What is your favorite ending? [SPOILERS]

[shtempik]

I think that's a valid alternate interpretation of the scene but I think the intention by the developers is she's dead.

---------- Updated at 12:22 PM ----------



To be fair, I'm not sure with the Prequels why Leia was all so hot to restore the Republic. They really needed a third option. Maybe we'll get that in the new movies.

Meh I am not sure they meant for her to die in that ending... For me at least, it doesn't make much sense that the difference between life and death against the White Frost is, did she have positive experiences with Geralt or Negative ones... Sounds too much like a 5 year old fairy tale reasoning

 

[Ganen]

For me the best ending, and imo the one that will prly be "canon" for future games, is Ciri becoming Empress.
Mainly because the story being bitter sweet is more beautiful, but also because that is something that I see Ciri's character doing exactly, sacrificing a measure of her happiness for the greater good, making nilfgarde/the world a better place.

Too bad that there is no ending where she would be advised by Yennefer and protected by Geralt while at it, She can only be empress alone for some reason, and worst of all, Phillipa will be her "adviser" and who knows what schemes she has in store for Ciri.

 

[warbaby2]

Meh I am not sure they meant for her to die in that ending... For me at least, it doesn't make much sense that the difference between life and death against the White Frost is, did she have positive experiences with Geralt or Negative ones... Sounds too much like a 5 year old fairy tale reasoning

That's games for ya... giving the players the feeling they had substantial impact on the ending of a story can feel awkward at times.

While I also think that she supposedly dies... but the scene still leaves some wiggle room. I mean, who is to say that all those flashbacks meant is, she contemplates whether or not to return to Geralt and "his world" after she defeats the White Frost?

 

[Willowhugger]

Meh I am not sure they meant for her to die in that ending... For me at least, it doesn't make much sense that the difference between life and death against the White Frost is, did she have positive experiences with Geralt or Negative ones... Sounds too much like a 5 year old fairy tale reasoning

Eh, it went for me because I saw it as, "Do I have a reason to live?"

Which is kind of sad that Ciri's reason for living is her relationship with her DAD.

But then again she hasn't had much time to have girlfriends and boyfriends.

---------- Updated at 01:30 PM ----------

For me the best ending, and imo the one that will prly be "canon" for future games, is Ciri becoming Empress.
Mainly because the story being bitter sweet is more beautiful, but also because that is something that I see Ciri's character doing exactly, sacrificing a measure of her happiness for the greater good, making nilfgarde/the world a better place.

Too bad that there is no ending where she would be advised by Yennefer and protected by Geralt while at it, She can only be empress alone for some reason, and worst of all, Phillipa will be her "adviser" and who knows what schemes she has in store for Ciri.

Eh, I don't think Ciri will do necessarily worse as a Witcher than as Empress because the world of the Witcher games is different from the books. Ancient Evils and monsters are aplenty versus the Books where monsters are almost extinct.

Ciri will just be hunting bigger game than your average Witcher, like the Ladies.

Then again, I see General Voorhis as the next Emperor and he seems like an okay dude. If he and Ambassador E are the "new Nilfgaardians" then they aren't a bad lot.

 

[Ganen]

Eh, I don't think Ciri will do necessarily worse as a Witcher than as Empress because the world of the Witcher games is different from the books. Ancient Evils and monsters are aplenty versus the Books where monsters are almost extinct.

Ciri will just be hunting bigger game than your average Witcher, like the Ladies.

Then again, I see General Voorhis as the next Emperor and he seems like an okay dude. If he and Ambassador E are the "new Nilfgaardians" then they aren't a bad lot.

well Ciri as a Witcher will not be able to do much more than slaying monsters, as empress she can make half the world a better place, influencing things from a "structural" change kind of influence.
Voorhis does seem like a decent person, but he also feels too much of a bureaucrat and a politician, doubt he is set off to make changes at all.

If Ciri was to rebuild the witchers without the "rotten side" of what witchers are (referring to things like taking children against will) I would be more sympathetic to the wicther ending, but as it is I don't see what the point is, she would change nothing, be a member of an order that is soon to be extinct, and end up not being much happier than she could be being an empress.

