True enough and I am not going to start a club where we bake cookies for Emhyr anytime soon. However my point,(that didn't seem to come across very well) was supposed to be more along the lines of "Yes, this man is terrible. But at least he is not so terrible that he isn't moved by basic human decency anymore" He is also sentimental enough that he tells Ciri that she is his daughter. He had no reason to do besides sentimentality.While ostensibly correct, that's kind of overstating matters.
"I wasn't going to force my own daughter to have sex with me and have my child."
That's really a bare minimum kind of thing to give a cookie for.
Okay, Long Post Here
I'm going to bring my analysis of the situation to the ring, actually, in that I think the Empress ending is one which is full of ambiguity and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I also think CD_Projekt Red managed to do an excellent job of throwing a lot of subtle visual clues about the situation which means that it's not really the "Right ThingTM" to do and a nice contrast to other games.
One thing the game does with Emperor Emhyr is that he is portrayed as an incredibly ambigious figure throughout. We gain no deep insights into Emhyr's personality, motivations, or goals other than a few brief conversations which the Emperor is deliberately guarded. I discuss this in my essay and while some people say this might be a flaw in the game, in fact, this is painfully deliberate as we get insights into every single other character. Emperor Emhyr is almost unique by the fact he does not open up to Geralt but keeps their conversation down to a bare minimum. Book readers have an advantage over previous games players but even then, Emhyr's behavior is questionable because it's so different from previous ones....and similar too.
One thing I've mentioned in other threads is that a lot of the Witcher is basically Deconstructive Fantasy. For those unfamiliar with the concept, it's when you take apart the assumptions of a specific genre and subject them to scrutiny. Watchmen is the go-too example for this as it takes apart the assumptions of a superhero story and says, "aren't people who put on costumes to beat other people up very weird? Wouldn't people with superpowers be alienated from the rest of humanity? Isn't it kind of horrible the idea of saving the world through one man's will than just the rest of humanity working together?" In the case of the Witcher Saga, the world deconstructs stuff like the Passage of Elves (extinction is not a sad but beautiful thing), race relations (showing what Medieval race relations were really like), and most of all, the CHOSEN ONE storyline.
In The Wheel of Time, Rand Al'Thor is the Dragon Reborn and while it's no picnic for him, he becomes showered with riches and love interests and eventually becomes ruler of half the world. In the case of Ciri, she is constantly neverendingly on the run because of people who wish to control her for her power and used as a political football wherever she goes. The Witcher 3 is about, essentially, having Ciri deal with all of her enemies so she can finally know a bunch of peace as an adult (or no longer have to worry about people using her as a pawn). With the White Frost destroyed, she's not really someone everyone DESPERATELY needs and most of her enemies are dead or in retreat.
Except for Emhyr who is going to make her Empress! Which is totally a great reward, right?
She's like Aragorn or Arthur, the One True Queen.
Yeah...perhaps not so much.
One area, CPR did well is that they kept to the Deconstructive nature of fantasy. In Dragon Age: Origins, you have the character of Alistair who is similarly a reluctant king. He doesn't want to be King (you can encourage him to do so), he doesn't particularly like his father (you can encourage him to forgive him), and you have to force him into the role of monarch more or less. About the only people who got something similar to Ciri were those playing nonhuman or mage romances as Alistair had to leave them because, again, as King his life was no longer his own (even then, he chose death over them dying if there wasn't a third option). For a lot of gamers, though, Alistair becoming King was about him stepping up and receiving his reward.
I don't think that's what this is about, though.
