The Politics of the Witcher 3 or "What we liked, didn't like, and would have done differently?"

[CTPhipps]

Novigrad's Situation

I actually thought they handled the "Free City" status of Novigrad reasonably well and with a subtle touch rather than anything overt. You could use your mind to figure out what the situation was without having to explain what was happening. It was also true to the books which depicted Novigrad as ruled by two guiding forces.

1. Corruption and Wealth
2. Religion

Novigrad is a Free City not by its official rulership's choice. King Radovid has absorbed the Flaming Rose, supported the religion's spread to Temeria, and generally always been an ally of the religion. He's depicted as a liberator on propaganda posters and is giving covert orders to the Eternal Fire, which rule the city, making him responsible for the massive purge of mages in the city.

Radovid has ALREADY WON Novigrad.

Or should have.

The problem is Dijkstra and the other Crime Lords (I'm assuming this is Dijkstra's plan 90% since the others aren't exactly geniuses) know that this just makes Novigrad a target for Nilgaardian aggression as they can burn the city to the ground to deny it to Radovid. Thus, they come up with their plan for rendering it neutral against the city fathers' will. They will riot, steal the treasury, and burn the ships if Radovid attempts to claim the city.

So Radovid turns Whoreson against the Alliance and steals Dijkstra's fortune, rendering the crime lord's incapable of seizing Novigrad.

Amusingly, if Voorhis was the one who was tasked with seizing Novigrad, he's doing a shitty job of it as all he does is some horse-racing and dating Baroness La Valette a.k.a the Cougar of the North.

---------- Updated at 03:33 AM ----------

Had to rewatch the tent scene and indeed, Avallac'h doesn't say anything of the sort, only that the Emperor's committed to the cause.

It is however kinda of a bad move to start a campaign in Skellige right after Radovid managed to get support from Novigrad. Maybe Emhyr was confident the assassination plot would succeed?

Pure speculation but I suspect Emhyr might intend to seize Skellige to serve as a port for a Nilfgaard invasion of Redania. That way, they could bypass the defenses he's set up around Novigrad/Velen to attack the city by sea.

Or attack Redania from above.

Alternatively, Emhyr may believe that holding Skellige hostage/presenting it as a fiefdom to Ciri will bribe her into serving as his heir.

Or both!

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Unfortunately, the influence of crime lords simply can't be that strong. They are pretty much allowed to exist as long as they do not cross a certain line. I simply can't believe that they run Novigrad that much. They can't even save the mages and non-humans. How on earth could they survive if the entire population rise against them, as they inevitably will as soon as they start burning the city. I actually found it a very weak and pretty unbelievable explanation.
If Nilfgaard wins, its banners are over Novigrad as well, and it would mean Novigrad is not a free city anymore. So I would prefer to include the city, and the cult, into a major power play, while leaving crime lords exactly where they should be - in the gutter. They are underdogs, not major players. The cult should play a major role as well, and not just provide a background.

 

[CTPhipps]

Unfortunately, the influence of crime lords simply can't be that strong. They are pretty much allowed to exist as long as they do not cross a certain line. I simply can't believe that they run Novigrad that much.

That would be the case if the Thieves Guilds of Novigrad were portrayed as "realistic" crime lords but in our short depiction of them we see that Whoreson Junior owns a massive mansion in Oxenfurt, a less-ornate one in Temple Isles, has at least forty men working for him (because that's how many you can kill as Ciri and with Geralt), a gigantic underground fighting pit with exotic animals, and what Ciri calls a massive collection of casinos and whorehouses.

Given that a quarter of the city is the Red Light District (which caters to the massive amount of trade the city gets), this is not the fortune of a crime lord. This is the fortune of the most powerful merchants in the city save the Vivaldi bank with their own private army. If they're any sort of crime syndicate, they're James Bond's SPECTER or Paolo Escobar.

It's pure "Rule of Cool" to depict crime lords as wielding this much material and criminal influence in the city but the Witcher has plenty such moments which defy logic. Given Dijktra is the equivalent of the head of the CIA creating his own criminal syndicate (with a personal fortune consisting of SIX TONS of gold), this is above and beyond the necessary resources to hold the city for ransom.

Also, bluntly, Dijkstra and crime lords work much better than having Merchant Guilds doing the exact same thing.

