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

[Gerald01]

I don't think that's how decision-making works.

I was responding to a comment about one of the choices being best because of it being a free choice where Ciri does things her way by @rohirrim7 .

So yes, in that context, manipulating her yourself into not considering all the viable options is worse.

Or are you arguing now that a father figure discouraging one avenue via providing an opinionated, yet unsubstantiated, evaluation of a character, is not interfering on choice?

 

[CTPhipps]

I was responding to a comment about one of the choices being best because of it being a free choice where Ciri does things her way by @rohirrim7 .

So yes, in that context, manipulating her yourself into not considering all the viable options is worse.

Or are you arguing now that a father figure discouraging one avenue via providing an opinionated, yet unsubstantiated, evaluation of a character, is not interfering on choice?

My brother was warned by his adoptive father (my father) not to see his biological father.

In retrospect, he said, "Yeah, I never should have done that."

It caused him years of stress.

In my respect, I think Ciri is asking for Geralt's honest appraisal of her father and he gave it. LYING to her is pretty poor parenting in my opinion.

In a similar circumstance, if my father said, "Don't trust this guy, he's a mob boss." I don't think I'd need to evaluate him for myself.

One would think a relationship of trust would exist with a good parent and child.

 

[Gerald01]

@willow Hogwash. And irrelevant to our discussion. Off topic.
Preventing a choice by whatever means is... preventing a choice.
Your personal example about a case that happened to have a kind of ending over another is besides the point in this case.
You're mixing up freedom with welfare filtered through your own moral notions.
Besides, why do you call it such? Is it LYING avoiding heavy judgements on another, especially given the expected consequences?
As if that's the incontrovertible truth? What does it even mean?
Yennefer is a "manipulator" too for instance. And what about Triss?

 

[CTPhipps]

@willow Hogwash. And irrelevant to our discussion. Off topic.
Preventing a choice by whatever means is... preventing a choice.
Your personal example about a case that happened to have a kind of ending over another is besides the point in this case.
You're mixing up freedom with welfare filtered through your own moral notions.
Besides, why do you call it such? Is it LYING avoiding heavy judgements on another, especially given the expected consequences?
As if that's the incontrovertible truth? What does it even mean?
Yennefer is a "manipulator" too for instance. And what about Triss?

What I'm saying is Ciri going to see Emhyr or not is her own choice. I don't somehow take that away from her by saying he's a bad person. She just makes her choice informed of your opinion.

You can argue she SHOULD hear Emhyr out.

But you're arguing it's NOT HER DECISION which is different.

 

[Gerald01]

What I'm saying is Ciri going to see Emhyr or not is her own choice. I don't somehow take that away from her by saying he's a bad person. She just makes her choice informed of your opinion.

You can argue she SHOULD hear Emhyr out.

But you're arguing it's NOT HER DECISION which is different.

I'm arguing Geralt is de facto exploiting his parental and authoritative position to influence her to a degree it's less of a free choice.
I would agree with you if the option were:
a)witholding essential information like "he did such and such" "killed such and such"
b) omission

But really, what G does is little better than unecessary slander in the midst of a huge conflict of interest (adoptive father vs biological father).

The notion of abuse of a position of authority is not a crazy one, but one recognised by most bodies of law.
So in essence, the more neutral choice, resulting in both 1) a freer decision on Ciri's part and 2)a more complete set of data for her to elaborate upon is the staying silent option.
Almost incontrovertibly. Whatever the outcome or our personal opinions about Ciri's alleged welfare.


THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Not good vs bad ending, not correct vs incorrect, not preference nor justice let alone morality.

 

[Songborn]

Does anybody have a transcrpt of that choice? I picked differently and would like to know just what Geralt says about Emhyr.

 

[Zbotz]

So in essence, the more neutral choice, resulting in both 1) a freer decision on Ciri's part and 2)a more complete set of data for her to elaborate upon is the staying silent option.

You can pick the silence option, in which case she apparently decides not to go.

 

[CTPhipps]

Does anybody have a transcrpt of that choice? I picked differently and would like to know just what Geralt says about Emhyr.

It's not that complex, really, for such an arguing line.

"What do you think of Emhyr?"

Bad Choice: "I think he's likely to manipulate you."

Nothing in depth.

Like much of the game.

 

[Songborn]

It's not that complex, really, for such an arguing line.

"What do you think of Emhyr?"

Bad Choice: "I think he's likely to manipulate you."

Nothing in depth.

Like much of the game.

Huh, interesting that she actually listens to Geralt. I'd have thought saying that would prompt Ciri to say something like "Oh, I think I handle it." I never got why that was the only point at which you could tell Ciri about Emhyr wanting to meet her anyway.

 

[Gerald01]

You can pick the silence option, in which case she apparently decides not to go.

So there are 3 choices and she doesn't go unless you tell her to explicitly?

