Trouble with Reasons of State: there is no genuine in-character choice

[Ghaisos]

Trouble with Reasons of State: there is no genuine in-character choice

I imagine others may have posted about this, but I could not find a thread about this precise topic.

I have been thinking about why I find Reasons of State such a troubling quest, and have come to the conclusion that it has much to do with the fact that there is no real in-character choice.

While Roche, Ves and Thaler hid part of the truth from you in not telling you that they were attempting to broker a deal with Emhyr, the same is true of Dijkstra. And while Dijkstra may dramatically state that he rejects the deal with Emhyr this is technically irrelevant. It is very hard to imagine that there is anything in the agreement with Emhyr that might prevent him from taking control of the Redanian state apparatus: if what Thaler says is true, all the conspirators promissed to do is stop the guerilla attacks and kill Radovid. They have no formal position in the Redanian army or government, so they could not promise for Redania to surrender even if they wanted to. Unless Dijkstra is hoping to somehow also take control of the Temerian militia (no idea how he'd do that) he could just let Roche, Ves and Thaler go on their merry way. It would not make any difference.

Seeing that Dijkstra's speech is technically pointless there is also no reason for the player-as-Geralt to experience any moral indignation beyond feeling tricked by all four of the conspirators. All that is left, then, is for the player to choose between Roche, Ves and Thaler on the one hand, and Dijkstra on the other. As Dijkstra is the aggressor in this scene, and Roche and Ves have repeatedly showed themselves loyal allies of Geralt, the only logical in-character choice is for Geralt to defend the three people that are being assailed and help them defeat Dijkstra.

For these reasons, choosing not to become involved in the conspirators' fight is extremely hard to justify if you are not aware of what triggers the various possible endings of the game. But as soon as you justify your decision on how it will affect the outcome of the game you have stopped roleplaying, thinking on a meta-level and acting not as the Player Character but as the author of the Player Character's fate.

It would be wonderful if CD Projekt RED would change this quest, so as to give the player real choices - but I imagine that this is very unlikely to happen, given that the game has now been out for almost a year.

 

[motherkos]

Good analysis. You summed up the dilemma.
What bothers me is that Geralt would never willingly get tangled up in such a risky political situation. The quest itself felt contrived, from the illogical conflict between Dijkstra and the Temerian guerrillas, to the fact that Geralt is even present there to begin with when he has no real relevance to the assassination plot. It's unrealistic that he, whom has been ofttimes defined as a politically inconsequential peon (to put it harshly), can indirectly decide the fate of Redania's ruling authority. He's not omnipotent.

The Roche-Dijkstra decision, from a meta level, seems deliberately set up in favor of Nilfgaard. Unless you're really keen on Dijkstra or just simply apathetic, why walk away when trusted allies are about to be murdered? TW3 whitewashed Nilfgaard, contrasted to TW2 and Sapkowski's work which quite consistently portrayed them as a harsh, totalistic foreign aggressor. The game conveniently neglected to truly emphasize the drawbacks and cruel idiosyncrasies of authoritarian Nilfgaardian rule, e.g. slavery and severe corporal punishment. It's down to the point where Nilfgaardians seem like implacable but ultimately righteous bringers of civilization and order... Or perhaps Radovid's draconian rule over Redania has the effect of making them look better in comparison.

I have always been fascinated by the politics of the Witcher universe, but Reasons of State disappointed me. As did TW3's attempts at political intrigue in general.

 

[Ghaisos]

It's unrealistic that he, whom has been ofttimes defined as a politically inconsequential peon (to put it harshly), can indirectly decide the fate of Redania's ruling authority. He's not omnipotent. [...] The Roche-Dijkstra decision, from a meta level, seems deliberately set up in favor of Nilfgaard.

True, and true.

 

[balparmak]

Well analyzed. And the timing of quest is just absurd, I mean if we were Philippa it could've make sense to pursue such political intrigues, but Geralt doing that while a fateful battle for Ciri awaits? The quest screams "skip me, skip me", which I did, but then Radovid wins. That was the weakest part of the ending I got, felt totally out of place considering there was not a single chance of him winning. Only chance I saw for Redania was Dijkstra conspiring with Nilfgaardian opposition for a coup against Emyhr, possibly after their defeat in Skellige (as they could not be defeated elsewhere), and then brokering a peace which recognizes most of Nilfgaard gains - so not a total victory.

 

[frynse]

Aye, a lot of problems with this quest. Especially how Dijkstra will even try to fight you himself despite being a cripple, where it would make much more sense for him to either run away or give up.
This is one of those quests where you really wish that CDPR could fix it in a definitive version or something, although that unfortunately is very unlikely.

 

[BILBO.BAGGINS]

The Roche-Dijkstra decision, from a meta level, seems deliberately set up in favor of Nilfgaard. Unless you're really keen on Dijkstra or just simply apathetic, why walk away when trusted allies are about to be murdered?

I totally agree. Given the fact that most people are very pro-Roche, it was a given what choice the (vast) majority of the players would make. Personally, while not overly keen on Dijkstra, i like him well enough ( i liked him as a character in the books ). Roche, i don't particularly care about ( not that i have a problem with him, but i wouldn't exactly call him a friend. Needless to say i chose Iorveth in W2 ). So, when the choice came up: getting Dijkstra killed ( possibly by my hand ) or getting Roche killed, or make an enemy of either of them in case they survived, yeah...i walked away. I wasn't sure if Roche & co. would really end up dead and i felt pretty bad ( mostly for Thaler ). In hindsight, comparing the ending i got with the other outcomes, i'm glad i made that choice.

The biggest disappointment for me was Thaler. The reason is this:
I don't deny that Dijkstra pulled a nasty move on Roche & co., but how stupid were they to believe that their little deal would go over smoothly? What was the outcome of the deal supposed to be? Getting rid of Radovid, securing Temeria's independence, screwing over the rest of the northern realms including Redania. Did they really think Dijkstra would simply go along, be satisfied with that sort of outcome and everything would be peachy? Really? I know Roche is not some master of plots and intrigues, but how effing naive is that? Let's say i buy that sort of naivety from Roche, but Thaler too? Just no. Thaler, my ex-arch-spy-of-king-Foltest friend, aren't you supposed to be intelligent and cunning? I liked Thaler in W1 and was pleasantly surprised to see him again, but after the quest in question, i think it would have been better if they had not included him at all ( or had him play a different role ).

 

[Ghaisos]

I have just read the release notes for the 1.20 quest. Sadly, nothing about Reasons of State. I reckon this means we'll have to continue choosing between unfortunate ends for Dijkstra (and thus the North) or Roche & Company.

 

[sv3672]

There is nothing about content changes in the 1.20 patch notes, not even small tweaks like in 1.10. So, either the base game is already finished, or there is an enhanced edition in the plans (I would not bet too much on that, though). But I think it is by design that none of the available choices are really good - even if it is executed in a contrived way and could have been done better - otherwise it would be easy to decide.