Do you meet Letho in tw3? Emperor's headhunters atack him. [Make quest with Letho in tw3 - you'll know the story]. Emperor didn't keep his word.
Yeah, a lot of people have this image of Emhyr as a man of his word.
He's not.
He's a man of his exact words if it's convenient.
I don't think he plans to do it, though, because the White Frost is already defeated.
Last edited:
Alright.
The quoted statement at start of OP's post is already wrong. Ciri doesn't say that she refuses to go to Emhyr in Witcher 3. First, it is up to you to start this topic with her or skip it.
Second, IF you tell her to meet Emhyr, Ciri asks if it is really important. Again, she doesn't refuse right away. She asks your opinion.
Third, she has never met Emhyr before, hence she knows nothing about him, except he is her biological father. (I've read all novels) Op states that Ciri doesn't want to go to Emhyr because she knows that she is a scumbag. Then he proceeds building up his theories further based on wrong statement. (corrupted Emhyr, blablabla, bought Ciri, while she says it is purely her decision to be the empress - she thought it over)
Should I proceed?
Last edited:
She knows he's her father who married her exact-lookalike, chased her across half the world, and invaded her homeland after mysteriously surviving a boat ride where her mom died.
He did the same just like any other ruler in the world? (especially Foltest+his sister ya know). Nothing makes him a psycho, a monster or a scumbag. He did it for the state.
Again, Ciri has never seen Emhyr. Well she did, but Emhyr let her go right away (end of Witcher saga). She doesn't know his point of view. He didn't have time to explain it to her.
He is her father - him chasing her around the world is understandable. He wants to see his daughter. (Btw, Geralt did the same)
Also, just got another counterargument concerning Emhyr corrupting Ciri.
1. Ciri doesn't care about gold - you can clearly see it when Emhyr rewards Geralt with gold. Just look at her reaction - she doesn't care about riches. Quite the contrary - she looks down upon Geralt if he accepts gold.
2. When she leaves Emhyr's audience it seems Emhyr told her something that even Geralt doesn't know (again her reaction implies that, (see above - Emhyr's point of view)) - something very important, that made Ciri to make her final decision. Her OWN decision by the way - she isn't a child anymore.
Ciri has royal blood - she gets power as the empress to change the world and make it better place. Who knows maybe she will rule in other way, not like Emhyr does? But that is another story.
Last edited:
I thought she was with him till around the age of 7 or 8. And you say she never once met him. Are you sure about that? I'm really fuzzy on who she was with from birth till that age. Please correct me if Geralt took her at birth.
But even if she never met the guy does that prevent her from forming an opinion about him? besides I might be wrong but I seem to recall that Ciri tells Geralt that she does not want to meet him. If I recalled that correctly wouldn't that refute your contention? She my not refuse to go see him but she says she really doesn't want to. Therefore, isn't she doing this because of pressure put on her by Geralt?
Last edited:
When her mother died she was 5. She was a just a child. Emhyr left for Nilfgaard right after shipwreck and novel doesn't mention that he took any part in Ciri's education (or better say upbringing, since there isn't much education for a 5 year old child).even before the shipwreck That was entirely her grandmother who took care of her - up to Ciri's 10th birthday.
To her, Emhyr was just her biological father, nothing more. That's all she knew about him.
I think Geralt not telling her about Emhyr or not keeping his word (bringing Ciri to Vizima) is scumbaggish. Emhyr is her real father after all. And it seems he has something very important - something that made her to change her opinion - and this isn't just money (see my previous post)
Last edited:
Hmmm....
So no sane person wants to be king of the most powerful nation in the known world? Interesting....
Just because there is some dialog in which Voorhes implies his father is going to suggest to Emhyr he marries Ciri doesn't make it so.
What makes you think Emhyr lives a "miserable and depraved" existence?
Geralt was not the only person who took care of Ciri. Ermion took care of Ciri too. So did Vesimir. How's Geralt "disowning" Ciri? He's not her real father.
Emhyr kept his word. He did not force Ciri to do anything, at any time.
Again, Geralt is not giving up his own daughter, because Ciri isn't his daughter, and Emhyr is not shown to be corrupt at any point.
Witchers are not more powerful than emperors. Ask Letho. Nothing comes of Geralt blowing off Emhyr because it would've made for a short game.
