Uh.. I did not notice that... I have the name tags off, so maybe that's why
I should pay more attention.
Thank you.
I should pay more attention.
Thank you.
I followed this religiously in the games, but it never seemed to have any real impact or consequence for lying. I just felt that it seemed like it was going to be a more important oath in the later games.
Whenever I was given the option to disobey Emhry I did. I didn't bow from the start and told him I wouldn't bring Ciri to him every time. They did do a good job making him intimidated though, I thought twice a few times about disobeying him.
Right, it's not gold. It's probably a sentence like "Just imagine what you can do good beeing empress!"
The biggest problem is not her 180° mind change, but the implementation and explanation. She just looses one sentence about it. That's why i cannot accept this decision as her own free will. All her life she wants to be free. One of her happiest times was being with the Rats ... killing people and do whatever she wants to. And after a few minutes/hours with Emhyr she changes her mind? By defeating the White Frost she finally obtains freedom. And her first ... AND last free decision is to give it up again ...?
Makes no sense to me, especially because she was quite upset after this meeting with Emhyr. Given he explained to her that she could to so many good things when being empress. Why should she react in that way? She would actually "like" the idea of doing good things (of course she would be surprised, but not angry). Emhyr just MUST have told her some "freaky" and manipulative ideas etc.
We just don't know what exactly he told her and she doesn't explain it to us. That's why I'm refusing seeing this as a good ending. Maybe I could accept it with more explanation but not that way.
I hope you understand what I want to express (non native speaker ...).
Last edited:
Been there, have the t-shirt. No fun at all. (In my case, the scar on her neck from the knife wound had healed to near-invisibility, but the wounds to her mind had not.)
This makes the situation in the game story even more tragic: Geralt is not exactly the world's expert on attending to the emotional needs of trauma victims, and if the developers are effective this carries over to how the player behaves as well. The result is many players experiencing the dead Ciri ending, wondering what the heck went wrong, and then being quite irritated when they learn which "minor" choices led to this result.
As for Ciri being desperate for affection, there's something about how she looks and acts that strongly emotes "Please love me!" Maybe it's the excessive eyeshadow or the wounded deer look when she is sad. I've known many of these sorts of people in real life, they strongly attract two types of people: good people who instinctively try to nurture and care for them (Skjall, Geralt, Yennefer, the other heroes) and manipulators who try to use them (Avallach, Emhyr, Eredin, etc.) What is most infuriating is that these sorts of people seem magnetically drawn to the manipulative types, and the reason is repetition compulsion.
Side note: The player is told that the Baron is salvageable, despite his many very serious problems, because he is good to Ciri and doesn't try to exploit her. This is why many players care about what happens to the Baron and his family and try to help him get on the road to recovery.
Re: The Bloody Baron
I'm not exactly sympathetic to a spousal abuser who murdered his wife's lover but I'm more sympathetic to him than I perhaps should be because I get the impression he's genuinely broken by war and trauma and there's no recourse for the Baron unlike in modern times or treatment. For me, there was a good man in the Baron once and he is an evil of circumstance and addiction than naturally so.
I agree with you about Ciri, by the way, 100%.
I also think this is why, intention or not, the "minor decisions" leading to Ciri dying or not feels real to me. It also makes it an epic tragedy because not only does Geralt love Ciri but Geralt loves Ciri MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN HIS LIFE.
And Ciri doesn't realize that.
It also makes the Empress ending doubly tragic if she leaves him behind because his daughter is so direly important to him.
I'm not exactly sympathetic to a spousal abuser who murdered his wife's lover but I'm more sympathetic to him than I perhaps should be because I get the impression he's genuinely broken by war and trauma and there's no recourse for the Baron unlike in modern times or treatment. For me, there was a good man in the Baron once and he is an evil of circumstance and addiction than naturally so.
I agree with you about Ciri, by the way, 100%.
I also think this is why, intention or not, the "minor decisions" leading to Ciri dying or not feels real to me. It also makes it an epic tragedy because not only does Geralt love Ciri but Geralt loves Ciri MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN HIS LIFE.
And Ciri doesn't realize that.
It also makes the Empress ending doubly tragic if she leaves him behind because his daughter is so direly important to him.
Interestingly, the Geralt in the games is fundamentally a "fixer", not strictly a killer. He's a lot like another Wolf, the one from Pulp Fiction.
