I would't ever call Ciri innocent personally!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I would't ever call Ciri innocent personally!
I would't ever call Ciri innocent personally!
Innocent may be the wrong word, but she definately still has an idealistic view, meaning she's not emotionally indefferennt yet.
I never saw any of that in my play through! And I went back to Roche and Dykstra several times after rescuing Thaller to see if something was going to happen. I am so ticked off!!!! This is a hugely important quest-line I competely missed out on for no good reason!! :rant:[snip] ....don't assassinate Radovid, and side with Roche after assassinating Radovid... [snip] ....but left the fate of the North for Roche and Djikstra to settle between themselves. [snip]
What Act does it happen in? Do the quests proc before or after the siege of Kaer Morhen? Is there a fail-state, as in "if you don't do it by XYZ main-quest you can't do it?"
Last edited:
Innocent may be the wrong word, but she definately still has an idealistic view, meaning she's not emotionally indefferennt yet.
Ciri is certainly an idealist, but idealism does not preclude the ability to lead effectively. Naivety is what does, naivety being Saskia's greatest flaw.
Ciri is not naive.
What Act does it happen in? Do the quests proc before or after the siege of Kaer Morhen? Is there a fail-state, as in "if you don't do it by XYZ main-quest you can't do it?"
Act 3, you need to not break Dijkstra's leg and instead give him information when rescuing Phillipa.
Last edited:
Ciri is certainly an idealist, but idealism does not preclude the ability to lead effectively. Naivety is what does, naivety being Saskia's greatest flaw.
Ciri is not a naive fool.
As the epilogue states, she's got the traits to be a great ruler, not without some massive challenges mind.
As the epilogue states, she's got the traits to be a great ruler, not without some massive challenges mind.
Every great ruler has great challenges, as these rulers are not merely content to sit on a throne and do nothing, they will actively work their entire lives to achieve their dreams, their vision.
Unlike others though Ciri will have it easy as she will ascend the throne of a prosperous nation at peace with no political opposition to her reign. In the hands of another I could see Nilfgaard going to shit in that situation, but Ciri won't be some gluttonous fool that does nothing for her realm. I can't imagine her as anything but an active empress.
Some might suggest that it would ruin her character, but the challenges she already faced in her life did not ruin her were far and they were far greater and harrowing then what she would face as empress.
Last edited:
Every great ruler has great challenges, as these rulers are not merely content to sit on a throne and do nothing, they will actively work their entire lives to achieve their dreams, their vision.
And what exactly are her dreams and her vision? What would she actually do as Empress to make the world a "better place"?
@Zbotz
It's pretty hard to answer that question since we never get a chance to hear her exact reasons in the "Empress ending" why she decides to go to Nilfgaard - what are her visions, expectactions and ideas for future etc.
My first guess would be simply to stop or at least heavily decrease the Nilfgaard agressive conquest policy. Another one would be to improve the social status for non-humans, mages and witchers in the empire. Maybe even she could try to restore one of Witcher's School, Viper for example, something what Letho was promised to by Emhyr.
I will repeat one one thing one more time - guys, please don't forget (seems like many of you are doing it, which is quite annoying) that Ciri had visited many other worlds before. She was even living in one of them for a few years. I'm sure she got plenty of ideas on how to improve the way of how the Nilfgaard Empire runs.
It's pretty hard to answer that question since we never get a chance to hear her exact reasons in the "Empress ending" why she decides to go to Nilfgaard - what are her visions, expectactions and ideas for future etc.
My first guess would be simply to stop or at least heavily decrease the Nilfgaard agressive conquest policy. Another one would be to improve the social status for non-humans, mages and witchers in the empire. Maybe even she could try to restore one of Witcher's School, Viper for example, something what Letho was promised to by Emhyr.
I will repeat one one thing one more time - guys, please don't forget (seems like many of you are doing it, which is quite annoying) that Ciri had visited many other worlds before. She was even living in one of them for a few years. I'm sure she got plenty of ideas on how to improve the way of how the Nilfgaard Empire runs.
@Zbotz
My first guess would be simply to stop or at least heavily decrease the Nilfgaard agressive conquest policy.
So you think she would support Nilfgaards/Emhyrs decision to conquer the entire North? That they should remain under her control? Maybe even conquer a tiny bit more (just decrease the aggression) ?