 

[Willowhugger]

well Ciri as a Witcher will not be able to do much more than slaying monsters, as empress she can make half the world a better place, influencing things from a "structural" change kind of influence.
Voorhis does seem like a decent person, but he also feels too much of a bureaucrat and a politician, doubt he is set off to make changes at all.

Well, it depends on how much you see Nilfgaard needing to be changed. To me, it seems like an idyllic and beautiful land except for the fact that under Emhyrs they're genocidal conquerors of the world. Without him, it reverts to being a wonderfully nice place.

Or at least far better than the North.

If Ciri was to rebuild the witchers without the "rotten side" of what witchers are (referring to things like taking children against will) I would be more sympathetic to the wicther ending, but as it is I don't see what the point is, she would change nothing, be a member of an order that is soon to be extinct, and end up not being much happier than she could be being an empress.

Ciri is very clearly ecstatic about being a Witcher. That could be naivete but I doubt it. Also, the world of the games is different from the world of the books given monsters are still massively prevalent.

 

[Ortwyn]

For me the best ending, and imo the one that will prly be "canon" for future games, is Ciri becoming Empress.
Mainly because the story being bitter sweet is more beautiful, but also because that is something that I see Ciri's character doing exactly, sacrificing a measure of her happiness for the greater good, making nilfgarde/the world a better place.

Even though I love the Empress ending so much, I don't think it should become the canon for future games as the bad ending or the witcheress ending are more Sapkowski-like.

Well, it depends on how much you see Nilfgaard needing to be changed. To me, it seems like an idyllic and beautiful land except for the fact that under Emhyrs they're genocidal conquerors of the world. Without him, it reverts to being a wonderfully nice place.

Or at least far better than the North.

Have you read the books? It is quite interesting, but Emhyr is definitely not the most evil guy in Nilfgaard. Take Houvenaghel as an example. He is a corrupted and decadent bussinessman from Ebbing, a cousin of that brute Leo Bonhart. It is absolutely disgusting what happens in his city, Claremont. But he is to become even more rich and respected during the reign of Emhyr's successors, Morvran Voorhis and Jan Calveit.

Another "hate Emhyr" post? Emhyr is surrounded by arrogant and treacherous nobles, military officers and bussinessmen and you are surprised that he became so ruthless? He wouldn't survive, if he wasn't. He has many flaws, but he does whatever he thinks is the best for Nilfgaard.

Nilfgaard is better than North, because of higher standards of living and more stability. However there is still slavery, corruption, strong propaganda and so on. Genocidal conquerors? Please, tell me how humans established the Northern kingdoms and built their cities. All the human race in the witcher setting is defined as genocidal conquerors, Emhyr's Nilfgaard is not an exception. Nordlings still want to conquer Brokilon and massacre the dryads.

 

[Willowhugger]

Have you read the books? It is quite interesting, but Emhyr is definitely not the most evil guy in Nilfgaard. Take Houvenaghel as an example. He is a corrupted and decadent bussinessman from Ebbing, a cousin of that brute Leo Bonhart. It is absolutely disgusting what happens in his city, Claremont. But he is to become even more rich and respected during the reign of Emhyr's successors, Morvran Voorhis and Jan Calveit.

Another "hate Emhyr" post? Emhyr is surrounded by arrogant and treacherous nobles, military officers and bussinessmen and you are surprised that he became so ruthless? He wouldn't survive, if he wasn't. He has many flaws, but he does whatever he thinks is the best for Nilfgaard.

Nilfgaard is better than North, because of higher standards of living and more stability. However there is still slavery, corruption, strong propaganda and so on. Genocidal conquerors? Please, tell me how humans established the Northern kingdoms and built their cities.

I'm really not sure what your impression of Nilfgaard and Emhyr is.

But yes, on my end, Emhyr is the evil heart of the place and the land will improve without him.

So I'm pro Nilfgaard, anti-Emhyr which should make me Pro-Empress Ciri but I think she's better as a Witcher and Nilfgaard will be fine once Emhyr is gone.

 

[Zeroscape]

I'm still not convinced by Nilfgaard. Maybe I'm missing something but I've always gotten the impression that they just have a different set of detractors to the northern kingdoms. Sure, the south is a lot more tolerant to non-humans and is able to secure the countryside due to its excellent organization, but they have a lot of negatives much like the Roman Empire since they are so full of themselves. I can't blame them, since the only other major population groups are objectively less sophisticated and that's what they compare themselves with. Again, like Rome and some of the barbarian tribes and kingdoms.