They can't even save the mages and non-humans. How on earth could they survive if the entire population rise against them, as they inevitably will as soon as they start burning the city. I actually found it a very weak and pretty unbelievable explanation.

The burning of the city's ships would be done during rioting fostered by the crime-lords. Which, given the persecution of nonhumans, mages, and general tension in the city--shouldn't be that hard to bring about. Populations have rioted over much much less provocation as we see in Flotsam.

If Nilfgaard wins, its banners are over Novigrad as well, and it would mean Novigrad is not a free city anymore. So I would prefer to include the city, and the cult, into a major power play, while leaving crime lords exactly where they should be - in the gutter. They are underdogs, not major players. The cult should play a major role as well, and not just provide a background.

I think the cult plays a big role but it's rather annoying its sublimated into being Radovid's mouthpiece.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Yeah, this is an analogue to Bioware's "awesome button", and it is pretty terrible. CDPR stayed away from this crap before. Also it pretty much inconsistent in the game. We only HEAR about such influence. We never actually SEE it. What we see is Dijkstra trying to save the mages but wary about the authorities, and king of beggars harboring the mages, but is unable to change the situation in the city. Realistically, where did such wealth come from? I can understand it about merchant guilds - some sort of a monopoly on certain goods, and a good location may be enough for their incredible income to come from many different countries. But in Novigrad it seems everyone should screw and gamble away all their income in order for crime lords to be that rich. Novigrad is not Sinaloa of the Golden Triangle, they do not produce and export drugs all over the continent. Sure, I got CDPR's intent with these crime lords, but it is about as lame as with Radovid's assassination, or with simplistic endings in general.

 

[CTPhipps]

Yeah, this is an analogue to Bioware's "awesome button", and it is pretty terrible. CDPR stayed away from this crap before.

Also it pretty much inconsistent in the game. We only HEAR about such influence. We never actually SEE it. What we see is Dijkstra trying to save the mages but wary about the authorities, and king of beggars harboring the mages, but is unable to change the situation in the city. Realistically, where did such wealth come from? I can understand it about merchant guilds - some sort of a monopoly on certain goods, and a good location may be enough for their incredible income to come from many different countries. But in Novigrad it seems everyone should screw and gamble away all their income in order for crime lords to be that rich. Novigrad is not Sinaloa of the Golden Triangle, they do not produce and export drugs all over the continent. Sure, I got CDPR's intent with these crime lords, but it is about as lame as with Radovid's assassination, or with simplistic endings in general.

Realistically, the crime lords should control the merchant traffic in the city and just so happen to have their own private armies. The Guilds of actual Medieval Europe were the basis for the mafia anyway.

Not the other way around.

You either signed up or they broke your legs.

Dijkstra being a businessman wouldn't be as glamorous than dozens of hookers in a steam sauna, though.

 

[Songborn]

I'm really curious to see the Toussaint DLC and whether Voorhis shows up there. Toussaint is an imperial vassal state, and in the books Geralt stumbles upon a conspiracy there to overthrow the emperor. If history repeats itself, we may have a whole new ending available depending on how the conspiracy turns out! I don't know if Voorhis would be a loyalist or a conspirator- maybe Geralt has to help him decide?

I am fully in agreement that we need more Voorhis. As far as I can tell he is in a rather comfortable position in the middle: He stands to gain either way without putting his neck on the line for some conspiracy. Either Ciri is crowned and he has a good chance to become emperor, Emhyr continues to rule but is going to die soonish of old age with no heirs and Voorhis is a position to become emperor or Emhyr gets assassinated and the conspirators put Voorhis on the throne. He just needs to wait, do his job, show leader qualities and not piss anybody off.

Regarding Novigrad, I always read his glossary entry as him being on leave and doing whatever he wants. I don't think that him galivanting around the free city is any sort of military strategy. They already have an ambassador there and are working on bumping off Radovid anyway.

 

[octavian123]

I found the whole Hjalmar/Cerys thing to be terribly one-dimensional. The questline basically tells me that men are reckless and stupid while women are intelligent and cooperative. I'm very surprised no one brought this up.

Djkstra kills it though. Such a wonderful character. Out of all the potential rulers, he is the best. Also love him for seeing how stupid patriotism is.

 

[Scryar]

I found the whole Hjalmar/Cerys thing to be terribly one-dimensional. The questline basically tells me that men are reckless and stupid while women are intelligent and cooperative. I'm very surprised no one brought this up.

