They did make nilfguaard seem not so bad yes which is one of the main reasons also why I was fine with the empress ending. But Radovid was definitely portrayed as being worse. He's the one who sanctioned all the witch hunts. The thousands killed by Emhyr and Nilfguaard is a result of war. Also, the way I see it, Nilfguaard is portrayed as this empire with aggressive expansion but when you think about it, under the right circumstances, something similar could have happened in the north. I recall for instance, that Radovid always wanted a singular northern kingdom. And look at Henselt, he wanted to wage war for Aedirn. The northern kings were all d-bags who abused their power except maybe for Foltest, he was a decent king. Radovid gave me a very GOT Geoffrey vibe though. Killing people for no reason really. Maybe CDPR portrayed him that way as a reference to Geoffrey?
To be honest I felt the protrayal of Nilfgaard in The Witcher 3 was actually really mellow and toned-down.
Nilfgaard was a lot more horrible in the books. Emhyr too. In the games he's far more reasonable than in the books.
I think CDPR had to do this in order to even out the decision on which side of the war you want to support. They made Radovid more horrible while making Emhyr less horrible so it would be more difficult to choose which side you wanted to be on.
If we look at the games alone, I think Nilfgaard is actually quite an awesome empire. At first I wanted to side with the North, but Radovid was too horrible. So I decided to help Dijkstra to assassinate Radovid, which brought me to the next decision: side with Roche and basically ensure Nilfgaard's victory, or side with Dijkstra and ensure the North's victory?
Ultimately I sided with Roche and ensured Nilfgaard's victory, for multiple reasons:
1) I didn't believe for a second that Dijkstra would be any better than Emhyr. Both are ruthless pragmatic people.
2) Roche is my buddy and I really couldn't kill him.
3) I also wanted to help him to get his free Temeria. I believed he deserved that.
4) With the idea of Ciri being put on the throne of Nilfgaard after the war already in mind, I figured that a total victory for Nilfgaard wouldn't be so bad.
So yeah, I guess you could say I became pro-Nilfgaard as well.
Nilfgaard was a lot more horrible in the books. Emhyr too. In the games he's far more reasonable than in the books.
I think CDPR had to do this in order to even out the decision on which side of the war you want to support. They made Radovid more horrible while making Emhyr less horrible so it would be more difficult to choose which side you wanted to be on.
If we look at the games alone, I think Nilfgaard is actually quite an awesome empire. At first I wanted to side with the North, but Radovid was too horrible. So I decided to help Dijkstra to assassinate Radovid, which brought me to the next decision: side with Roche and basically ensure Nilfgaard's victory, or side with Dijkstra and ensure the North's victory?
Ultimately I sided with Roche and ensured Nilfgaard's victory, for multiple reasons:
1) I didn't believe for a second that Dijkstra would be any better than Emhyr. Both are ruthless pragmatic people.
2) Roche is my buddy and I really couldn't kill him.
3) I also wanted to help him to get his free Temeria. I believed he deserved that.
4) With the idea of Ciri being put on the throne of Nilfgaard after the war already in mind, I figured that a total victory for Nilfgaard wouldn't be so bad.
So yeah, I guess you could say I became pro-Nilfgaard as well.
I kind of tried to stop them as best I could in TW2 and did everything possible to undermine their efforts. I don't think they had enough representation to be honest. All we saw was Vizima and a few sidequests at that military camp or whatever, I think they had more importance in TW2 and they weren't even all that present there. I really didn't like having to sell out the North when the choice they put in front of me was to have Roche killed or to get rid of Dijkstra, well I could've also just not done anything but then Radovid would have murdered everyone.
To be honest I wasn't really surprised about Radovid losing his nut, I never liked him and I always thought he was a bastard, especially at the ending where he has the mages killed in Loc Muinne. I can imagine why finally lost it. Can't let a man like that live though. What I've heard about Emhyr isn';t any better though. I didn't like him either.
To be honest I wasn't really surprised about Radovid losing his nut, I never liked him and I always thought he was a bastard, especially at the ending where he has the mages killed in Loc Muinne. I can imagine why finally lost it. Can't let a man like that live though. What I've heard about Emhyr isn';t any better though. I didn't like him either.
He's also a hell lot more pathetic then in the books.
Sure he wanted to commit incest, but that's his only major crime and he gave up on that plan anyway in the books.
Indeed, in fact Dijkstra's ending slide makes it clear he's building Nilfgaardian Empire 2.0 if he wins.
But that's the thing. Does the game provide us any real reason to dislike Emhyr besides what he did to Letho, which is taking the piss on Emhyr and Letho as characters but then again that's a theme with CDPR in this game.
He provides you with resources for free to find Ciri and in exchange just wants you to bring her to him so he can offer her the throne. No strings attached to that offer he gives Ciri and he doesn't force the throne on her.