There's always going to be bad apples, like Houvenaghel. Just the way the world works. My main issue still is that I don't really get what Ciri could feasibly hope to accomplish at the head of Nilfgaard. I can speculate and do some wishful thinking, but all of that gets pulled back down by the potential risks and that I don't know whether the political situation would allow her to make any radical or sweeping changes she feels she needs to make.

But more than that, I'm invested in seeing something good happen to Ciri and it's a pretty bitter pill to swallow given that we know she takes on the job reluctantly. She has to sacrifice her dreams of being free. We can speculate and say she will be able to find happiness, but that assurance was not made by the game and what we know of her from the game and the books tell me she's going to struggle emotionally there. Perhaps her need to be "responsible" and create a better world will push her forward no matter what, or, just as likely given the little we know, she may also crumble piece by piece.

It almost feels like she accepts all the negative things that have happened to her in the books as being unavoidable. So instead of resisting and fighting her way out she just lets it happen. That's a pretty rough thought.

 

[Willowhugger]

I tend to agree.

Ciri may be a magnificent Empress but, honestly, it's not who she is or wants to be.

I think part of the issue, really, is that a lot of player characters are projecting their own desires onto Ciri. In a large number of games like Dragon Age or so on, the option to become a King or Queen is presented as an ultimate sort of reward for the game. It's basically a job with all perks as far as people want it to be. You place Alistair on the throne of Fereldan or set up a puppet government in Orlais to make the world a better place by putting the right people in power.

And Witcher...doesn't really go that route.

The Iron Throne is full of greed and lies, to quote this particular song.

 

[Ortwyn]

I'm really not sure what your impression of Nilfgaard and Emhyr is.

But yes, on my end, Emhyr is the evil heart of the place and the land will improve without him.

So I'm pro Nilfgaard, anti-Emhyr which should make me Pro-Empress Ciri but I think she's better as a Witcher and Nilfgaard will be fine once Emhyr is gone.

In my opinion Emhyr is not as bad as you think. And Nilfgaard won't be better without him unless his successor is Ciri.

Now I will elaborate on this. I will not judge Emhyr as a person. Because he is clearly a terrible, ruthless person. I will judge him as an Emperor.

Many rulers in the witcher world are motivated only by greed or power hunger. I believe Emhyr is a bit different, he does not seek power just for being more powerful himself. He does whatever he believes is the best for Nilfgaard. He is a real patriot, who devoted all his life to his country. Reason of state is what drives him and affects his decision-making the most. What a pity he lacks empathy - that's why he behaves as he behaves.

You may disagree with his actions, but he really works hard, not for himself, but for his realm. Apparently there is no such a capable ruler in the whole witcher universe as Emhyr. Only one who is almost as competent is Dijkstra. Even their mindset is very similar.

What's the alternative? Morvran Voorhis is a decent guy. Maybe there will be no other conquest, because Emhyr did all the dirty work for him. There is basically nothing left to conquer.

But I do not think he is both willing and strong enough to really change something (end slavery, effectively fight corruption). There are many powerful factions in Nilfgaard (nobles or the Trade Corporation) who will try to manipulate him and he is not described as a mastermind.

Emhyr needs only one thing to become one of the best rulers ever. Someone who will tell him what is right, someone who can talk with him as an equal. Ciri.

 

[Willowhugger]

In my opinion Emhyr is not as bad as you think. And Nilfgaard won't be better without him unless his successor is Ciri.

Now I will elaborate on this. I will not judge Emhyr as a person. Because he is clearly a terrible, ruthless person. I will judge him as an Emperor.

Many rulers in the witcher world are motivated only by greed or power hunger. I believe Emhyr is a bit different, he does not seek power just for being more powerful himself. He does whatever he believes is the best for Nilfgaard. He is a real patriot, who devoted all his life to his country. Reason of state is what drives him and affects his decision-making the most. What a pity he lacks empathy - that's why he behaves as he behaves.