Nilfgaard is a kingdom built upon the fact of slavery, conquest, and ruthless expansionism. It's not noticeably worse than, say, many other kingdoms because Sapkowski is as romantic about feudalism as George R.R. Martin. However, that keeps the point that Kings and Monarchs are assholes. Foltest is the nicest one of them all and he still tried to have Ciri killed as a young girl and got thousands of people killed because he refused to marry Baronness De Lavelette. Ciri is going to be coming Queen of Nilfgaard by ascending to the throne of a place which her father constantly had to engage in miliary conquests to keep ahead of as well as constant acts of murder to avoid assassination. Furthermore, EMHYR COULDN'T CONTROL NILFGAARD. As much as I hate Emyr, I don't blame him for the Massacre of Cintra as that was his own generals choosing to INVADE THE COUNTRY ON THEIR OWN AND KILL EVERYONE IN THE CAPITAL.
If someone as ruthless, formidable, and bloody-handed as Emhyr wasn't able to do anything but barely keep the reigns of a land like Nilfgaard then what chance does Ciri have? She's an amazing woman but it's not the case of her being weaker than Emhyr but that she's not the kind to exterminate all of her enemies or, if she is, that keeping ahead of them would involve more acts of conquest and suppression of dissent. There's also the fact as Emperor Emhyr isn't treated as a person but as a god. Nilfgaard is not a place where Emhyr has friends or loved ones, everyone acts in a highly ritualized manner which has elevated him to supernatural status. It works for Emhyr because he seems comfortable with being isolated from others but Ciri is going to be surrounded by fawning scyopants and liars the rest of her life. We see the kind of scum which floats upwards toward her with Philippa Eilhart already planning to become Ciri's advisor--which she TELLS GERALT TO HIS FACE WHILE INSULTING HIM.
The ideal ending is, of course, that Ciri masterfully will defeat all of her political enemies. That she'll reform the Empire into one of good. That everything will end up in a Big Happy Ending with the Good QueenTM.
And....that's not really how the Witcher series rolls.
I'm going to bring my analysis of the situation to the ring, actually, in that I think the Empress ending is one which is full of ambiguity and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I also think CD_Projekt Red managed to do an excellent job of throwing a lot of subtle visual clues about the situation which means that it's not really the "Right ThingTM" to do and a nice contrast to other games.
One thing the game does with Emperor Emhyr is that he is portrayed as an incredibly ambigious figure throughout. We gain no deep insights into Emhyr's personality, motivations, or goals other than a few brief conversations which the Emperor is deliberately guarded. I discuss this in my essay and while some people say this might be a flaw in the game, in fact, this is painfully deliberate as we get insights into every single other character. Emperor Emhyr is almost unique by the fact he does not open up to Geralt but keeps their conversation down to a bare minimum. Book readers have an advantage over previous games players but even then, Emhyr's behavior is questionable because it's so different from previous ones....and similar too.
One thing I've mentioned in other threads is that a lot of the Witcher is basically Deconstructive Fantasy. For those unfamiliar with the concept, it's when you take apart the assumptions of a specific genre and subject them to scrutiny. Watchmen is the go-too example for this as it takes apart the assumptions of a superhero story and says, "aren't people who put on costumes to beat other people up very weird? Wouldn't people with superpowers be alienated from the rest of humanity? Isn't it kind of horrible the idea of saving the world through one man's will than just the rest of humanity working together?" In the case of the Witcher Saga, the world deconstructs stuff like the Passage of Elves (extinction is not a sad but beautiful thing), race relations (showing what Medieval race relations were really like), and most of all, the CHOSEN ONE storyline.
In The Wheel of Time, Rand Al'Thor is the Dragon Reborn and while it's no picnic for him, he becomes showered with riches and love interests and eventually becomes ruler of half the world. In the case of Ciri, she is constantly neverendingly on the run because of people who wish to control her for her power and used as a political football wherever she goes. The Witcher 3 is about, essentially, having Ciri deal with all of her enemies so she can finally know a bunch of peace as an adult (or no longer have to worry about people using her as a pawn). With the White Frost destroyed, she's not really someone everyone DESPERATELY needs and most of her enemies are dead or in retreat.
Except for Emhyr who is going to make her Empress! Which is totally a great reward, right?
She's like Aragorn or Arthur, the One True Queen.