That was just hilarous.
Cerys manages to solve her task better. She frees the Jarl from the curse while Hjalmar looses pretty much his whole crew during his adventure.
Cerys is the better ruler as Hjalmar doesn't rule at all.
Following Cerys you find the real culprit behind the bear attack
You miss a place of power if you follow Hjalmar instead of Cerys
I was surprised CDP didn't show a developer's comment that we should support Cerys.

 

[CTPhipps]

I found the whole Hjalmar/Cerys thing to be terribly one-dimensional. The questline basically tells me that men are reckless and stupid while women are intelligent and cooperative. I'm very surprised no one brought this up.

Djkstra kills it though. Such a wonderful character. Out of all the potential rulers, he is the best. Also love him for seeing how stupid patriotism is.

Yeah, the only thing I see a problem with is that Cerys is too peaceful. In a shithole like the North, you need people like the Skelliges to be the most terrifying guys around if you don't want to be invaded and conquered.

I, too, liked a suggestion by one of the posters that if Cerys becomes Queen she'll try to make peace with Nilfgaard.

Which has nasty-nasty reprocussions.

i also would have liked the option for Lady Bran to try to get Geralt to her side for his support in the election (because he's a famous figure) and maybe even seduce him/optional sexual encounter. You could then have Geralt support her son for King and have something different happen at the banquet like Nilfgaard soldiers attack.

Give us a reason to maybe side with Bran.

 

[Songborn]

Skellige was my Orzammar in this game, I just wanted to get it over and done with, especially as it felt so disconnected from everything else (compared to Novigrad, Redania and Nilfgaard that had at least some connections)

 

[CTPhipps]

Skellige was my Orzammar in this game, I just wanted to get it over and done with, especially as it felt so disconnected from everything else (compared to Novigrad, Redania and Nilfgaard that had at least some connections)

They really needed a connection to the War.

It was like, "And then Geralt goes to visit Skyrim."

 

[Gerald01]

@Willowhugger
No I would say that the politics of Novigrad are not splendidly handled.
First, the actual government of the city is never shown.
As for the 4 mobsters, EF, WHs, etc. they're just there as background NPCs, I mean their influence is only shown through that.

You never get the sense of the dynamics and powerstruggles. Or changes. Plus there's no shown interactions between them, they act as separate entities not noticing each other.

For instance: Government=absent
Dijkstra never interacts with Witch Hunters, Eternal Fire, Guards, Redanian loyalists/spies, Nilfgaardian party. He just shows up during the mages quest, but as a character, not in lieu of his organisation, connections, etc. He doesn't even bring some of his men(are there even any?)

Then there's the King of Beggars who's just dropped mid game never to be seen again basically.

Same as Cleaver, who's just an optional element during the Wh*reson quest.

Now what I think it would have helped is more quests involving the factions, random encounters(wh*reson's thugs are more of a bug) and cutscenes.
Maybe the possibility of siding with one for a series of quests.

Dijstra's treasure storyline is kind of just there (no choice or even conclusions for that).

I know I'm kind of blaspheming here but in some ways DA:2 had a more coherent approach as far as the main city place (what's the name?).

 

[CTPhipps]

Honestly, I don't think that would have helped much actually. There's something to said for less is more. Also, bluntly, we DO get to deal with the government of the city in Caleb Menge.

The fact we never get to deal with the Eternal Fires head is irrelevant since we deal with their priests and agents all the time.

Ditto Radovid, the guy above him.

Also, since you said DA2 is coherent, clearly I think you must be having a nervous breakdown.

 

[devivre]

Actually there is a conclusion for the treasure quest you do for Dijkstra but basically that only gets you money and some runes.

Plus there is interaction between the bosses but I agree its a bit short and there could be more (although it's not a big issue for me).

 

[Gerald01]

Honestly, I don't think that would have helped much actually. There's something to said for less is more. Also, bluntly, we DO get to deal with the government of the city in Caleb Menge.

I am glad you liked Novigrad so much, but from the previews (esp. 2014 E3) CDPR hinted at something completely diffrent from what we got (living breathing community, the stuff about a day/night cycle or different areas having specific npcs all that got cut).
No, we do not deal with the legitimate government and the struggle of power/backstory to all the stuff.