I will repeat one one thing one more time - guys, please don't forget (seems like many of you are doing it, which is quite annoying) that Ciri had visited many other worlds before. She was even living in one of them for a few years. I'm sure she got plenty of ideas on how to improve the way of how the Nilfgaard Empire runs.
We don't know where she went and what happened, so yes she might have "ideas", so does everyone, doesn't really tell us anything.
Last edited:
So you think she would support Nilfgaards/Emhyrs decision to conquer the entire North? That they should remain under her control? Maybe even conquer a tiny bit more (just decrease the aggression) ?
OMG, it doesn't really matter what I am thinking of what she would do since, as I said before, she actually never explains herself! I'm only doing some easy guesses as an aswer for your previous question, which, btw. makes an impression to me like in your vision she have no idea what she is going to do as Empress of Nilfgaard, not a clue.
But if you really wanna know, then no, I believe she wouldn't support the conquer of the Northen Relms but what's done is done - means if almost all the North is already conquered it would be a death wish fo her if she came up with an idea to free all the conquered kingdoms or something like that (considering how much money Nilfgaard had to spent and how many soliders had to die for this to happen).
And in the part "just decrease the aggression" is simply just an attempt to take for consideration that it could be impossible for her to stop this kind of policy the very moment she is crowned.
Last edited:
I hate to blow everyone's mind but just like almost every other decision both endings have their pros ans cons.
In both scenarios Ciri has the ability to make a positive impact of the world. The fact is Nilffgaurd isn't that bad at they are just guilty of empire syndrome while the north also isn't that bad they are just entrenched in old traditions. Honestly I choose the Empress ending I don't think its bad and if anything makes the most sense and allows my bro till the end Roche to live and get a freeish Tameria that ive been hoping for for like 2 and a half games. The only bad ending is Ciri dead and Radovid controlling the north. Radovid MUST DIE!!!!
In both scenarios Ciri has the ability to make a positive impact of the world. The fact is Nilffgaurd isn't that bad at they are just guilty of empire syndrome while the north also isn't that bad they are just entrenched in old traditions. Honestly I choose the Empress ending I don't think its bad and if anything makes the most sense and allows my bro till the end Roche to live and get a freeish Tameria that ive been hoping for for like 2 and a half games. The only bad ending is Ciri dead and Radovid controlling the north. Radovid MUST DIE!!!!
Every great ruler has great challenges, as these rulers are not merely content to sit on a throne and do nothing, they will actively work their entire lives to achieve their dreams, their vision.
Unlike others though Ciri will have it easy as she will ascend the throne of a prosperous nation at peace with no political opposition to her reign. In the hands of another I could see Nilfgaard going to shit in that situation, but Ciri won't be some gluttonous fool that does nothing for her realm. I can't imagine her as anything but an active empress.
Some might suggest that it would ruin her character, but the challenges she already faced in her life did not ruin her were far and they were far greater and harrowing then what she would face as empress.
Helmut Schmidt once said, he who has visions should go see a doctor. I'm sure all the Castro's and Obama's and and Fredericks II in the world had good ideas best intentions at some point, but ultimately "reason of state" comes into play, as the Emperor said.
Not even remotely comparable. For once because she has a completely different surrounding as an Empress. Being in a position like this automaticially attracts the wrong kind of people, and they WILL have an influence on you.Especially if you have Zero experience as a ruler.
Her incredible talents would be of little use here. Having good ideas won't get you far. Even today Realpolitik dominates, with all the horrible consequences. How do you think that would work out in a time of illiteracy, superstition and religious fanatism, slavery and oppression, where the only law is that of power, without the ideas of enlightment and humanism, without modern bureaucracy, checks and balances, modern court systems etc etc..
As a Witcher, it's difficult enough to do the right thing, on a small scale, although you have a way better overview about the situation and the (fewer) people it affects. On a larger scale, it's just impossible.
Power corrupts you, you could call that a law of nature. I'm sure there were enough initially virtuous, diligent rulers. Few of them committed atrocities, acted against their inital intentions, made foul compromises because it was so much fun.
Last edited:
I hate to blow everyone's mind but just like almost every other decision both endings have their pros ans cons.