There are certainly valid reasons to dislike certain Nilfgaardians in the games, but Nilfgaard as a whole? Barely. Emhyr ordering the assassinations? Big deal as if the kings Letho murdered/tried to murder were saints.
Foltest: Someone who committed incest with his sister and then waged a petty civil war over his bastard children while also commiting massacres against non-humans.
Demavend: A racist scumbag.
Henselt: Glorious racist scumbag with a bit of rape on top cause why the fuck not.
Last edited:
How so? Wanting to commit incest with Ciri wasn't even his biggest flaw. I'd say him killing his wife and then conquering her country right after was far more evil. Killing his own brother because he felt he would make a better emperor wasn't exactly cool either.
I fully expected Emhyr to backstab Geralt or manipulate him. I was actually (pleasantly) surprised that he did no such thing. Emhyr always kept his word and never did anything wrong to Geralt nor Ciri in TW3. I did not expect that at all.
To me, this is a perfect mirror to what bioware did.
Bioware became obsessively worried about people hating Templars and loving Mages. so what did they do in DA2? Make mages into absolute hilariously ridiculous lunatics, while shoving the idea down our throats that the bad Templars are just a few rotten apples (with a mix of ancient reaper artifacts) and that as a whole the templars are not that bad (how they changed Cullen is a good indication of that trend).
Here, CDPR was seemingly so worried about making people not hate Nilfgaard, that what they did was make the North (and by the North, I mean Redania because that's what the North was reduced to) into a cluster fuck of insanity and stupidity, while Nilfgaard is on the whole not that bad (in fact it's quite good. Its major flaw of being anti-mage is apparently completely reversed now).
Except, whenever a writer worries so much about the specifics of what people would think as opposed to building something coherent, believable, interesting, and pertinent, you get things like horrible characterization, banalization of issues, and even rendering Nilfgaard, the supposed good guys, into incompetent morons who get their asses kicked by Redania single handedly, for no good or believable reason whatsoever.
Bioware became obsessively worried about people hating Templars and loving Mages. so what did they do in DA2? Make mages into absolute hilariously ridiculous lunatics, while shoving the idea down our throats that the bad Templars are just a few rotten apples (with a mix of ancient reaper artifacts) and that as a whole the templars are not that bad (how they changed Cullen is a good indication of that trend).
Here, CDPR was seemingly so worried about making people not hate Nilfgaard, that what they did was make the North (and by the North, I mean Redania because that's what the North was reduced to) into a cluster fuck of insanity and stupidity, while Nilfgaard is on the whole not that bad (in fact it's quite good. Its major flaw of being anti-mage is apparently completely reversed now).
Except, whenever a writer worries so much about the specifics of what people would think as opposed to building something coherent, believable, interesting, and pertinent, you get things like horrible characterization, banalization of issues, and even rendering Nilfgaard, the supposed good guys, into incompetent morons who get their asses kicked by Redania single handedly, for no good or believable reason whatsoever.
Last edited:
I don't normally agree with you, but this time I do.
Still, I think CDPR didn't fuck it up as badly as BioWare did with DA2. Emhyr and Radovid still felt like believable characters to me.
Pavetta was a tragedy as a I see it, one that came as a result of a heated argument over Ciri. That famous Elder Blood temper after all.
As for Cintra. People make a big issue out of it but I found it hard to care about it all.
Because Emhyr always keeps his word. Which is what angers me about Letho.
Can't say I liked many of the kings either, but if Foltest had been alive I'd have sided with him, too bad he's dead though. At least he didn't rape anyone like Henselt. I know he had his bad sided too, but then again no ruler in this game is the "shining example". Had there been a better option I would have chosen a free North.
Yeah, Nilfgaard was toned-down a bit when you compare what they did in the books to the game's version of Nilfgaard, although they did show how brutal and ruthless their culture is, wanting order for everything brings a lot of horrifying punishments for disobeying order ...
But still, I liked how "Roman" they were in the game (because they are based on romans after all, even Geralt's joke "When in Nilfgaard ..."), but I really hated how CDPR handled the northern realms, or Radovid's realms to be exact, CDPR had the "ruthlessly civilized" black ones and the absolutely fanatically-crazed eternal fire witch hunters supported by Radovid who attacked his own ally, it wasn't hard to not sympathize with the Black Ones this time, CDPR either intentionally or unintentionally made Nilfgaard seem the lesser of two evils, when it should be the same amount of evil, just different banners on the walls of a city.
But still, I liked how "Roman" they were in the game (because they are based on romans after all, even Geralt's joke "When in Nilfgaard ..."), but I really hated how CDPR handled the northern realms, or Radovid's realms to be exact, CDPR had the "ruthlessly civilized" black ones and the absolutely fanatically-crazed eternal fire witch hunters supported by Radovid who attacked his own ally, it wasn't hard to not sympathize with the Black Ones this time, CDPR either intentionally or unintentionally made Nilfgaard seem the lesser of two evils, when it should be the same amount of evil, just different banners on the walls of a city.