You may disagree with his actions, but he really works hard, not for himself, but for his realm. Apparently there is no such a capable ruler in the whole witcher universe as Emhyr. Only one who is almost as competent is Dijkstra. Even their mindset is very similar.

What's the alternative? Morvran Voorhis is a decent guy. Maybe there will be no other conquest, because Emhyr did all the dirty work for him. There is basically nothing left to conquer.

But I do not think he is both willing and strong enough to really change something (end slavery, effectively fight corruption). There are many powerful factions in Nilfgaard (nobles or the Trade Corporation) who will try to manipulate him and he is not described as a mastermind.

Emhyr needs only one thing to become one of the best rulers ever. Someone who will tell him what is right, someone who can talk with him as an equal. Ciri.

My perspective on Emhyr is best summarized by the fantasy novel, "The Price of Faith" by Rob J. Hayes. "There's nothing worse than men who do evil with the smug satisfaction of the righteous."

Emperor Emhyr is motivated by the good of Nilfgaard and, to an extent, the good of the world but this is actually WORSE in my opinion because that makes the lengths he's willing to go to and the depths he's willing to sink to all the more terrifying. Cintra was destroyed because Emperor Emhyr believed it was for the greater good. I won't bring up what he was willing to do to Ciri because some posters haven't read the books but his only saving grace isn't his patriotism but there was some things he WASN'T willing to do.

He's an extremely talented leader and visionary but what I think the Witcher-universe postulates is that those people aren't actually admirable in the slightest. Geralt contrasts strongly against such figures as a man of the common people and a man who doesn't believe in grand ambitions, schemes, or save-the-world plots. Geralt wants to help people and he does it on an individual level while Radovid is portrayed in propaganda as the Savior of the WorldTM. Radovid truly believes he is doing something righteous and just by ridding the world of magic and nonhumans but he's wrong.

Emhyr is, in the same boat, really because everything he does is for the good of Nilfgaard but who really benefits from that?

Nilfgaardians? Maybe.

But not even them since they're dying repeatedly in his wars to expand their ranks.

He's a complex, multifacetd figure, but so was another man in the Witcher video games.

And, in the end, perhaps Geralt's biggest mistake when dealing with Emhyrs is not remembering both his swords are for monsters.

YMMV, though, and I totally understand people with a different perspective of the man. I am glad the Nilfgaard ending is there.

 

[Ortwyn]

My perspective on Emhyr is...

And I agree with you. However you didn't convince me that Nilfgaard will be better off without Emhyr. And I will also react to this post from another thread:

I think Ciri becoming the Empress of Nilfgaard is pretty terrible, honestly, and I prefer the Witcher ending. Ciri is a woman who has been tortured by her "responsibility" and destiny her entire life and wants to live amongst the common people and live a normal life. As Empress, she will be subject to terrible intrigues, responsibility, and not be allowed to marry for love. She might have a mistress or lover on the side (or several) but it will be the worst thing that could happen to her, IMHO. Especially since her father and Phillipa Eilhart will be right by her side the entire time, both of whom are scum.

On my end, I couldn't get behind a treaty with Nilfgaard and my Geralt walked away from Roche. The idea of selling Aedirn and Lyria to the Nilfgaardians was a horrible-horrible thing as Temeria's surrender just means that next time there's a Nilfgaardian invasion, it'll be with their gold and men. Dijkstra becoming dictator of the North isn't really great but it allows the North to become a powerful enlightened monarchy as well.

Hopefully, the Northern Empire and the Southern Empire can develop peace as equals now.

Plus, it has the awesomeness of Emrhys being assassinated.

Burn in hell, you sick old bastard.

It's not a HAPPY HAPPY ending but it was very satisfying to me.

To sum it up, you think that:
1) Nilfgaard will be better off without Emhyr
2) North (Temeria and Aedirn included) will be better off under Dijkstra's rule.
3) The Northern Empire and the Southern Empire can develop peace as equals now

What would happen (my opinion):

1) Emhyr is assassinated, Morvran becomes his successor. Now he is 20 years old, inexperienced, his predecessor was deposed. He has no other choice than to become the puppet of the Nilfgaardian nobility and the Trade Corporation who manipulate him. Why this should be better than Emhyr's rule?