Yeah...perhaps not so much.
One area, CPR did well is that they kept to the Deconstructive nature of fantasy. In Dragon Age: Origins, you have the character of Alistair who is similarly a reluctant king. He doesn't want to be King (you can encourage him to do so), he doesn't particularly like his father (you can encourage him to forgive him), and you have to force him into the role of monarch more or less. About the only people who got something similar to Ciri were those playing nonhuman or mage romances as Alistair had to leave them because, again, as King his life was no longer his own (even then, he chose death over them dying if there wasn't a third option). For a lot of gamers, though, Alistair becoming King was about him stepping up and receiving his reward.
I don't think that's what this is about, though.
Nilfgaard is a kingdom built upon the fact of slavery, conquest, and ruthless expansionism. It's not noticeably worse than, say, many other kingdoms because Sapkowski is as romantic about feudalism as George R.R. Martin. However, that keeps the point that Kings and Monarchs are assholes. Foltest is the nicest one of them all and he still tried to have Ciri killed as a young girl and got thousands of people killed because he refused to marry Baronness De Lavelette. Ciri is going to be coming Queen of Nilfgaard by ascending to the throne of a place which her father constantly had to engage in miliary conquests to keep ahead of as well as constant acts of murder to avoid assassination. Furthermore, EMHYR COULDN'T CONTROL NILFGAARD. As much as I hate Emyr, I don't blame him for the Massacre of Cintra as that was his own generals choosing to INVADE THE COUNTRY ON THEIR OWN AND KILL EVERYONE IN THE CAPITAL.
If someone as ruthless, formidable, and bloody-handed as Emhyr wasn't able to do anything but barely keep the reigns of a land like Nilfgaard then what chance does Ciri have? She's an amazing woman but it's not the case of her being weaker than Emhyr but that she's not the kind to exterminate all of her enemies or, if she is, that keeping ahead of them would involve more acts of conquest and suppression of dissent. There's also the fact as Emperor Emhyr isn't treated as a person but as a god. Nilfgaard is not a place where Emhyr has friends or loved ones, everyone acts in a highly ritualized manner which has elevated him to supernatural status. It works for Emhyr because he seems comfortable with being isolated from others but Ciri is going to be surrounded by fawning scyopants and liars the rest of her life. We see the kind of scum which floats upwards toward her with Philippa Eilhart already planning to become Ciri's advisor--which she TELLS GERALT TO HIS FACE WHILE INSULTING HIM.
The ideal ending is, of course, that Ciri masterfully will defeat all of her political enemies. That she'll reform the Empire into one of good. That everything will end up in a Big Happy Ending with the Good QueenTM.
And....that's not really how the Witcher series rolls.
Last edited:
Alright, I honestly (and thankfully) never knew about that.
Not really sure how much I like your overall explanation because it requires me to believe that Ciri is pretty messed up in her head and so easily manipulated.
I have a slightly more forgiving view of Ciri that is neither, 100% perfect or 100% she's a child. I think Ciri is really coming into her own as a woman and this is a story which is a Coming of Age DramaTM where she learns to assert herself and stand on her own.
I also think Ciri is DESPERATE for affection.
Like a starving woman is for a loaf of bread.
It's why she trusts Avallach and is willing to potentially reward Skjall with sex for, again, basic decency. She's been kicked around her entire life so much that people being nice to her is much-much more of a big deal than it probably should be. In the case of Emhyr, I think she's willing to go along with him and forgive him because Ciri, on some level, would WANT him to be her loving father and have an excuse for all the horrible things he did.
Not because Emhyr is a better person because pretending he is would allow Ciri to have someone else in her life who (she thinks) loves her.
As for what kind of Dad I think he is?
Last edited:
That still doesn't explain why she is leaving all of her friends/family behind though. She already has plenty of people that love her.
Geralt handed her over to Emhyr to meet her so it's possible Ciri thinks Geralt wants this on some level.