---------- Updated at 11:11 PM ----------

Huh, interesting that she actually listens to Geralt. I'd have thought saying that would prompt Ciri to say something like "Oh, I think I handle it." I never got why that was the only point at which you could tell Ciri about Emhyr wanting to meet her anyway.

Mhm, doesn't she also listen to you in the 5 special dialogue options determining her survival?

 

[Songborn]

Well, that depends on what you mean with "listen to you". Does she take what Geralt says to heart? Sure. Does she always do what she is told, especially when it means not taking up a challenge? I don't think so.
Most of the survival choices are not really "Do as I say" situations. The snowball fight, taking the money, accompanying her to the meeting aren't situations where you tell her what to do.

 

[CTPhipps]

Huh, interesting that she actually listens to Geralt. I'd have thought saying that would prompt Ciri to say something like "Oh, I think I handle it." I never got why that was the only point at which you could tell Ciri about Emhyr wanting to meet her anyway.

I think the difference is you're not TELLING Ciri not to go but just giving your character estimation of the man.

 

[Zbotz]

So there are 3 choices and she doesn't go unless you tell her to explicitly?

Looks that way to me.

 

[Gerald01]

Looks that way to me.

If that's true, that's a bizarre choice from the writer.
It also means I'm completely wrong about the subject.

 

[CTPhipps]

If that's true, that's a bizarre choice from the writer.
It also means I'm completely wrong about the subject.

I was kind of wondering...

Ciri is really uncomfortable with the prospect of meeting her bio-dad.

And not in the, "Will he like me?" sort of way.

Not surprising given the history there.

 

[Zbotz]

Also Ciris Codex entries:

If you don't visit him:

"Emhyr was in suspect a stranger to her, and one responsible for the death of many people she cherished at that. It was thus no surprise that Ciri did not even want to see him".

If you do visit him:

"Emhyr was in suspect a stranger to her, and one responsible for the death of many people she cherished at that. Standing face to face with him was surely one of the most difficult challenges she had ever undergone."

 

[Gerald01]

I was kind of wondering...

Ciri is really uncomfortable with the prospect of meeting her bio-dad.

And not in the, "Will he like me?" sort of way.

Not surprising given the history there.

I was just referring to the fact inaction apparently guarantees you the "best ending"

 

[CTPhipps]

I was just referring to the fact inaction apparently guarantees you the "best ending"

You're right, that IS weird.

 

[VenomousSnaaake]

I'm not saying that she would destroy the entire redanian to win the war. Like you can observe in the game, just Radovid and Dijkstra have to fall. And IF Emhyr is going to lose the war, that's the ending (if you take Ciri to meet him) where Geralt goes to Vizima to try and trick Emhyr into thinking that she is dead. That's what i mean. If she and Emhyr were already in agreement for her to stay away from the throne, why would Geralt take the trouble and time to make his way to Vizima so that he could say to Emhyr that Ciri is dead? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense.

---------- Updated at 10:55 AM ----------

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.



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.

I'm not saying that she would destroy the entire redanian to win the war. Like you can observe in the game, just Radovid and Dijkstra have to fall. And IF Emhyr is going to lose the war, that's the ending (if you take Ciri to meet him) where Geralt goes to Vizima to try and trick Emhyr into thinking that she is dead. That's what i mean. If she and Emhyr were already in agreement for her to stay away from the throne, why would Geralt take the trouble and time to make his way to Vizima so that he could say to Emhyr that Ciri is dead? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Goodmongo]

Well in that case you chose for her, which is worse.

And @Goodmongo my dear resident expert on such matters, isn't forcing/influencing her towards the Witcher ending directly in opposition to the general "proper" way of ending the game itself (according to your interpretation)?

So you have to give her freedom to get the best ending CDPR MAKE STHERULES SO IT?S RIGHT!

But somehow, in regards to the epilogue, the correct choice is to deprive her of freedom/ovveride her wish?

LOL. We have a fundamental difference of interpretation here. I do not see her being forced to be a witcher. In leading up to this point there are 5 trigger choices that Geralt and Ciri go through. These are what actually determine witcher/empress along with naturally kill Radovid. Now the only one of these 5 trigger points that refer to Emhyr is the choice to take here there or not. if you do not take here there she becomes a witcher. Assuming you got the other choices correct.

However, if you do take her there then the decision comes down to who wins the war. In neither of these two decision points is it Ciri's choice. In fact it is really Geralt's choice. She never can become empress if Geralt decides not to take her to see the Emhyr. So how can anyone claim otherwise? And as for being forced you have to force her to see him. Not the other way around. You have to convince her to go. So it is pretty clear that Geralt doing what she wants (not going to see Emhyr) leads to a witcher which ipso facto means witcher is her choice and empress is due to geralt forcing her to see him.

Geralt does not force Ciri to see Emhyr = Ciri NEVER becomes empress. Q.E.D.