2) Nilfgaardians leave Temeria and Aedirn. Dijkstra does exactly what they would do - industrialization. He basically builds second Nilfgaard, backed by spies and propaganda. Temeria instead of becoming vassal state of Nilfgaard becomes merely province of Redania.

You despise Emhyr, but Dijsktra is just like him. Ruthless patriot who is willing to do everything for Redania. The only difference between him and Emhyr is that he was not born as the future Emperor. And that Emhyr does not backstab Roche and Thaler.

3) Peace? Really? There will be two empires, who hate each other (Nilfgaardians feel superior and Nordlings want revenge), both with massive propaganda. Furthermore Nilfgaard will soon have problem with overpopulation. Sooner or later there will be another war and people from Sodden, Brugge, Lyria and Rivia will suffer again. That's so cruel!

Btw nice discussion.

 

[Willowhugger]

And I agree with you. However you didn't convince me that Nilfgaard will be better off without Emhyr. And I will also react to this post from another thread:

To sum it up, you think that:
1) Nilfgaard will be better off without Emhyr
2) North (Temeria and Aedirn included) will be better off under Dijkstra's rule.
3) The Northern Empire and the Southern Empire can develop peace as equals now

What would happen (my opinion):

1) Emhyr is assassinated, Morvran becomes his successor. Now he is 20 years old, inexperienced, his predecessor was deposed. He has no other choice than to become the puppet of the Nilfgaardian nobility and the Trade Corporation who manipulate him. Why this should be better than Emhyr's rule?

2) Nilfgaardians leave Temeria and Aedirn. Dijkstra does exactly what they would do - industrialization. He basically builds second Nilfgaard, backed by spies and propaganda. Temeria instead of becoming vassal state of Nilfgaard becomes merely province of Redania.

You despise Emhyr, but Dijsktra is just like him. Ruthless patriot who is willing to do everything for Redania. The only difference between him and Emhyr is that he was not born as the future Emperor. And that Emhyr does not backstab Roche and Thaler.

3) Peace? Really? There will be two empires, who hate each other (Nilfgaardians feel superior and Nordlings want revenge), both with massive propaganda. Furthermore Nilfgaard will soon have problem with overpopulation. Sooner or later there will be another war and people from Sodden, Brugge, Lyria and Rivia will suffer again. That's so cruel!

Btw nice discussion.

My general thoughts on the subject is it depends very strongly on what each monarch intends to derive from the countries involved. Dijkstra's campaign of resettlement seems to be because he's trying to either mix up the locals or he's trying to solidify the control of Redania in the region but everything we get from him indicates he's not so much invested in the Redanian PEOPLE as Redania itself. His lengthy speech indicates that, for his many many faults, Dijkstra believes that the purpose of a nation is to benefit the people. He wishes to create a modernized economic state with Sorcerers and Nonhumans both having a place in society, which provides all of the benefits of Nilfgaard.

The big difference that Dijkstra brings to the region amongst other things is that the Nilfgaardians practice apartheid due to their belief in the Elder Blood being so terribly damn important. Dijkstra, by contrast, believes that mages, humans, nonhumans, and so on are all equal and will be able to be equal in Redania without being of a mixed Elf-Human ancestry. They also speak the same language as each other as well as practice a shared cultural set of traditions. Albeit, all indications are Dijkstra is not going to be too kind to the Eternal Fire.

Temeria is, bluntly, better off underneath Nilfgaardian rule as it's not going to be assimilated and will still have all the benefits of Nilfgaardian trade and protection. It couldn't get a better deal than this other than independence (or rulership over the region as Foltest had intended). However, everyone else BUT Temeria is going to get a better position from this. Also, Temeria wasn't exactly in a great position under Nilfgaard in certain areas as well. We've seen Nilfgaardian rule of Temeria was done with Temerians to begin with.

The Bloody Baron was their man in Velen and he was a horrible tyrant (through inaction) with his successor being worse. So there's going to be some downsides to Nilfgaard rule, even if the fact that the ending clearly implies things get better with time rather than worse.