Yes less is more, but I'm thinking you have a tendency to interject your own reflections and intuitions in the game itself to sort of fill the gaps.
Objectively, the city is badly fleshed out. Nothing's clear or defined.
Yes, there's hints to all sorts of things but it's not effectively presented convincingly.
There's also a disconnect from some dialogue and the physical representation. Never felt.
And apart from the crowd (who do look great, with the setting on ULTRA) dynamism is 0.

Also, since you said DA2 is coherent, clearly I think you must be having a nervous breakdown.

There's no need to exagerate like that.
I said DA2's representation of the city is in some ways more coherent. Maybe I did remove some unplesant details due to the trauma, but some things I think are indeed dealt with better. (see no point in giving details given your reaction)

 

[CTPhipps]

Is there an argument for supporting King Radovid?

* Asked on my blog.

With King Radovid, the biggest benefit he brings to the table is the fact there is a sense of continuity as well as a strong national leadership to him. Dijkstra's efforts will last, probably, only as long as his Chancellorship as he is a peasant (from the books) elevated to nobility and has no monarchical or traditional ties to the land. Radovid is, potentially, the legitimate heir to the North via either his marriage to Princess Adda or control over Anais La Vallette.

Unlike Dijkstra, Radovid not only brings a sense of legitimacy to his reign over the Redanian Empire and vassalhood but also military skill. He is also a "functioning" psychopath whose atrocities do not impair his strategic skills. Whereas Dijkstra would unite the North through economics and resettlement plans, Radovid is entirely capable of uniting the North through military victory, noble marriage, and religion.

His patronage of the Eternal Fire and stamping out of local religions (which will be helped by the fact many of them are magically-inclined) will create a strong national identity for the North. Conversion by the sword is a horrific measure but has often worked in the past (see: Emperor Charlemagne). Even the destruction of the mages and nonhumans might not necessarily impair King Radovid from being a "good" monarch in that history is full of large-scale massacres which barely serve as a blip in national history.

Even if Radovid is a tyrant, and he is, the thing he brings to the table is there's no indication he is incapable of siring children of his own who can take up his dynasty after himself. The next Redanian Emperor may well not share his brutality or policies but will have the weight of tradition for keeping the united North from disintegrating around him. The loss to science, culture, and economics by his father's purges, though, will be considerable.

(Ugh, I felt unclean writing that)


---------- Updated at 06:04 AM ----------

My Take on Novigrad

I think the setting was very well-realized for the fact that they managed to establish the geo-political situation of the city and why it's valuable to both sides. You had both sides wanting it like the Pontar Valley but whereas it was grain for the Valley, it was the ship's and gold of the port city there. You had the reason why the city was open to both sides.

You had the two major conflicting powers in the city The Church (represented by the Witch Hunters and street preachers) and the Crime Lords (represented by the King of Beggars and Dijkstra). You also had a third party in the Mages who serve as the national scapegoats. When they leave the city, the persecution of the Church moves to other targets because they're attempting to keep the city in a state of fanatic zeal.

I think we get a lot of feel for the city in the sidequests, too. Elves beating up a man for (being believed) to have sold bad fisstech to an elven child. The Dopplers trying to negotiate a new life in the city. Hattori's attempts to negotiate with the crime lords (who, according to him, control the Guilds in the city like the metal-working ones).
And so on.

For a relatively minor location in the game, that's pretty damn awesome.

 

[Bobbtom]

Is there an argument for supporting King Radovid?

* Asked on my blog.

With King Radovid, the biggest benefit he brings to the table is the fact there is a sense of continuity as well as a strong national leadership to him. Dijkstra's efforts will last, probably, only as long as his Chancellorship as he is a peasant (from the books) elevated to nobility and has no monarchical or traditional ties to the land. Radovid is, potentially, the legitimate heir to the North via either his marriage to Princess Adda or control over Anais La Vallette.

Unlike Dijkstra, Radovid not only brings a sense of legitimacy to his reign over the Redanian Empire and vassalhood but also military skill. He is also a "functioning" psychopath whose atrocities do not impair his strategic skills. Whereas Dijkstra would unite the North through economics and resettlement plans, Radovid is entirely capable of uniting the North through military victory, noble marriage, and religion.