In both scenarios Ciri has the ability to make a positive impact of the world. The fact is Nilffgaurd isn't that bad at they are just guilty of empire syndrome while the north also isn't that bad they are just entrenched in old traditions. Honestly I choose the Empress ending I don't think its bad and if anything makes the most sense and allows my bro till the end Roche to live and get a freeish Tameria that ive been hoping for for like 2 and a half games. The only bad ending is Ciri dead and Radovid controlling the north. Radovid MUST DIE!!!!
True enough. In the end it is just a matter of ones choices, and those choices for me got me the witcher ending, and I am perfectly fine with it. Though it seems that some people feel that just because someone might prefer another ending, that somehow makes their choice wrong.
The witcher and empress endings make sense in their own way, both will allow Ciri to do good if she so wishes. But one is something she wants to do and the other seems like something she feels she needs to. Though I do feel the witcher ending is more of a happy one, and the empress one is bittersweet. Not just because of the goodbye, but i mean would you be happy to marry Voorhis? ( might not happen i suppose )
As for the bold, I agree completely.
---------- Updated at 09:45 PM ----------
@Gerald01 Hit reply instead of reply with quote
Well the ending where he doesn't should be enough to explain that ( and most conversations ). Of course it is just my opinion but I just feel non-humans, sorceress/sorcerers and humans alike would benefit from his passing.
I mean I can go more in depth about why I dislike his personal traits but i feel the ending and conversations with him will do that for me.
@Gerald01 Hit reply instead of reply with quote
Well the ending where he doesn't should be enough to explain that ( and most conversations ). Of course it is just my opinion but I just feel non-humans, sorceress/sorcerers and humans alike would benefit from his passing.
I mean I can go more in depth about why I dislike his personal traits but i feel the ending and conversations with him will do that for me.
He is an insane and racist power monger. Dijkstra is better in every single way.Why?
I just finished reading this entire thread in one sitting which is a lot to absorb. I finished my first playthrough last night. I ended up with the Empress ending. I have played all 3 games, but I only read "The Last Wish," which I just completed prior to the release of TW3. I have to give credit to the many posters, this is a fascinating thread. OP laid out some interesting facts for his interpretations. I don't agree with all of them, but that's the beauty of it. This game gives you choices and you have to decide which choice is better or right/wrong. I am fascinated by the varying viewpoints and interpretations in this thread. There are things I never thought of being mentioned here. Some of the comments in this thread have me reconsidering what my "better" choice is: Empress or Witcher?
The Empress ending is fleshed out well and is very sad at the end. I watched it twice. I was very sad for some time thereafter as I reflected upon it. The final talk and hug scene between Geralt and Ciri is one of the best scenes in TW3 and perhaps in much of the gaming world. I'm a sentimental guy who got all choked up. An excellent job by CDPR in this aspect.
The one point that I disagree with is that some posts are saying Ciri will be a poor ruler as Empress. The Epilogue (Empress ending) clearly states that Ciri inherited "Emhyr's political instincts and the simple, human decency of Geralt." (Paraphrasing here, not the entire, exact quote). The Epilogue implies that she will be a successful Empress. Whether you think this is the best ending or not is a different matter altogether. The game at various points shows Ciri's frustration and anger as everyone around her is making decisions for her. The 2 major battles: Kaer Morhen and Endgame, she is basically told to go stand in the back. Of course, Ciri doesn't like this, she wants to take action. She is also clearly tired of running and has had a tough life. So many people want to use her for her powers. However, I also note that she has been influenced positively by those who raised her: Vesemir, Geralt, Yennefer, Ermion, and a few others. She is one of, if not, the best human beings in the game in terms of her personality and heart. Remember how she wants to go back and help those in the Payback quest? One has to have faith in Ciri. It his her time to step forward and forge her own path. It is never easy letting go of a child and that is exactly what Geralt must do. It killed me to do it, because part of me wanted that "Witcher" ending. That's what Geralt wanted and many of us as the players wanted. Heck, she was taken by Geralt via the Law of Surprise for a reason, to be his successor! Vesemir and Geralt expected and planned on Ciri taking over for them. There are only a few Witchers left.