"I'm Winston Wolf, I solve problems."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMbAANfUJhI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWmRTjLRMfU
There's even a dialogue option somewhere in the game where Geralt can introduce himself as "I solve problems" instead of as "Geralt of Rivia", so the resemblance is not lost on the devs.
Geralt is a professional. The fourth most important reason Geralt charges money for what he does (the first three being weapons, booze, and whores) is that it gets the customers invested in the process, making them more likely to listen to Geralt when he tells them what they need to do as part of lifting whatever curse is affecting them.
Btw. I was just looking through the "bad ending" decisions and noticed something that might be interesting,
Pretty much every one of them is somehow connected to Avallach..
Anyone think it's possible that she's actually going with Avallach in the bad ending or is that too far-fetched?
If someone is interested I can post the quotes.
Pretty much every one of them is somehow connected to Avallach..
Anyone think it's possible that she's actually going with Avallach in the bad ending or is that too far-fetched?
If someone is interested I can post the quotes.
Last edited:
I think a lot of the game's ending's power is lost if Ciri and Geralt aren't both dead.
YES. This is a big theme of the Witcher games, and parallels real life as well. Having that much power is a real problem, getting it and maintaining it in the way Emhyr does is even less healthy.
Let's back up a bit.
The historical references in the Witcher are not very subtle. Nilfgaard is portrayed as some mixture of WWII Germany and Russia. The Nilfgaardian force in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Group_Centre
Emhyr's personality and way of doing business are strongly modeled off of Stalin. There's a bit of Hitler mixed in there too, but most of the vices associated with Hitler are assigned to Radovid. The central area where the game takes place is caught between the armies of two dictators, something the developers' grandparents experienced personally. Here's just two quick links to remind everyone how much fun that was for everyone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_destruction_of_Warsaw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
Stalin was his planet's expert at ruling an empire through force and fear. He was extremely organized, very disciplined, a real genius in what he did, very much like Emhyr is portrayed. Pretty much any famous Stalin quote (they are almost all brilliant) could have been seamlessly dropped into the game from the mouth of Emhyr.
As it happened, Stalin had a daughter, just like Emhyr. The story of Stalin's daughter is quite sad and illustrates the biggest reason why being this kind of ruler is so unhealthy: it is nearly impossible to compartmentalize the necessary treachery and brutality of the Emhyr lifestyle so that it doesn't affect one's family.
I think Emhyr isn't based on Stalin and Nilfgaard isn't a one-to-one thing with the Nazis.
Here's a good article on the Witcher's influences, IMHO.
http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/gamethropology-the-economic-history-of-the-witcher
Here's a good article on the Witcher's influences, IMHO.
http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/gamethropology-the-economic-history-of-the-witcher
I believe Ciri does realize that, she just isn't that good at showing it. And its sad for all parents but eventually the child has to grow up and move on their own so to speak. Ciri is not leaving Geralt behind as much as she is just moving forward herself. There is nothing to suggest that they will never see eachother again. Geralt, despite his love for her, would be miserable in Nilfgaard's capital. Not only is he a cultural outsider, he abhors politics. Their relationship has also fundamentally changed with her becoming Empress.
Only one character in the game ever has the opportunity to kill Letho, and that's Geralt. Everyone else who comes after Letho ends up in the morgue. The Emperor betrays him, and the net result is a huge pile of dead Imperial agents. When Geralt meets Letho in Velen it's clear Letho finds the unending stream of assassins sent after him to be a nuisance and a bore more than a real threat. (One of the reasons I let Letho live at the end of the second game was that I strongly suspected Emhyr would shaft him just like he did Ambassador Shilard, leading to Letho wising up.)
The witchers really are operating at a different level. The second game is all about how whenever the witchers decide to dispose of the kings, the kings are toast unless another witcher intervenes. Emhyr has private audiences with Yennefer and Geralt, everyone involved is perfectly aware that if either Yen or Geralt felt seriously threatened Emhyr would be dead in 5 seconds and his head would be on Radovid's desk in 30 seconds. The reason why Emhyr is safe in these situations is that Geralt and Yen simply can't be bothered to kill him, it wouldn't be worth the hassle.
----
The power of the leaders of Empires to make positive change is much more limited than is generally believed. Politicians in general and kings in particular have all manner of hidden constraints, the machinery of state once built takes on a life and logic of its own. This is another recurring theme in the Witcher games: killing kings most of the time just makes a bigger mess, even killing slime like Henselt doesn't improve things. Note how Dijkstra starts taking on some of the bad traits of Radovid minutes after his assassination. The fundamental reason the witchers have a policy of neutrality is that they have figured out that their participation in the political system rarely helps; instead, such intervention distracts them from their main job. Yennefer eventually wises up to this, which is why she deals herself out of the political game at the end of the third game.