After all, the general, "Give Ciri to Emhyr" lines tend to go like this.
* He's your father (meaning I'm not)
* You can take coin for giving Ciri (you're not my daughter, this is business)
* That it's important for you to go to him (meaning I trust you with him)
And so on.
Basically, a theme of Ciri's interactions with you is her reading a lot of meaning into relatively minor actions and not always correctly (given she doesn't seem to realize that Geralt will commit SUICIDE BY MONSTER if she dies).
Taking her to see Emhyr seems to be Ciri interpreting Geralt as saying she should be with her biological father versus their adoptive life. Pushing her away, basically.
This is also perhaps a too-personal anecdote but for those of us who DO love someone who has suffered trauma in the past, they're VERY VERY hard to convince you love them. You have to more or less reinforce it EVERY DAY because they read your every action with a lot more hidden meaning than you might think.
So it makes perfect sense Ciri is reading every one of Geralt's actions to be EPIC AND PORTENTOUS.
When, in fact, Geralt's love is self-evident but she can't see that.
Last edited:
It's not impossible for her to become a witcher. And that's so messed up about the endings. To get Ciri to become a witcher, you "merely" have to let either Radovid or Dijkstra live. And that doens't make any sense because in that case, Redania will win the war and Emhyr will die. So the game is basically saying to us that Ciri only feels the need to make a difference in the world as empress if Geralt pretty much wins the war for Nilfgaard, and if Redania stays in the battle and ultimately wins the war, she feels that the best thing to do is let Emhyr die and allow that lunatic Radovid hunt her and her friends endlessly as his power spreads through all of the North.
Anyone has any thoughts on this? Please share.
Anyone has any thoughts on this? Please share.
To be fair...As for what kind of Dad I think he is?
Shireen is still alive in the books...
Damn, well this has put me off going for the Empress ending in my second play through, though I still want to see what happens (I've only watched it on Youtube). I think I'm going to stick with my head cannon of Ciri changing her mind off-screen!
No, in that case, Emhyr tells her to stay away because he's going to be assassinated.
Well if you choose to accept the coin I could actually see it that way. "Here is your daughter, give me my money, she's yours now"
However if you don't take the coin ( and of course I didn't) the entire situation is completely different. Then it's pretty much "Just tell her your ridiculous proposal so she can reject it, then we're out of here" and there is absolutely nothing that makes me think she wouldn't want to stay with Geralt.
You nailed it. The devs set the perfect trap. And you are 100% correct that you never once had to agree to bring Ciri to him.
Problem with a post like this is no one knows who it's in reference to. Is it the post above yours, the OP or some other post. Second of all is that you say the obvious "speak for yourself" when no one ever indicated that they were speaking for some crowd of people. We all speak just for ourselves so the comment is not even necessary. Finally, the 'just a theory" might be true. But the OP provided logic and some facts to support it. You clearly did neither. So you dismiss the theory not based on any evidence but just because you refuse to accept it. So maybe next time try to identify what you disagree with and then maybe cite some evidence to support you side. Else the comment was just a waste of cyberspace.
How much history can that really be since she left when she was a child of around 7 or 8 years old. She can easily hate the guy and I agree that she does. Just taking exception to "lot of personal history".
They wanted to make it ambiguous.
Hence, why in 120 hours of game, no one says, "You know, Emhyr wanted to impregnate you, right?"
"I'm not stupid! I remember! He doesn't want to now, right?"
"I....dunno?"
"Then keep me the hell away from that guy!"
---------- Updated at 03:40 PM ----------
As much as Leia and Vader had when Alderaan blew up.
good remark
---------- Updated at 03:43 PM ----------
Emhyr deserves to die! As well as Radovid! Thanks devs for chance to make Dijkstra as a ruler. Lesser evil.
But Geralt say he promised me not to force you on anything isn`t that enough, and we know that Emhyr keep his promises, Letho was overjoyed with rebuilded school of the viper he speaks with high regard abouth Emhyr