My manner of play is to do "what is best for the world." That is not easy in a Witcher universe. Lesser of two evils and all. I am optimistic and if you look at it on a global scale, there is hope. I believe that Ciri as Empress is a better choice than whomever else on the Nilfgaardian throne. It just happened that I chose Cerys as Queen of Skellige. I did not plan purposely on going for "Girl Power" in the game. It just happened that Cerys was an intelligent, talented girl who was a better choice, in my opinion, than Hjalmar. Plus, Cerys had a crush on Geralt, so we know she has great taste! Most likely, Hjalmar as King, was only going to add to the chaos in the Witcher world with more raids, conflict, etc. Let's not forget that Ciri spent part of her childhood with Hjalmar and Cerys, so they are friendly. The game even suggests that Hjalmar has a crush on Ciri. The epilogue states that Cerys has stopped the raids and brought prosperity to her lands. There is the chance that Skellige (Cerys) and Nilfgaard (Ciri) can come to peace and start building a positive relationship. Of course, being a Witcher herself, Ciri can support the creation of more Witchers and open up the schools again. (Keep Emhyr's promise to Letho?)
Those of you who read all the books have noted some things that I was unaware of, and hence make me think maybe a Witcher ending would be better. I don't know some of the backstory mentioned about Emhyr and Ciri in this thread from the books. I never really wanted to listen to Emhyr in the game, but I did so because I wanted to keep my options open. I figured we'd have some big endgame choices to make. Of course, in a first playthrough, who knew that the decision to send Ciri to visit Emhyr prior to Bald Mountain was a game changer? This is where I have an issue with CDPR and the "tricky" dialogue in this scene. I felt upset by what Geralt was saying because it didn't feel right yet I wanted to keep the option open of making Ciri an Empress until endgame. But you are "locked into" your choices here which stinks since they don't give you any warning or a fleshed out dialogue tree as previous posters have stated in this thread. (Of course, the choice of whether to go visit Emhyr or not is before the Imlerith battle, so players have to endure that again. It was by far the hardest battle for me in the game on Blood and Broken Bones difficulty).
For me, it came down to my heart: Witcher ending vs. my mind: Empress ending.
The Empress ending is fleshed out well and is very sad at the end. I watched it twice. I was very sad for some time thereafter as I reflected upon it. The final talk and hug scene between Geralt and Ciri is one of the best scenes in TW3 and perhaps in much of the gaming world. I'm a sentimental guy who got all choked up. An excellent job by CDPR in this aspect.
The one point that I disagree with is that some posts are saying Ciri will be a poor ruler as Empress. The Epilogue (Empress ending) clearly states that Ciri inherited "Emhyr's political instincts and the simple, human decency of Geralt." (Paraphrasing here, not the entire, exact quote). The Epilogue implies that she will be a successful Empress. Whether you think this is the best ending or not is a different matter altogether. The game at various points shows Ciri's frustration and anger as everyone around her is making decisions for her. The 2 major battles: Kaer Morhen and Endgame, she is basically told to go stand in the back. Of course, Ciri doesn't like this, she wants to take action. She is also clearly tired of running and has had a tough life. So many people want to use her for her powers. However, I also note that she has been influenced positively by those who raised her: Vesemir, Geralt, Yennefer, Ermion, and a few others. She is one of, if not, the best human beings in the game in terms of her personality and heart. Remember how she wants to go back and help those in the Payback quest? One has to have faith in Ciri. It his her time to step forward and forge her own path. It is never easy letting go of a child and that is exactly what Geralt must do. It killed me to do it, because part of me wanted that "Witcher" ending. That's what Geralt wanted and many of us as the players wanted. Heck, she was taken by Geralt via the Law of Surprise for a reason, to be his successor! Vesemir and Geralt expected and planned on Ciri taking over for them. There are only a few Witchers left.
My manner of play is to do "what is best for the world." That is not easy in a Witcher universe. Lesser of two evils and all. I am optimistic and if you look at it on a global scale, there is hope. I believe that Ciri as Empress is a better choice than whomever else on the Nilfgaardian throne. It just happened that I chose Cerys as Queen of Skellige. I did not plan purposely on going for "Girl Power" in the game. It just happened that Cerys was an intelligent, talented girl who was a better choice, in my opinion, than Hjalmar. Plus, Cerys had a crush on Geralt, so we know she has great taste! Most likely, Hjalmar as King, was only going to add to the chaos in the Witcher world with more raids, conflict, etc. Let's not forget that Ciri spent part of her childhood with Hjalmar and Cerys, so they are friendly. The game even suggests that Hjalmar has a crush on Ciri. The epilogue states that Cerys has stopped the raids and brought prosperity to her lands. There is the chance that Skellige (Cerys) and Nilfgaard (Ciri) can come to peace and start building a positive relationship. Of course, being a Witcher herself, Ciri can support the creation of more Witchers and open up the schools again. (Keep Emhyr's promise to Letho?)