I disagree with op on everything. I think Emhyr is not so bad, and he is getting pretty old, and I think he was not so bad at the end of the books either. I mean sure he was very ambitious and ruthless etc., but as far as rulers of empires go.. He is reasonable, after all he did let Temeria be its own thing, that its a vassal state doesn't really make the conditions worse for them. Also Emhyr personally isn't responsible for all the brutality his armies commit.
I think its a good ending, better than a witcher one, because I prefer more selfless acts from characters and bettering the world and all that. She will be Empress and she will rule like Calanthe did when Emhyr is dead, she will also probably have kids who will continue her line - world will be potentially a better place. As for witcher Ciri - well... we all know witchers don't die in their beds. These are the hard truths - no need for fairytale ending.
I think its a good ending, better than a witcher one, because I prefer more selfless acts from characters and bettering the world and all that. She will be Empress and she will rule like Calanthe did when Emhyr is dead, she will also probably have kids who will continue her line - world will be potentially a better place. As for witcher Ciri - well... we all know witchers don't die in their beds. These are the hard truths - no need for fairytale ending.
She didn't insult his profession and it had nothing to with Emhyr - it was common sense and something Geralt knows already - he is simply content with his position in the world and from the books and games, despite having an effect on some politics and happenings in the world, he usually tried to stay out of it, try being neutral , ergo he doesn't really concern himself with changing anything in the world or affecting politics, but Ciri does and it is her legacy. That's much better than play wannabe witcher and eventually be killed off by a kikimore.
Last edited:
My view of Emhyr is that his legacy is everything to him and no one actually matters to him as a person in that. Ciri is not really important to him save what she represents and that he's warped any affection he might feel for her into something that is unhealthy and wrong. He might think he loves her but I think he's made Nilfgaard his primary priority and her role in that is something she's not allowed to deviate from.
I think, as dictators go, Emhyr isn't an especially bad one in that he's not irrational or bigoted like Radovid or prone to arbitrary insane judgements. However, that's not a good thing as while Radovid is Hitler/Joffrey/King Aerys, Emhyr is Doctor Doom or Darth Vader. Radovid might order a bunch of purges of nonhumans but Emhyr has ordered the conquest of a dozen nations and the deaths of tens of thousands of people plus however many he has to kill to pacify them--simply because they're there.
We glamourize conquerors but, honestly, that's kind of insane.
Like Darth Vader, Emhyr has some admirable qualities but he's not a good father for Luke.
The attitude of the Nilfgaardian nobility has a certain Prussian military aristocratic feel to it, as opposed to a Nazi feel.
Clearly Poland has been in a bad neighborhood for a very long time, lots of history for Sapkowski and CDPR to draw on. We don't have much history where I come from, somehow I don't feel like I'm missing out.
The paranoia, the ruthless disposal of subordinates when they have "outlived their uselessness," the poor treatment of prisoners, the greed for power and territory, the cult of personality, the fraud, the pervasive attitude that other people are just tools, mere resources to be expended, the political purges, the mistreatment of family -- these are all classic Stalin, although he certainly did not have a monopoly on these traits. Emhyr has these qualities almost to the point where they reach Bond villain proportions. Take a look at the following From Russia With Love clip and then tell me Emhyr wouldn't feel quite at home with the white fluffy cat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gi0VDZzjtQ
Clearly Poland has been in a bad neighborhood for a very long time, lots of history for Sapkowski and CDPR to draw on. We don't have much history where I come from, somehow I don't feel like I'm missing out.
The paranoia, the ruthless disposal of subordinates when they have "outlived their uselessness," the poor treatment of prisoners, the greed for power and territory, the cult of personality, the fraud, the pervasive attitude that other people are just tools, mere resources to be expended, the political purges, the mistreatment of family -- these are all classic Stalin, although he certainly did not have a monopoly on these traits. Emhyr has these qualities almost to the point where they reach Bond villain proportions. Take a look at the following From Russia With Love clip and then tell me Emhyr wouldn't feel quite at home with the white fluffy cat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gi0VDZzjtQ
The Empress ending is also fitting to Ciri both as a character and as a person.
Like she tells Geralt during the final Act 3 scene, right before entering the portal: "What do you know about saving the world? You're just a witcher, silly".
That ending masterfully reflects both her embracing her destiny while letting transpire her sadness and feeling of loss (and possibly, remorse) over having to abandon which that she loves for something bigger than herself.
Like she tells Geralt during the final Act 3 scene, right before entering the portal: "What do you know about saving the world? You're just a witcher, silly".
That ending masterfully reflects both her embracing her destiny while letting transpire her sadness and feeling of loss (and possibly, remorse) over having to abandon which that she loves for something bigger than herself.
I actually think Julius Caesar more than Stalin.
The Cult of Personality elements are there but ultimately Stalin rose from a unassuming bureaucrat to the most dangerous dictator in the history of the world (since he died in his bed as well as devastated the world) in large part due to his ability to do that.
For me, I think Emhyr is a combination of many dictators throughout history but works well as a deconstruction of many fantasy tropes. Particularly the Evil Overlord.
By making him as an archetypal "genius conqueror" like caesar or Napoleon or Alexander, we can see how TERRIFYING such a person would be to deal with in real-life.
---------- Updated at 03:22 AM ----------
You can't do the "Return of the King" ending with the Galactic Empire.
A place which has been portrayed as a murderous dangerous knife-filled place ruled by intrigue and lies and conquest and slavery.
The Witcher genre just doesn't support that. Anymore than, say, Geralt heroically saving the day and NOTHING BACKFIRING would work.
The Cult of Personality elements are there but ultimately Stalin rose from a unassuming bureaucrat to the most dangerous dictator in the history of the world (since he died in his bed as well as devastated the world) in large part due to his ability to do that.
For me, I think Emhyr is a combination of many dictators throughout history but works well as a deconstruction of many fantasy tropes. Particularly the Evil Overlord.
By making him as an archetypal "genius conqueror" like caesar or Napoleon or Alexander, we can see how TERRIFYING such a person would be to deal with in real-life.
---------- Updated at 03:22 AM ----------
I think the problem is you can't do that kind of ending with Nilfgaard or the Witcher.
You can't do the "Return of the King" ending with the Galactic Empire.
A place which has been portrayed as a murderous dangerous knife-filled place ruled by intrigue and lies and conquest and slavery.
The Witcher genre just doesn't support that. Anymore than, say, Geralt heroically saving the day and NOTHING BACKFIRING would work.
Since there are no Rebels or really any completely positive force in the Witcher world, your parallel is unapplicable.
The Northern Kingdoms aren't, as others have already told you, the good guys. The witchers either. The sorcerers? No.
This is not that trope. Sapkowski is not Tolkien.
This is a mature (albeit postmodern) choice of sacrifice for the lesser of two evils, which is a recurring theme in the series.
The protagonist, being fully aware of the limitations of his world and of himself, has to try to make the best of it regardless.
There is no triumph of good over evil, no defeat for the dark forces, and it is indeed a sad ending.
There is no absolute morality or absolute good in the Witcher series. It's how it is, for better or worse.
Last edited:
The mentioning of what happens with Geralt should indicate I know that. Basically, Empires are depicted not as Fantasy Romantic Kingdoms but horrifying engines of destruction and decadence powered by the lives of the innocent.
Kings can be fun and charismatic but they're also almost always EVIL on some level. King Foltest? Wonderful guy. Love to have a drink with him. Has the mother of his children tortured, has his children kidnapped via a war, and maybe has her son killed because he refuses to marry the Baroness La Vallette. Kind of a psychopath and this fits his portrayal in the Witcher short-story.
and he is the BEST of the monarchs.
Going to try and become Empress of Nilfgaard is an ending which is dissonant because it implies Ciri's statement, "An Empress can do more good as a Witcher" isn't a nonsensical statement like, "Clams meat bicycle jelly beans built for two."
Hell, I barely buy it with Cerys and I think she's a little too good herself.
Last edited:
Think you are too focused on what will make Ciri "feel good" or other feelings, and feelings of characters towards her. Doesn't really matter all too much how strongly Emhyr loves or cares about Ciri (or is going to care about her, I'm sure his feelings will grow/change), even if he doesn't care about her at all - it's not very important. He is gonna get old and die and Ciri will rule and hopefully gonna acquire new useful skills in politics and become formidable, just and fair ruler. It will be difficult sure but I'm sure Emhyr will leave her with all the tools that are necessary to accomplish her goals - I doubt that he would want to subvert her in any way. And he does have a good head for inner workings of his empire.