His patronage of the Eternal Fire and stamping out of local religions (which will be helped by the fact many of them are magically-inclined) will create a strong national identity for the North. Conversion by the sword is a horrific measure but has often worked in the past (see: Emperor Charlemagne). Even the destruction of the mages and nonhumans might not necessarily impair King Radovid from being a "good" monarch in that history is full of large-scale massacres which barely serve as a blip in national history.

Even if Radovid is a tyrant, and he is, the thing he brings to the table is there's no indication he is incapable of siring children of his own who can take up his dynasty after himself. The next Redanian Emperor may well not share his brutality or policies but will have the weight of tradition for keeping the united North from disintegrating around him. The loss to science, culture, and economics by his father's purges, though, will be considerable.

(Ugh, I felt unclean writing that)

I would have agreed with you with the Radovid in W2. The Radovid now is an atrocious piece of writing. They made him full blown crazy and did not show an ounce of his strategic skill in-game besides in the ending slides. I like that they did not make Nilfgaard completely evil, but for some reason they decided to make Redania full blown evil. Even the regular Redanian solders are more rude to Geralt than the Nilfgaardian ones.

What I take from this is that CDPR wanted to make a streamlined story with the EVIL, EVIL radovid and clear cut good vs evil. However, they wanted to try to please old fans by making nilfgaard more grey and the North not as "good" as it was portrayed compared to Nilfgaard in W1 and W2. The greyness of Nilgaard is a progression, but the Hitler's Germany of Redania is terrible. As a result, we got lackluster politics that failed to deliver end game.

The Temerian quest line was also terrible. Foltest would have spat on Roche's treaty. Instead of fleshed out quest lines for the politics of the game, we repeatedly got the same : Find monster and Kill quest.

Reasons of State wasn't even a main quest and took 10 minutes to beat.

 

[CTPhipps]

I would have agreed with you with the Radovid in W2. The Radovid now is an atrocious piece of writing. They made him full blown crazy and did not show an ounce of his strategic skill in-game besides in the ending slides. I like that they did not make Nilfgaard completely evil, but for some reason they decided to make Redania full blown evil. Even the regular Redanian solders are more rude to Geralt than the Nilfgaardian ones.

What I take from this is that CDPR wanted to make a streamlined story with the EVIL, EVIL radovid and clear cut good vs evil. However, they wanted to try to please old fans by making nilfgaard more grey and the North not as "good" as it was portrayed compared to Nilfgaard in W1 and W2. The greyness of Nilgaard is a progression, but the Hitler's Germany of Redania is terrible. As a result, we got lackluster politics that failed to deliver end game.

Weirdly, I got the opposite impression that the CDPR people were trying to go for moral ambiguity. I think they assumed that people would automatically side with the North due to Temerian nostalgia and the fact AOK set up the Nilfgaard as the Ultimate Big BadsTM.

They believed that book readers, too, would look at Nilfgaard and see it as the enemy. So, in order to preserve Geralt's characteristic neutrality and to avoid making it the plucky rebels against the Evil Empire, they decided to dramatically tone down Nilfgaard's EVILLLLL.

No mention of slavery (outside of one mention in the Vizima gardens) or slaves on camera, no mention of the Ciri incest plot, only one destroyed village and a mentioned sacking of a temple, and a lot of Pet the Dog moments like the Good Guy Commander and the Nilfgaard deserter who helped a Northern soldier. The innkeeper also talks about the Nilfgaard as if they're pretty okay guys.

Which, fine, works for me. Maybe Nilfgaard lost a lot of its assholes in the most recent in-fighting. Maybe the Nilfgaard commanders are Cintrans (which would have been cool to see) this time around.

THEN they decide to make Radovid and the rest of the group purely evil as their way to compensate for Nilfgaard still being the invaders of the North in an unprovoked war of conquest. Which is dramatically overdoing things, I think.

So the moral ambiguity they're going for...isn't.

The Temerian quest line was also terrible. Foltest would have spat on Roche's treaty. Instead of fleshed out quest lines for the politics of the game, we repeatedly got the same : Find monster and Kill quest.

Reasons of State wasn't even a main quest and took 10 minutes to beat.

The Foltest of the games is a lot less of a contemptible figure than the one in the books, who just talks a good game. Roche learned his Lilly-Planting Surrender Monkey traits from Book-Foltest.