Those of you who read all the books have noted some things that I was unaware of, and hence make me think maybe a Witcher ending would be better. I don't know some of the backstory mentioned about Emhyr and Ciri in this thread from the books. I never really wanted to listen to Emhyr in the game, but I did so because I wanted to keep my options open. I figured we'd have some big endgame choices to make. Of course, in a first playthrough, who knew that the decision to send Ciri to visit Emhyr prior to Bald Mountain was a game changer? This is where I have an issue with CDPR and the "tricky" dialogue in this scene. I felt upset by what Geralt was saying because it didn't feel right yet I wanted to keep the option open of making Ciri an Empress until endgame. But you are "locked into" your choices here which stinks since they don't give you any warning or a fleshed out dialogue tree as previous posters have stated in this thread. (Of course, the choice of whether to go visit Emhyr or not is before the Imlerith battle, so players have to endure that again. It was by far the hardest battle for me in the game on Blood and Broken Bones difficulty).
For me, it came down to my heart: Witcher ending vs. my mind: Empress ending.
Last edited:
Magically inheriting something as abstract as "political instincts" and Ciri's almost unreal ability to befriend commoners aside, there is nothing in TW3 that suggests that she would thrive at court and even less to suggest that she might be a good empress. She still constantly throws fits when she doesn't get her way, when her friends need horses she just helps them steal them, she snaps at people she doesn't know etc. She is still an idealist, as Avallach puts it and if you support her in her choices to keep her alive she never has any reason to feel like she needs to pick her battles.
All this wouldn't be so bad if she still had time to grow into her role, but instead she is thrown head first into one of the more cut throat courts on the continent in order to pacify both the empire and its conquests. Emhyr barely manages to keep a tight leash on the nobility and the trade guilds and he constantly conquers other lands to satisfy their demands for new lands, markets and glory.
All this wouldn't be so bad if she still had time to grow into her role, but instead she is thrown head first into one of the more cut throat courts on the continent in order to pacify both the empire and its conquests. Emhyr barely manages to keep a tight leash on the nobility and the trade guilds and he constantly conquers other lands to satisfy their demands for new lands, markets and glory.
. It just happened that Cerys was an intelligent, talented girl who was a better choice, in my opinion, than Hjalmar. Plus, Cerys had a crush on Geralt, so we know she has great taste! Most likely, Hjalmar as King, was only going to add to the chaos in the Witcher world with more raids, conflict, etc. Let's not forget that Ciri spent part of her childhood with Hjalmar and Cerys, so they are friendly. The game even suggests that Hjalmar has a crush on Ciri. The epilogue states that Cerys has stopped the raids and brought prosperity to her lands. .
The notion that Cerys would be able to turn Skellige into a peaceful, prosperous realm without any more raids is even more laughable. Let's forget that, as a woman, her legitimacy would could be easily questioned anyway. Obviously Skellige is modelled after Viking society. A society whose tradition and custom is that of a warrior society, supported by their religion. Raiding (and seafaring/trading) is not only a vital part of the self-identity and authority of aristocracy, it's also basis of their economic survival, in a land whose climate is obviously not suited for agriculture. But yeah she's so intelligent and talented so no problem of just getting rid of an intergral part of their society and turning her land into a land where milk and honey float.
All possible because she is a Queen hmmm.. But I may remind you (and the writers of the epilogue) that Queens in Skellige are no absolute rulers, even the games show that, with a clan structure where jarls exert substantial independence. They have to: in a land that is so fractured, divided by seas, and whose society is so "primitive", rural/decentralized, without any bureacracy/institutions, so do you really think a new Queen could walk in and tell every jarl to go f*ck off?
But yeah she's so talented, she would just end all conflicts, I mean, blood feuds and such can be just abolished by the Queen's will, luckily she can resort to Skellige's sophisticated law and court system.
I mean, it took Medieval rulers 100s of years to limit feuding, although it was supported by Christian beliefs and Church initiatives all the time, but clearly that's easy peasy in a society where violence is a legitimate act to enforce law.
But these are all no problems for our new smart power women in charge.
Last edited: