Was I supposed to hate Nilfgaard?

[Scholdarr.452]

This is weird because this is one of the few areas which ISN'T underdeveloped in the game.

1. We encounter countless Temerian rebels who attack us over the course of the game.

Do we? I can't recall any such attack. And anyway, I miss the "civil" part here. Temerian rebels are guerilla fighters, but still soldiers. War stuff.

2. We encounter the sidequest where a Temerian Resistance cell massacres a Nilfgaard convoy to steal its medicine.

A single guy (again a Temerian soldier, even if deserted) kills a single Nilfgaardian soliders in order to gain something of value. "Civil" insurrection on any larger scale? Well, not so much. Rather just something that happens during war times everywhere.

3. Roche and Ves and their civil insurgency.

Roche is strictly against it. Ves can't refrain from helping some villagers who supported Temerian guerilla forces in the past and are now persecuted by Nilgaardian forces. I don't see the "civil" aspect here neither with the exclusion of the helping villagers. But that's hardly full blown insurrection, at least we don't know for sure. They could have just helped wounded Temerians in an act of mercy...

4. The battlefield in White Orchard which is a recent one despite the fact Nilfgaard has been encamped in Velen for months now.

So Temerian guerilla forces fought a battle against Nilfgaardian. Not "civil" at all. Just usual war stuff.

5. The recent massacred village in White Orchard.

Which village do you mean? How do you know that the Nilfgaardians massacred anybody? How do you know that this led to civil insurrection?


Pretty much every situation you describe here is a military conflict between rebels and Nilfgaadians. I don't see any signs of real civil insurrection on a larger scale here. On the opposite, no matter to whom you speak in whole Velen, nobody seem to really care abou the question who rules them. They just want to get along and they are too occupied with their own little problems and the task to survive the next day. The only scene I remember that deals with this question with at least some significance is at the end of the prologue in the inn in White Orchard, where Geralt had to slay those guys who wanted the innkeeper to remove the Temerian crest. That's about it...

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Nilfgaard is witnessed adopting a similar 'trick' to SS Police Divisions wherein partisan attacks were retaliated against through mass executions of civilians believed to be part of the same ethnic group as those who initiated the attacks. Of course there exists some documents to suggest that these actions weren't condoned, but this incident was a retaliatory attack in response to a guerrilla raid not an attack against the guerrillas themselves, it's safe to say this could be a normal policy for detachment commanders to 'punish' the spirit of insurrection in their occupied peoples. Another interesting tidbit is conversations between troops and other ingame sources which suggest Nilfgaard intends to revoke native Northerner lands for re-settlement and general colonization by Nilfgaardians at the expense of the local population. Nazi Germany had similar intentions for when their war was over with the USSR where their intent was to resettle colonies of 'soldier peasants' on the frontier territories in Eastern Europe who would gradually subvert the ethnic makeup of the area to ensure they had greater control over those they believed were inferior which were the Slavs but in The Witcher's universe this is the Northerners. General Nilfgaardian rhetoric seems to back this up too, you can't go far without hearing a foreign character espouse how barbaric and inferior they perceive Northerners are in comparison to Nilfgaardians and there appears to be a mutual feeling that Northerners should be culturally subverted and forced to adhere to Nilfgaardian standards by the nobility and other upper echelon members of that society.

There is nothing specifically Nazi there. Romans used the same tactics conquering Gaul, for example, retaliating against the same tribe. Nilfgaardians, as any conqueror, retaliate against the group they most reasonably think is responsible. It would be totally crazy to retaliate against somebody who has nothing to do with it, you know.

Rome gave away new conquered lands to its veterans all the time. It was a policy to settle the frontier by Roman citizens to pacify it fast.

Again, I am against comparison with Nazi Germany because the Third Reich had very specific characteristics we find extremely inhumane. Nothing in Nilfgaardian ideology is similar to Nazi, and no purges were based on ideology alone.

Yes, they consider Northerners barbarians, but historically citizens of every empire did. Just look at the Greeks, where the word "barbarian" originates. Even in our time Russia is not unfamiliar with this, and has a very specific attitude toward migrant workers from Asia, for example.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Let's see, the Roman Empire:

1) Self-proclaimed "bringer of civilization and stability"?
-> check

2) "Assimilation and submission or complete annihilation" tactics?
-> check

3) "Scorched earth" tactics?
-> check

4) Killing people of specific groups in lager numbers (e.g. early Christians)?
-> check

5) Resettlements in newly conquered lands?
-> check

6) Installing vassal states?
-> check

7) Inhumane morals (from today's view, like killing prisoners)
-> check

8 ) Slavery?
-> check

9) Policy of continued conquering in order to avoid internal conflict and risking one's position?
-> check

10) Society dominated by the military and military discipline?
-> check

11) Native Roman civilians more "worth" than everyone else (at least in earlier days of the Empire)?
-> check

12) Sapkowski stating that Rome was the main influence for Nilfgaard?
-> check

:hmm:

If you ask me the Roman Empire is sufficient to explain all major characteristics of Nilfgaard.

 

[Thimble12]

There is nothing specifically Nazi there. Romans used the same tactics conquering Gaul, for example, retaliating against the same tribe. Nilfgaardians, as any conqueror, retaliate against the group they most reasonably think is responsible. It would be totally crazy to retaliate against somebody who has nothing to do with it, you know.

Rome gave away new conquered lands to its veterans all the time. It was a policy to settle the frontier by Roman citizens to pacify it fast.

Again, I am against comparison with Nazi Germany because the Third Reich had very specific characteristics we find extremely inhumane. Nothing in Nilfgaardian ideology is similar to Nazi, and no purges were based on ideology alone.

Yes, they consider Northerners barbarians, but historically citizens of every empire did. Just look at the Greeks, where the word "barbarian" originates. Even in our time Russia is not unfamiliar with this, and has a very specific attitude toward migrant workers from Asia, for example.

Nilfgaard does have an ideology, just because they don't have elaborate political assemblies(although judging from how the political process in Nilfgaard is described this may actually be the case) doesn't mean they aren't adhering to a specific policy in regards to the treatment of those under their occupation. Mass murdering people of a specific ethnic group for the results of an independent group of guerrillas is an extension of this, not to mention the belief that Nilfgaard should even be an empire to begin with. Another aspect of the ideology that forms the Nilfgaardian political thought process is the de-humanization of those of differing ethnic groups, The Witcher is unlike most traditional medieval settings in that it incorporates modern or close to modern political, military and economic ideas with the technology of 13th Century Eurasia, therefore it's believable that comprehensive ideologies could be formed quite similar to those drafted by the Third Reich to deem Slavs as an inferior 'race.'

I agree they are acting in accordance with most Empires, this includes the Third Reich. I also agree that Nilfgaard occupation is certainly better - if you're a Nilfgaardian of course.

 

[SuppleThighs]

This is coming months later, but I really don't think that is fair to Nilfgaard. Even in the books they treat all races equally,and provide benefits only seen in modern day societies. They maintain a ruthless policy for waging war however they then improv the territories they capture. Nilfgaard for the win!

 

[LuckLuke]

Makes me really sad how they handled Nilfgaard and now so many players lean towards the empire. I guess many have not read the books.

 

[vesemas228]

If you've read the books its almost like the author enjoys making it so there are no real bad/good. Even to the extent that main characters have both likeable and dislikeable aspects.

However.. i can understand that its unreasonable for everyone who would play witcher 3 to have read the books and have their own context and opinions.. so they probably were leaning as far as they could without disrespecting the lore to make nilfgard the bad guys if you wanted to see it that way. Sinister music etc.

Its a strange situation, as far as the setting goes to the northern kingdoms they certainly are.. but geralt is working for mr imperator.

.. Either way.., since getting into the books before w3, the game, and all combined.. its completely destroyed western fantasy from tolkien down for me. So shallow and one dimensional compared. )

 

[CyrusTheRestless]

I feel like the Witcher 3's political narrative was a resigning to the inevitability that Nilfgaard will eventually rule the whole world so "why go against the grain"? At least with Cirrila as Empress and the possibility of a golden age there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Tooters]

I feel like the Witcher 3's political narrative was a resigning to the inevitability that Nilfgaard will eventually rule the whole world so "why go against the grain"?

Emhyr is a washout of a leader - Has a lofty superiority complex, loses two and, if you don't play Mr Hypocritical Assistant Regicide Geralt then he loses a third, and that is how it should be. He has the largest army in the known world, but the second that they get a good battering from one of the Northern armies they run off back home to Nilfgaard.

All they're good at is killing civilians it seems, which won't bode well for a Nilfgaardian takeover if they anger the populace so much that they'll just revolt but without leaders like Meve or Radovid the North has no chance, I'd rather keep the North under a Northern ruler.

~If you have Adda alive she is the rightful heir to the crown of Temeria, so you have an instant Temeria - Redania unification, which would stop some of the Redanian hate in Temeria.

Radovid's Witchhunts don't go on forever, and any Mage with a brain would head on off to Kovir and avoid it all, Radovid would never attack Kovir again, he lost badly enough before.

 

[ConnivingEagle]

One of my few, but important criticisms of the game encompasses this. Choices were done much better in TW2, IMO. In this game, many of the major choices are no-brainers.

For example, and I may be wrong, but most other players I've talked to so far would agree with me on these decisions.

Cerys>Hjalmar
Killing the Spirit (Whispering Hillock)>Freeing the Spirit
Killing Whoreson>Sparing Whoreson
Nilfgaardian Deck>Scoiatel Deck

You get the point. Your options for the fate of continent are kind of shit.
1) Let Nilfgaard win (which is the most popular choice, TW3 leans toward this one).
2) Let Dijkstra rule (at the cost of letting him murder your three friends, I doubt many chose this one),
3) Be an idiot like I was my first time and "forcefully" shove Dijkstra aside (AKA having Geralt bust some WWE ankle-snapper finishing move on him) and leave Radovid the Radish, the mad as a lemming but tactical genius because he plays chess by himself Vegetable, as Ruler of the North.

I understand the whole choosing a lesser evil and moral ambiguity and blah blah blah. But I'd say this is a bit insulting to those of us who chose carefully in AoK and created playthroughs where the North is better prepared for a Nilfgaardian invasion and has a chance of surviving without changing too drastically. In AoK, the North had several stabilizing factors: John Natalis, Anais, (Sane) Radovid, Henselt, Prince Stennis, even Saskia. But in TW3, guided by the writers' pens, in comes Radovid on a flaming Eagle, knocking every single other Northern Realms chess piece off the board save himself. The mentioned characters are vaguely referenced or disregarded in TW3, except for Henselt, who we find out mysteriously died (prob from syphilis).

What I'm getting at, is it would have been nice to have more than these three choices. Would have been nice if, based on our AoK decisions, we could have a better outcome for the North, but perhaps at the cost of something else, like even poorer conditions for non-humans.

 

[BladeRunnerBlues]

One of my few, but important criticisms of the game encompasses this. Choices were done much better in TW2, IMO. In this game, many of the major choices are no-brainers
[...]
What I'm getting at, is it would have been nice to have more than these three choices. Would have been nice if, based on our AoK decisions, we could have a better outcome for the North, but perhaps at the cost of something else, like even poorer conditions for non-humans.

Your post is hands-down one of the best comprehensive summaries of the game's disappointing treatment of politics and the choices/consequences related to it that I've read so far. Kudos!

 

[ConnivingEagle]

Your post is hands-down one of the best comprehensive summaries of the game's disappointing treatment of politics and the choices/consequences related to it that I've read so far. Kudos!

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I just wanted to convey what I think most of us who played the second game at the least felt at the way our past choices were handled and the shift in focus from politics to the Wild Hunt, interjecting my own humor and sarcasm where appropriate of course

I find the whole "This game is about Ciri and the Wild Hunt, not politics" argument I've seen some people make a lazy one. And this game is anything but lazy. A lot of it could've been amended through more codex entries or a few extra lines of dialogue, answering important questions like "What about Saskia?" "Who gave Henselt syphillis? Was it Whistling Wendy or Sabrina Glevissig?" "How long has Radovid been playing chess with Kevin Spacey to become this so called 'tactical genius'?"

Overall, I don't think it really detracts from this brilliant game. It's more one of those "But what abou- Oh, okay..." moments. We'd love to see it fixed though, maybe through DLC, or just a patch that brings new codex entries or a few new lines of dialogue. #FingersCrossed

P.S. A free cookie for anyone who gets that last reference.

 

[BladeRunnerBlues]

I find the whole "This game is about Ciri and the Wild Hunt, not politics" argument I've seen some people make a lazy one. And this game is anything but lazy. A lot of it could've been amended through more codex entries or a few extra lines of dialogue, answering important questions like "What about Saskia?" "Who gave Henselt syphillis? Was it Whistling Wendy or Sabrina Glevissig?"

I think that argument is quite shaky considering how underdeveloped the Wild Hunt itself is in the game. And beyond that, as you've mentioned, a more personal story isn't antithetical to the complexity that The Witcher 2 demonstrated. It's simply a matter of developing a proper backdrop for the story or taking the easy way out.

With those 6 million units sold, it would be really nice if we got some improvements on these aspects of the game in the future.

 

[ConnivingEagle]

I think that argument is quite shaky considering how underdeveloped the Wild Hunt itself is in the game. And beyond that, as you've mentioned, a more personal story isn't antithetical to the complexity that The Witcher 2 demonstrated. It's simply a matter of developing a proper backdrop for the story or taking the easy way out.

With those 6 million units sold, it would be really nice if we got some improvements on these aspects of the game in the future.

Well yeah, of course, you're supposed to read the books for that, silly. < Another weak argument right there. Eredin has 12 lines of dialogue, Caranthir and Imlerith even less. One of my other disappoints was that I thought we'd be encountering, exploring, and fighting them more in the game. Instead, you only do this a little in the beginning and at the end. And a lot of that is as Ciri who cuts through em' like butter. You shouldn't be fighting them at every corner, but you would think that they'd make attempts at stopping Geralt, knowing that he's also looking for her, and has a decent chance to find her. I think Lofoten would've been a good time to run into them again. Sadly, Eredin and his Harley Riders seem more like a gang of brutish thugs who use slick smoke and fog special effects and pimped-out armor.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

no, you were supposed to hate the wild hunt, for they are the bad guys, they want to take ciri :cirisad:

 

[ConnivingEagle]

no, you were supposed to hate the wild hunt, for they are the bad guys, they want to take ciri :cirisad:

So did Nilfgaard, and the Lodge, technically.