Same here, it was surprising to see Emhyr just betray his word, even for a witcher-turned-assassin of kings even, for reasons of state or not, after all, he did not betray his word to another witcher and a very pissed off sorceress earlier
Emhyr maybe I couldn't really judge him since I haven't read the books but Radovid was just a joke in TW3 and definitely not believable
He belonged to a Bioware game and not TW
I love TW3 but they really ruined Radovid (who was interesting in TW2)
- Radovid is burning non-humans and witches. The common folks have no love for them. In fact most of them see it as a good thing. That's how the setting is constructed.
- Kaedwenians might hate Radovid for taking over Kaedwen by force (I'd say less so, if Henselt is dead in W2) as well as some more "enlightened" Temerians, but then again it can be seen as a unifying act against sudden and uprovoked aggression from Nilfgaard. Especially when all the other kings are dead and someone has to step in and take control in order to organize the defense of the North (which Radovid did quite well).
- There are historical and current reasons why people of the North hate Black Ones. More so than Radovid, I'd say. Not all of them and not always, but there is enough of it to make sense.
They also committed a war crime on Redanian prisoners of war. Granted they'd die because of lack of food either way (unless traded), but it's still a war crime. One deserter from Nilfgaardian army noted he has had enough as they made him execute innocent people. Nilfgaardians might seem whiter at first, but they're no better than anyone else. One could argue they're much worse, but that's the question of perspective. In the end it's up to the player to side with whomever he wishes.
I thought they were based of the Holy Roman Empire, not the Roman Empire itself?
Well, there are notices on the boards depicting these practices.
There are some clues, although nothing big I agree. But I think it's better, because it's more subtle that way.
I think that is the problem they did not even things they made it one sided, north is portrayed much worse, even if someone wanted support north they probably now suport nilfgard, Radovid is worst option so why support him, Djikstra is almost like Emhyr but you had to betray your frends, endings dont show any downside of nilfgard so they didn`t made it even and hard to decide it`s pretty easy decision, and whole quest Reason of State make no sense to me, but they made one hard decision for me for second playthrough do i let Radovid win or force myself to play this quest.
Last edited:
Sapkowski himself said that they are based on the Roman Empire.
in books, North stopped Nilfgard thanks to mages at Brenna. Radovid's notion to eradicate world of Mages played in hand to Nilfgard conquest - there was nobody who could stand against them as they did at Brenna. So, no matter how much Radovid thought himself to be clever, ultimately he made a huge mistake at the beginning.. instead, he could try to control mages same way as Emhyr does, use them for his benefits, but no, his hatred towards Phillipa was stronger than anything else...
While they never gave an adequate explanation of why Radovid loses his mind in TW3, I did still enjoy him going complete nuts in TW3. It didn't really come out of nowhere either, as TW2's ending already foreshadowed it (in the ending where Radovid starts his witch hunt after learning about the Lodge's conspiracy).
I wouldn't say Radovid has become a BioWare villain. That's a bit too harsh of a judgement. Radovid's actions are at least somewhat justified, unlike The Illusive Man's actions in ME3.
Someone else compared Radovid to Joffrey from Game of Thrones. I find that a good comparison. Joffrey was also a character I really enjoyed watching in GoT and I enjoyed Radovid as well.
My only gripe with Radovid's side in TW3 is how the witch hunters are portrayed. First of all: where is the Order of the Flaming Rose? Wouldn't they make better witch hunters? They would be more interesting too. The witch hunters we saw in TW3 felt like cartoon villains to me, something straight out of a Marvel or DC comic (no Marvel or DC bashing here, I like Marvel and DC, but lets not pretend comics have good writing, at least most of them don't).
It would have been so much more interesting if the witch hunters were actually members of the Order led by Siegfried. Now that would have been interesting! I love Siegfried and I'm sure it would have been incredibly difficult for me to deal with the situation if it was Siegfried sitting in front of Geralt instead of Menge.
I think Aerys would be better comparison for Radovid than Joffrey. All that said my opinion is they went overboard with Radovid's part. Sure, make him paranoid. Sure, make him burn non-humans and mages for political gain, but turning him into a straight madman shallows him as a character. A lot. You don't even have to find reasons to dislike him or explain his actions (although arguments can be found). All can be explained by saying: "He's just nuts". You could say Jacques de Aldersberg was mad too, but he at least used good arguments, had good intentions and was charismatic leader overall (to the point that I liked him very much, despite being an opponent).
Indeed, the problem is not Radovid's anti-mage policy, that much was established and made clear in TW2.
The problem with Radovid is turning him insane, when there were no such hints in TW2 (with everyone, including Philippa after he maimed her, calling him a quintessentially cold hearted politician), in order to make sense of his policies which do not need insanity to justify. It is very shallow to think that acts of fanaticism and genocide can only be explained and be caused by madness.
Additionally, there is nothing redeeming at all about Radovid winning (something which he should not be able to do alone to begin with). The game keeps telling you that he's the worst outcome, with absolutely nothing positive about him or his rule. The ending slide literally ends with "freedom under Radovid is worse than subjugation under someone else". aka "YOU SHOULD HAVE LET NILFGAARD WIN." This sort of unsubtlety is uncharacteristic of the series.
Instead, they could have had a Radovid obsessed with revenge yes, but not insane, who is ushering in the birth of the modern state that by definition is going to be a violent and forced attempt at homogenization, destroying everything traditional and different both figuratively and literally. But on the upside, more meritocracy, lessening or banning of serfdom (in exchange for mass mobilization), a stronger middle class, more education, more trade, security, very few monsters...etc. Instead, they made it so you'd have to be an idiot to pick Radovid, and a SoB if you pick Dijkstra who is marginally better.
The problem with Radovid is turning him insane, when there were no such hints in TW2 (with everyone, including Philippa after he maimed her, calling him a quintessentially cold hearted politician), in order to make sense of his policies which do not need insanity to justify. It is very shallow to think that acts of fanaticism and genocide can only be explained and be caused by madness.
Additionally, there is nothing redeeming at all about Radovid winning (something which he should not be able to do alone to begin with). The game keeps telling you that he's the worst outcome, with absolutely nothing positive about him or his rule. The ending slide literally ends with "freedom under Radovid is worse than subjugation under someone else". aka "YOU SHOULD HAVE LET NILFGAARD WIN." This sort of unsubtlety is uncharacteristic of the series.
Instead, they could have had a Radovid obsessed with revenge yes, but not insane, who is ushering in the birth of the modern state that by definition is going to be a violent and forced attempt at homogenization, destroying everything traditional and different both figuratively and literally. But on the upside, more meritocracy, lessening or banning of serfdom (in exchange for mass mobilization), a stronger middle class, more education, more trade, security, very few monsters...etc. Instead, they made it so you'd have to be an idiot to pick Radovid, and a SoB if you pick Dijkstra who is marginally better.
Last edited:
You, Willowhugger, like Nilfgaard? All I've seen here in the forums is you hating on Nilfgaard and choosing to side with Djkistra.
Anyway. I think Nilfgaard portrait was too nice, then again the other option is Radovid, which is terrible by all means. Ravoid turned insane in 6 months after the W2, with no hints about his condition whatsoever. They could have had Radovid obsessed with his revenge on Philippa and with his plans to assassinate all sorceress. I could see this plan as a way to gain popularity with the people of Novigrad and Eternal Fire believers. But instead we have Radovid going insane.
Anyway. I think Nilfgaard portrait was too nice, then again the other option is Radovid, which is terrible by all means. Ravoid turned insane in 6 months after the W2, with no hints about his condition whatsoever. They could have had Radovid obsessed with his revenge on Philippa and with his plans to assassinate all sorceress. I could see this plan as a way to gain popularity with the people of Novigrad and Eternal Fire believers. But instead we have Radovid going insane.
Last edited:
Yeah, I noticed that too since he posts in most of the political topics that I'm interested in, and it kind of seems like a fall-back option for whenever someone accuses him of raging on Nilfgaard.
I honestly think CDPR were able to capture Nilfgaard they way they were actually portrayed in the books, without the patriotic glaze of all the readers who came to unfathomably love a 'free North' (Something that Geralt gives absolutely no fucks about).
As for Nilfgaard being made 'too nice', seriously, what are the alternatives? Look at how Nilfgaard acts in the videogames; it's literally 100% a 16th-century empire in political and social attitude, not too 'good' or too 'evil'. They crack down hard on the peasants that help their enemies, but they show remarkable mercy to those who surrender to their vast ambitions, not unlike the Habsburgs of the Spanish and Holy Roman Empires.
Also, Nilfgaard's 'atrocities' in the books are literally limited to a single account (The Sack of Cintra) by a bleeding-heart Northern spy (Dandelion). People seem to conveniently forget that one city that the Nilfgaardians promised to leave undamaged if they surrendered. Geralt is surprised when he's told that they honoured their promise, remarking how rare it is for a whole nation-state to show such a sense of honour.
As for the Sack of Cintra, why DID everyone start killing themselves and their children, at least according to Dandelion? We don't even know that the defenders weren't just freaking out/overreacting, since Nilfgaard never perpetrated any similar massacres in their other occupied capitals.