No one knows what Emhyr told Ciri, but given Nilfgaard ends up the most powerful kingdom in the known world, how is it a lie that the emperor of such kingdom would have the real power to change the world for good, vis a vis someone going from small village to small village killing monsters for gold?
So no sane person wants to be king of the most powerful nation in the known world? Interesting....
Just because there is some dialog in which Voorhes implies his father is going to suggest to Emhyr he marries Ciri doesn't make it so.
What makes you think Emhyr lives a "miserable and depraved" existence?
Geralt was not the only person who took care of Ciri. Ermion took care of Ciri too. So did Vesimir. How's Geralt "disowning" Ciri? He's not her real father.
Emhyr kept his word. He did not force Ciri to do anything, at any time.
Again, Geralt is not giving up his own daughter, because Ciri isn't his daughter, and Emhyr is not shown to be corrupt at any point.
Witchers are not more powerful than emperors. Ask Letho. Nothing comes of Geralt blowing off Emhyr because it would've made for a short game.
No one knows what Emhyr told Ciri, but given Nilfgaard ends up the most powerful kingdom in the known world, how is it a lie that the emperor of such kingdom would have the real power to change the world for good, vis a vis someone going from small village to small village killing monsters for gold?
Last edited:
My adopted brother would like to have a word with you on that.
Unprovoked military conquest of nations not being corrupt is a new definition of the word for me.
It's a slave and conquest based economy. You can't change that kind of thing without dismantling it.
Emperor Trajan was a very decent man, despite conquering a hell out of Dacia. The same goes for all good roman emperors - Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, etc. Who knows, may be Ciri will be a female version of Antoninus Pius?
Gradual transition from slavery is perfectly possible, given enough time and effort. Ciri will be in a position to make changes. Sudden changes... well, just look what Dany did in the Slaver Bay. It is an on-going nightmare for everybody, slaves included.
Which may be a thing.
Ciri....isn't a politician.
She's a Witcher.
Her solution would be to start executing slavers en masse.
She kills monsters. Not diplomacy.
(Moving to this thread because the other one about the ending keeps making me sad)
That is exactly why imagine Ciri would be a terrible empress! She is so used to getting her way and has been taught almost nothing about Nilfgaardian politics. She would step on sooooo many toes and would probably be assassinated or pushed out of politics a few years into her reign.
That is exactly why imagine Ciri would be a terrible empress! She is so used to getting her way and has been taught almost nothing about Nilfgaardian politics. She would step on sooooo many toes and would probably be assassinated or pushed out of politics a few years into her reign.
And what is your adopted brother going to tell me? Has he ever partially participated, amongst others, in the care of someone for a couple of years and decided that someone was his child?
Well, first of all, unprovoked military conquest of nations is not "corruption". Matter of fact, if you look up "corruption" in the dictionary, you will not see "unprovoked military conquest of nations".
But even if for the sake of argument, context, people!... context!. It was par for the course in the depicted era that kingdoms would expand via military conquest.
There are slaves in the Witcher? Where? And while you do not have to dismantle anything, wouldn't the most powerful emperor would have the means to do so?
We actually see some instances of slavery, some only mentioned some a bit more overt. The two ladies in the royal gardens in Vizima mention that some countess will send 100 slaves to clean up the gardens nd bring them up to Nilfgaard's high horticultural standards. We also have the captives in Skellige that seem to serve as dance slaves.
That is not the term I am looking for, as I am not looking for any term, nor do I see the relevance of the term here. A "foster child" is a child raised by someone who's not that child's biological or adopted parent.
And again, even for the sake of argument, what about Ermion? Ciri was his "foster child" too. Or how about Vesimir? Or Avallach? Or any number of people who took care of Ciri?
What I'm saying is other than a dubious biological link, Emhyr has very-very little tie on Ciri.
Missed the comment in Vizima.
Which captives in Skellige? "Dance slaves"?
The comment is easy to miss as it is NPC chatter on your way from Emhyr to Jennefer after the first audience.
In Skellige some NPCs in Kaer Trolde or in the inns have the title "captive" hovering over them. They often dance in the center of the room or in front of warriors so I assume that they function as entertainment. I also recall some NPC talking about her husband having a Nilfgaardian captive that he keeps around as a servant despite loathing her.
I am sure there are more references to the existence of slaves in Nilfgaard or captives in Skellige, but these are the first that came to mind.