The Bittersweet Ending is actually a Bad Ending ... and it's All Geralt's Fault. [SPOILERS]

[Willowhugger]

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.

To be frank, if the only people are benefiting from Ciri are the people of the North and Nilfgaard...who cares?

They haven't exactly shown any sign of deserving consideration over Ciri's happiness.

Why? Because they exist?

The North and Nilfgaard's evils are their fault, not Emhyr's.

 

[lwp]

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.

I think you can actually Nilfgaard is not evil. They are simply as pragmatic and brutal as any empire ever has been.

 

[Gerald01]

@Willowhugger
Well? How does that detract from Ciri's very personal and meaningful (perceived) saving of the world (as it may be) and future (attempt at) betterment of Nilfgaard?

The tale is yes epic, with most of if not all the bells and whistles, but it is ultimately a story of individuals first and foremost.

And since there's no absolute good or absolute morality, we shouldn't judge the story by those standards.
In that universe (and I'm convinced Sapkowski thinks also in ours) what she can do (no matter how insignificant it may seem) is probably the equivalent of the forces of good vanquishing Evil. He's that pessimistic. But this is secondary relatively to Ciri and Geralt's story.

Plus, now they I think of it, Nilfgaard is not always depicted as the big bad, in some parts he has the characters praise it or anyway present it as a more "civilised" society (by his standards).

---------- Updated at 03:48 AM ----------

To be frank, if the only people are benefiting from Ciri are the people of the North and Nilfgaard...who cares?

They haven't exactly shown any sign of deserving consideration over Ciri's happiness.

Why? Because they exist?

The North and Nilfgaard's evils are their fault, not Emhyr's.

What sort of simplicistic nonsense is this? The value of Ciri's personal feelings from your POV(!) versus the welfare of peoples? Disregarding her own morality completely?
Collective guilt? What?

 

[frozenkex]

They haven't exactly shown any sign of deserving consideration over Ciri's happiness.

The way i see it thats basically your main motivation behind arguments on Ciri we've had - you want her to be happy and have her adventure of a witcheress. So you go backwards to try come up with whatever argument/excyse necessary to make that true.

As for people of north and south (i dont think they are going to zerrikania yet) that's basically what she would be doing as a witcher - helping/saving people. I imagine that would be her main motivation rather than just coin unlike some other witchers, nor for the glory of it. So only people of north and south would be benefitting of her being a witcher too, so I think that's a bad argument.

As for just saying "North/South done a lot of evil, they don't deserve any help" - it's kind of a narrow-minded view. It pretty much says "humans suck, fuck humans. I'm going to the Wonderland". Humanity is flawed sure, but there is good and bad in it, and its worth fighting for, it's why Geralt killed 'monsters' in the first cinematic to save the girl. Besides most of her friends are humans, ya know, she herself is a human anyway so yea whatever. Besides you don't just fight and care for the people of this generation but for the next and all future generations.

 

[robertbrockman2]

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.

As far as rulers of empires go, he's not that bad, which is why the heroes do not go out of their way to dispose of him and actually do business with him when the situation warrants it. But that's the point. The bar for moral and ethical behavior for the political leadership is set so low that almost nothing they do is shocking. If any of our personal friends started acting like Radovid, Henselt, Emhyr, Phillipa, Dijkstra, Iorveth, the Baron, or even Foltest we would stop answering their phone calls.

Emhyr is completely responsible for the brutality his armies commit, because he presumably has the authority to implement procedures for investigating and punishing acts of brutality committed by his soldiers. Authority = responsibility. If The Big Chair is real, if Emhyr actually has power, he can put a stop to the atrocities: "Anyone who is found to be mistreating civilians as described by General Order 57 is to be hanged at dawn." If the Big Chair isn't real, if Emhyr lacks the power even to maintain proper military discipline in his own army, then he is a figurehead, a fraud, and Empress Ciri will be as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility

What makes Geralt and his friends heroes is that they have lots and lots of power, just like the political leadership, but they choose not to abuse it. Remember how Geralt lectures Lambert on how dangerous the Axii sign is? It's dangerous because it's easy to abuse.

Geralt's payoff for not abusing his power is that he gets to be a real person. He has real friends, a real family. People actually love him. He's trusted professionally enough that he can be a real leader, capable of assembling ad-hoc organizations of bitter enemies to deal with very large scale problems, problems which would otherwise be intractable. The kings can't do this, because they can't trust each other and others don't trust them, because they are bad people.

---------- Updated at 04:21 AM ----------

There is no absolute morality or absolute good in the Witcher series. It's how it is, for better or worse.

Sometimes good intentions backfire, just like in real life. Sometimes rotten actions end up turning out well, just like in real life. But statistically, over the course of the books and the games, good intentions implemented skillfully generally make things better while rotten intentions and general incompetence generally make things worse.

Wicked actions are never portrayed as being desirable or praiseworthy. Sometimes the heroes must participate in a necessary evil or choose the least bad alternative, but these situations are never presented as being fun or happy. Each of the factions has good and bad elements, good and bad people. Characters have some ability to make decisions which change their nature and their results for better or worse.

This is all just like real life, which is why the books and games are good.

 

[frozenkex]

Emhyr is completely responsible for the brutality his armies commit, because he presumably has the authority to implement procedures for investigating and punishing acts of brutality committed by his soldiers.

Sorry the world of Witcher is not really a world of heroes and "good guys". If there was an order "don't mistreat civilians" in the land they are occupying, where everyone hates them, soldiers would die of laughter. It's hard to enforce or control something like that. They all have superior officers that answer to someone, that answer to some general who answers some other dude that answers to Emhyr. Long ass chain of command and lots of advisors.

The answer to brutality is "this is war" and "gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet". And we only experienced brutality of a relatively small part of the army in a certain part of the warzones. We don't know how civilians were treated elsewhere.

 

[Zbotz]

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.

Sorry the world of Witcher is not really a world for heroes and good guys. If there was an order "don't mistreat civilians" in the land they are occupying, where everyone hates them, soldiers would die of laughter. It's hard to enforce or control something like that.

I see.

 

[frozenkex]

I see.

well... I guess it depends on perspective, I don't really think I contradict myself. Just cuz Ciri will potentially make the world a better place doesn't mean some "bad stuff" is never gonna happen during her reign. I guess the confusing part is "heroes and good guys". Op kept mentioning "heroes who can kick everyones ass", which reminded me more of something like world of warcraft and other less-dark/gritty universes. Geralt is kind-of-a-hero but he rarely sees himself as a hero nor do other people see him as such - and as far as heroic deeds go he sometimes does questionable/less heroic things, just like most witchers who aren't "heroes" either.

 

[Dude27]

Oh come on, Ciri is not a teenager, she is an adult. She doesn't need Geralt guide her. Adults can make their own decisions - and she did it.
She didn't ditch Geralt - she made a decision to start her own life. Just like adults do - they want to live separately from parents.
By the way she is alive - and nothing stops Geralt from visiting her anytime.
And yes, Witchers are just pawns. And by the way they have a code of neutrality.(which seems to be violated) Letho? Lol, he got bribed with gold into assassinating kings. Geralt? He was used by others so many times, even he mentions it himself. Rulers are the ones who makes the world, definitely not witchers.

 

[robertbrockman2]

To be frank, if the only people are benefiting from Ciri are the people of the North and Nilfgaard...who cares?

They haven't exactly shown any sign of deserving consideration over Ciri's happiness.

Why? Because they exist?

The North and Nilfgaard's evils are their fault, not Emhyr's.

Now we're finally getting to the really important stuff.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is that they believe that they can sacrifice their own happiness to benefit other people, especially over a long period of time.

THIS ALMOST NEVER WORKS.

DON'T DO THIS.

Truly effective people love what they do, they don't experience their work as any sort of sacrifice or burden. As a result they can work tirelessly and achieve great things.

----

The people of the North and Nilfgaard deserve help because they are people who are suffering. They are suffering from problems they largely inflicted on themselves and each other, but this is not important. What is important is that until they individually and collectively repent of the big mistakes that have gotten them in their current mess, there is little anyone can do to help. It is this lack of repentance, not political, military, or magical power, which is the limiting factor of the fixers (the witchers and the sorceresses) ability to help.

The instant that the Baron admits that he's been a terrible person, there's hope for him and his family. He can stop digging the hole deeper, and becomes worthy of Geralt's assistance in digging out. Emhyr is way too proud to do that. What are the odds his letter to Ciri said something like the following:

"Dear Cirilla,

I've made a terrible mess of things. I've created a monster that I no longer have the ability to control. I've started horrible wars, gotten thousands of people killed. I'm surrounded by people who are plotting against me, and their reasons for overthrowing me are just. The whole thing is about to come apart, and I'm powerless to stop it. If you could find it in your heart to forgive me of all the horrible things I've done in the past, and bring your friends and allies to Nilfgaard to clean up this mess I've created, I and all of my subjects would be eternally grateful."

Answer: roughly zero. Emhyr and his leadership don't understand and can't be made to understand that they are the cause of much of the suffering around them, so they can't be helped. For Ciri to have a prayer of implementing positive change in Nilfgaard, the leadership and population would have to want help changing, and there is little evidence that this is so.

 

[frozenkex]

the leadership and population would have to want help changing, and there is little evidence that this is so.

We can't know what is or what isn't there is nowhere to get the evidence from , we weren't south of Yaruga in this game (or any other game afaik) we don't know how the court and intrigues of Nilfgaard's capital works or what the people there are like. But what we can know is that peasants generally care mostly for having peaceful and bountiful life with their families and about having enough food in their bellies. It's not only about Nilfgaard but its also about all the vassal states of Nilfgaard like the kingdom of Cintra (her home you know?). Once cintrians see their promised and beloved princess, that they have sworn allegiance to, on the throne - that alone will make great strides in reducing the unrest in those territories and other conflicts, and will bring in even more allies. It also has the potential of uniting different cultures and maybe those people will start hating each other less.

I've done in the past, and bring your friends and allies to Nilfgaard to clean up this mess I've created, I and all of my subjects would be eternally grateful."

What is important is that until they individually and collectively repent of the big mistakes that have gotten them in their current mess, there is little anyone can do to help. It is this lack of repentance, not political, military, or magical power, which is the limiting factor of the fixers (the witchers and the sorceresses) ability to help.

Sounds cheesy as hell. You make big "fixes" with politics and alliances not through witchers and sorceresses.

 

[Gerald01]

Sometimes good intentions backfire, just like in real life. Sometimes rotten actions end up turning out well, just like in real life. But statistically, over the course of the books and the games, good intentions implemented skillfully generally make things better while rotten intentions and general incompetence generally make things worse.

Wicked actions are never portrayed as being desirable or praiseworthy. Sometimes the heroes must participate in a necessary evil or choose the least bad alternative, but these situations are never presented as being fun or happy. Each of the factions has good and bad elements, good and bad people. Characters have some ability to make decisions which change their nature and their results for better or worse.

This is all just like real life, which is why the books and games are good.

Yes but that does not directly relate to there being no absolute morality. As in a set of values universally reconisable as good versus evil.
No character or ideal above some sort of compromise and exemplary of absolute good/rule.
Even the "witcher's code" is a moral compromise of sorts. The entire Main Quest in Witcher 3 is morally ambiguous. Your side is just less "wrong" than the other, given what stopping the Hunt entails (hint: death for millions if not billions).
Just a story of individuals making the best possible choice with what they have.
If we want to compare it with a classic pre-postmodernist fantasy: our heroes are Saruman, not the Company.
It's through compromise and morally ambiguous methods they defeat "Sauron" (which is not entirely bad in itself, more like a Denethor figure).


To be clear: Willow is right in saying Ciri's choice/sacrifice is objectively almost irrelevant (and by a normal standard almost dissatisfying), but my point is that does not take away from the value of her gesture and the process for which she chose to embrace it, her intentions and so on.
Especially if we take into account HER reality. It's the best you can have in THAT world, a spark of nobility (much like some of Gerald's throughout the stories) among the mud.

 

[Willowhugger]

The way i see it thats basically your main motivation behind arguments on Ciri we've had - you want her to be happy and have her adventure of a witcheress. So you go backwards to try come up with whatever argument/excyse necessary to make that true.

You're mistaking there needs to be backtracking. I can simply say my motivation is Ciri's happiness and I don't need anything else.

As for people of north and south (i dont think they are going to zerrikania yet) that's basically what she would be doing as a witcher - helping/saving people. I imagine that would be her main motivation rather than just coin unlike some other witchers, nor for the glory of it. So only people of north and south would be benefitting of her being a witcher too, so I think that's a bad argument.

As for just saying "North/South done a lot of evil, they don't deserve any help" - it's kind of a narrow-minded view. It pretty much says "humans suck, fuck humans. I'm going to the Wonderland". Humanity is flawed sure, but there is good and bad in it, and its worth fighting for, it's why Geralt killed 'monsters' in the first cinematic to save the girl. Besides most of her friends are humans, ya know, she herself is a human anyway so yea whatever. Besides you don't just fight and care for the people of this generation but for the next and all future generations.

I'm a Christian existentialist which, essentially, attributes the viewpoint of Good and Evil to something which is made from the standpoint of people making value judgements themselves and using reason to do so. Translation: Good and Evil are what we decide it is, even in a religious framework.

I'm not saying that the people of Nilfgaard or the North don't deserve the chance to be helped or be loved or be assisted but I'm saying that Ciri sacrificing herself for them isn't automatically going to be the best thing because the many many evils of both lands are not something which she can fix herself but the people, themselves, have to fix.

Ciri, if she wants to try to be Empress can.

But my Geralt would discourage it both for selfish emotional reasons and the fact he finds Emhyr untrustworthy.

In short, he'd consider it a mistake. However, yes, you're right attempting to make the world a better place is a good thing even if its the difference between a Doctor and President (i.e. both contribute a great deal).

---------- Updated at 12:12 PM ----------

Sorry the world of Witcher is not really a world of heroes and "good guys". If there was an order "don't mistreat civilians" in the land they are occupying, where everyone hates them, soldiers would die of laughter. It's hard to enforce or control something like that. They all have superior officers that answer to someone, that answer to some general who answers some other dude that answers to Emhyr. Long ass chain of command and lots of advisors.

The answer to brutality is "this is war" and "gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet". And we only experienced brutality of a relatively small part of the army in a certain part of the warzones. We don't know how civilians were treated elsewhere.

I agree completely. You are 100% correct. Well, maybe 90% in that such an order WOULD be laughed off even if this is not a desirable situation. You have to start change at the bottom and work your way up.

Good and evil are things we choose to label things and the difference is variable between every single individual on the planet. This doesn't mean they don't exist, it's just you have to take responsibility for your choices to behave as if something is good or evil. Because YOU chose to believe those qualities.

The Lady of the Lake and Geralt's conversation was very powerful for this reason.

(Paraphrased)

"Do you believe in destiny?"
"No, I make my own destiny. My actions are my own."
"Then I hope you understand the weight of that responsibility."

The world of the Witcher is full of compromises, mistakes, and differing values. HOWEVER, Geralt is a hero because he chooses to act to the way he thinks is good and evil with all the responsibility that implies. Amusingly, you could say he's the ubermensch.

It's just Nietzsche would say he's beyond good and evil while I'd say making his own is closer to Geralt's viewpoint. Which is just semantics anyway.

 

[Angelus67500]

Or maybe she'll just "blackhole elderbloodpower" once in contact with the nillfgardian court, decapitating the entire political structure especialy now that avallach's not here to stop here and that she made sure that the geralt-gang was far far away. Ending both the cursed lineage and probably the most expansionist and hostile government of the known world ( what is the roman empire without rome? ). And who needs a sword for this kind of kamikaze mission? It would fit with here idealism, brash personnality, ect...And it would still be geralt's fault for opening here this choice.
That's how i like to look a it.

 

[SystemShock7]

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.

Everyone who comes after Letho ends up dead because apparently Emhyr only sends a few 2-bit mercenaries at the time after him (very convenient for the game's plot); yet, even Letho admits -at least once - those 2-bit mercenaries almost kill him, and ultimately he's on the run.

The witchers really are operating at a different level.

No, they are not.

The second game is all about how whenever the witchers decide to dispose of the kings, the kings are toast unless another witcher intervenes.

Yeah, no.

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.

Anyone can kill an unarmed king when left alone with him, with 2 really big swords on one's back.

You are just trying to rationalize an inconsistent plot.

 

[Goodmongo]

Yes but that does not directly relate to there being no absolute morality. As in a set of values universally reconisable as good versus evil.

That doesn't work in our real world so why expect it to work there? In our world even the ruthless acts of violence and evil are justified as "it's their culture and all cultrues are equal with non better than any other" crap.

 

[Willowhugger]

That doesn't work in our real world so why expect it to work there? In our world even the ruthless acts of violence and evil are justified as "it's their culture and all cultrues are equal with non better than any other" crap.

As I explained to my students in college, "Moral Relativism doesn't mean you can't make moral judgements. It just means you understand their perspective when you do."

 

[VenomousSnaaake]

But then what happened to the calling to become empress and change the world for the better? She's more than capable to change the tide of the war by herself. And how can Emhyr tell her to stay away if Geralt goes to Vizima to say to Emhyr that Ciri is dead? There wouldn't be any need for Geralt to make that trip just to lie to Emhyr if Ciri and Emhyr already agreed for her to stay away. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Willowhugger]

Reposted from the "So Sad" thread:

I used to be a fan of an anime called Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion which had the premise of Japan being under the occupation of a monarchy which replaced the United States in this alternate universe. In Code Geass, the protagonist was the son of the Emperor of Britainnia and the heir to the throne. The Britannians practiced apatheid, basically, where the Britannians had rights above normal citizens and they milked their occupied colonies for their wealth.

One of the cool things about the anime was they milked the moral ambiguity for all its worth in that there were several nobility in Lelouch's land which weren't actively evil and some who were every bit as idealistic and iron-willed as Ciri is. The conflicts and contrasts between the characters formed a major part of the superior first season (and were absent from the crappy 2nd one until the very end). Lelouch, the titular character, wanted to DESTROY Britannia for example because he considered it a danger to his loved ones and personally offensive. Other characters wanted to reform Britannia so that its occupied conquered people could be equals to regular citizens.

Much conflict was between those who wanted freedom for Japan and those who wanted simply better lives for Japan as part of the Empire.

I think of this when discussing the Empress Ciri ending because while reform of Nilfgaard would be great, it's not necessarily an ideal path for many of us and would face these kind of trials as the reformers often find themselves fighting uphill and maybe even just solidifying the power base of the ruthlessly oppressive.

I think this applies a lot to how I handle Ciri's ending.

But then what happened to the calling to become empress and change the world for the better? She's more than capable to change the tide of the war by herself. And how can Emhyr tell her to stay away if Geralt goes to Vizima to say to Emhyr that Ciri is dead? There wouldn't be any need for Geralt to make that trip just to lie to Emhyr if Ciri and Emhyr already agreed for her to stay away. Doesn't make sense.

I don't think Ciri is remotely capable of changing the tide of the war actually. Ciri's powers are great but she and Geralt are still normal people and the latter was killed by a twelve-year-old boy with a pitchfork in the past.

Ciri doesn't actually regenerate damage. She's just an inhumanly fast swordswoman who can teleport. She's basically Nightcrawler.

Emhyr also tells her to stay away only if he's losing the war. This proves right because he's assassinated in the end and the Empire falls to his, presumed, political enemies.

 

[carlos2033]

Anyone can kill an unarmed king when left alone with him, with 2 really big swords on one's back.

When you go to Emhyr alone you must leave your swords, even your beard