staying neutral.

Eh, Geralt doesn't really stay neutral though. He gets involved in all kinds of crud, especially where Ciri and the sorceresses are involved. So, to protect them, I can see him getting involved in bringing down Radovid.

 

[dragonbird]

Sure, but the thread was asking for reasons why he might NOT bring down Radovid
(I think it's a lot easier to think of reasons why he would)

 

[Goodmongo]

Because Radovid is a military genius and Geralt doesn't want to see the Empire gobble up the Northern kingdoms. Maybe in his mind killing Radovid would ensure the north loses the war.

 

[sv3672]

Because Radovid is a military genius and Geralt doesn't want to see the Empire gobble up the Northern kingdoms. Maybe in his mind killing Radovid would ensure the north loses the war.

The Northern kingdoms can also win the war in the Dijkstra ending, after all, Emhyr is shown being assassinated as a result of losing in that case. Although one thing that is not entirely clear is that why Geralt's involvement is even required for the plot to succeed.

 

[toudis815]

Well choosing Radovid might be an option if Geralt would be thinking about what's good for him not the whole world. In books saving Ciri is his main and basically only obcjective. Emhyr was one of the main villians in books, and he has his plans according to Ciri, Lodge and Philippa in particular basically wanted Geralt dead so they can manipulate Ciri. Radovid in opposite seams not to give a f**k about her,so letting him win the war means that Geralt enemies are out of his way without him even moving a finger.

 

[SMiki55]

With Radovid being a mad man and a threat to people he cares about

Triss safe in Kovir. Yennefer safe with Geralt himself. Zoltan could return to Mahakam and would be safe. Percival with Anais and all dwarven women safe on Far North.

 

[Juraj103]

Anyway, if you red a books than you know that Radovid V will calm down (or die) in about 4-years (witch hunts 1272-1274). About characters SMiki already said it, character plot immunity is strong with those ones.

 

[sv3672]

Anyway, if you red a books than you know that Radovid V will calm down (or die) in about 4-years (witch hunts 1272-1274). About characters SMiki already said it, character plot immunity is strong with those ones.

Although "plot immunity" is not something Geralt's decisions should be based on, nor knowledge of future events. Not to mention, what happens in the future in the books may not be relevant in the games, otherwise the choice to assassinate Radovid would not be there (nor Ciri stopping the white frost, or even Geralt being alive in the first place).

 

[Juraj103]

Although "plot immunity" is not something Geralt's decisions should be based on, nor knowledge of future events. Not to mention, what happens in the future in the books may not be relevant in the games, otherwise the choice to assassinate Radovid would not be there (nor Ciri stopping the white frost, or even Geralt being alive in the first place).

Spoiler

Geralt is live and well in Andrzej Sapkowski´s Sezon Burz in witcherverse year 1373 (100 years after W3) so ?

 

[sv3672]

Spoiler

Geralt is live and well in Andrzej Sapkowski´s Sezon Burz in witcherverse year 1373 (100 years after W3) so ?

Isn't that scene something that is doubted by many if it is real, and not just a dream or have other explanation ? In any case, as far as I know, that book was released later (Nov 2013 ?) than the first two games, and also later than when the story TW3 was written. So, it is hardly something the games could take into account - when they were written, Lady of the Lake was still the last novel in the saga. Which also highlights a problem with the notion that future events in the books are "canon" in the games, even overwriting facts in the games themselves.