‘In a few days, the Nilfgaardians will take our eastern border, by which I mean the mouth of the Pontar Valley,’ Foltest went on, still very softly. ‘Hagge, Aedirn’s last fortress, will not withstand them for long, and Hagge is on our eastern border. And on our southern border . . . something very unfortunate has occurred. King Ervyll of Verden has sworn fealty to Emperor Emhyr. He has surrendered and opened the strongholds at the mouth of the Jaruga. Nilfgaardian garrisons are already installed in Nastrog, Rozrog and Bodrog, which were supposed to have protected our flank.’

The Council was silent. ‘Owing to that,’ continued Foltest, ‘Ervyll has retained his royal title, but Emhyr is his sovereign. Verden remains a kingdom but, de facto, is now a Nilfgaardian province. Do you understand what that means? The situation has turned about face. The Verdenian strongholds and the mouth of the Jaruga are in Nilfgaard’s hands. I cannot attempt to cross the river. And I cannot weaken the army stationed there by forming a corps which could enter Aedirn and support Demavend’s forces. I cannot do that. Responsibility for my country and my subjects rests on me.’

The Council was silent.

‘Emperor Emhyr var Emreis, the imperator of Nilfgaard,’ said the king, ‘has offered me a proposition . . . an agreement. I have accepted that proposition. I shall now present this proposition to you. And you, when you have heard me out, will understand . . . Will agree that— Will say . . .’

The Council was silent. ‘

You will say . . .’ concluded Foltest. ‘You will say I am bringing you peace.’

 

[Redemyr]

While the concept if Evil and Good don't really apply in the world of the witcher 3, if we had to find one, Nifgaard, by destabilizing governments first and then invading, are definitely the ones. All the deaths, displacements and misery we see in no man's lands is the direct result of their actions. They had no "claim" to the north, they were not "bringers of civilization" (their technological level as shown is more or less equal) and the people of the north were not "oppressed" by their rulers either.

They are just one big nation eating small ones. The bullies of the world. They are the "romans" of the medieval times, a timeline in which, btw, they were no romans (except the greeks but those don't count), everybody was more or less equal (in fact there were no nations as we see them now, at least in Europe).

So even if the guy in White Orchard is being "fair" to the peasant when requisitioning food, he has no right to do it in the first place. And it is because of them that people like the baron have free reign over the region.

 

[CTPhipps]

While the concept if Evil and Good don't really apply in the world of the witcher 3, if we had to find one, Nifgaard, by destabilizing governments first and then invading, are definitely the ones. All the deaths, displacements and misery we see in no man's lands is the direct result of their actions. They had no "claim" to the north, they were not "bringers of civilization" (their technological level as shown is more or less equal) and the people of the north were not "oppressed" by their rulers either.

They are just one big nation eating small ones. The bullies of the world. They are the "romans" of the medieval times, a timeline in which, btw, they were no romans (except the greeks but those don't count), everybody was more or less equal (in fact there were no nations as we see them now, at least in Europe).

So even if the guy in White Orchard is being "fair" to the peasant when requisitioning food, he has no right to do it in the first place. And it is because of them that people like the baron have free reign over the region.

God, is today opposite day? I defended Philippa Eilhart in another thread and now I'm defending Nilfgaard.

In the case of Nilfgaard having no claim to the peasantry or land, you're absolutely right. The thing is, and I mentioned this in my Witcher 3 review, neither does the existing nobility. The Nilfgaardians are requisitioning a bunch of crops from the peasantry which they have no right to but it's more or less an identical situation for the Temerian nobility doing the exact same thing.

Feudalism is a protection racket so there's no reason to really be loyal to either side over the other. The only reason Nilfgaard is "worse" is because invasions tend to make situations EVEN WORSE for the locals. Plus, the mammoth death tolls. One thing that I think Assassins of Kings did much more subtly and better than Witcher 3 is the fact that King Henselt is a delightful rebuttal to the "Evil Nilfgaard" as he's basically just Nilfgaard in miniature.

You're right about the Baron, though, as No Man's Land is where the worst war crimes and atrocities are being committed. The weird thing, though? They're war crimes being committed by Temerians against other Temerians.

Of course, The Time of Contempt makes Nilfgaard much worse as they engage in colonialism, colonization, forced relocation, "war to the villages", slavery, and other acts above and beyond the North but they don't seem to be doing any of that this time. If we saw Nilfgaard slave-catchers, I suspect a lot less people would be eager to take down Radovid and save Roche even with what we know.