But the big question is what does Nilfgaard/Redania want from the North? Imperialism is generally not about expansion and assimilation. People do not invade regions to make them equal citizens of society and the Nilfgaard seem very likely to exploit the regions they conquer (as we see in both White Orchard and Velen) with the aforementioned apatheid. Temeria doesn't suffer this because of their deal but other lands certainly will. Dikjstra's campaigns of resettlement seemed designed to PREVENT this, however, but we don't know who is being resettled where so I can't say for sure but am just guessing from his motive rant.

Is Nilfgaard there to make Northerners equal in their realm?
Or is it there to exploit the locals?

Are the Redanians?

Is this any worse than the local lords are currently doing? Velen, certainly, is a craphole even under "Free" Temeria with widespread starvation.

Nilfgaard is wiping out local religions according to the drunk in White Orchard, which sucks for Melethil but would be good in Velen and Novigrad.

 

[Ortwyn]

The big difference that Dijkstra brings to the region amongst other things is that the Nilfgaardians practice apartheid due to their belief in the Elder Blood being so terribly damn important. Dijkstra, by contrast, believes that mages, humans, nonhumans, and so on are all equal and will be able to be equal in Redania without being of a mixed Elf-Human ancestry. They also speak the same language as each other as well as practice a shared cultural set of traditions. Albeit, all indications are Dijkstra is not going to be too kind to the Eternal Fire.

In my opinion Nilfgaardians are not so proud and arrogant because of their Elder Blood. Most Nordlings have elven ancestors too (but if you tell them, they are offended). Nilfgaardians believe that they are better than Nordlings, because they are more civilised, wealthier and because they conquered half the world.

Temeria is, bluntly, better off underneath Nilfgaardian rule as it's not going to be assimilated and will still have all the benefits of Nilfgaardian trade and protection. It couldn't get a better deal than this other than independence (or rulership over the region as Foltest had intended). However, everyone else BUT Temeria is going to get a better position from this. Also, Temeria wasn't exactly in a great position under Nilfgaard in certain areas as well. We've seen Nilfgaardian rule of Temeria was done with Temerians to begin with.

The Bloody Baron was their man in Velen and he was a horrible tyrant (through inaction) with his successor being worse. So there's going to be some downsides to Nilfgaard rule, even if the fact that the ending clearly implies things get better with time rather than worse.

The Bloody Baron hoped he would become a real Baron. There was war, Nilfgaard had to fight guerillas and couldn't control the whole Temeria. Velen was in fact the No Man's Land, wasn't it? And after the war, Thaler and Roche took the reins.

About other countries - well, Nilfgaardians are not as bad. I assume that if Dijkstra takes over the North, all his political opponents from those countries are sent to Drakenborg.

But the big question is what does Nilfgaard/Redania want from the North? Imperialism is generally not about expansion and assimilation. People do not invade regions to make them equal citizens of society and the Nilfgaard seem very likely to exploit the regions they conquer (as we see in both White Orchard and Velen) with the aforementioned apatheid. Temeria doesn't suffer this because of their deal but other lands certainly will. Dikjstra's campaigns of resettlement seemed designed to PREVENT this, however, but we don't know who is being resettled where so I can't say for sure but am just guessing from his motive rant.

Again. Temeria fought back. Country is treated differently when local garrisons have to fight guerillas. Once Temeria/Aedirn/Kaedwen/Redania truly become Nilfgaardian provinces/vassal state, army moves on and the rule of law is restored.

 

[magnuskn]

Well, as I said, I got the Empress Ciri ending, with Emhyr conquering the North and ruthlessly wiping out everybody in Nilfgard whom he suspected of being a conspirator.

Hence, Empress Ciri will be able to continue transforming the North into a more equitable society and won't have to fear the backstabbing nobility as much as Emhyr had to. I only see upsides so far, aside from her putting aside her wish of being free and on the road for the greater good. Which makes her just even more admirable than she was before.

 

[Willowhugger]

Well, as I said, I got the Empress Ciri ending, with Emhyr conquering the North and ruthlessly wiping out everybody in Nilfgard whom he suspected of being a conspirator.

Hence, Empress Ciri will be able to continue transforming the North into a more equitable society and won't have to fear the backstabbing nobility as much as Emhyr had to. I only see upsides so far, aside from her putting aside her wish of being free and on the road for the greater good. Which makes her just even more admirable than she was before.

The problem is that Emhyr and Phillipa will attempt to mold her into the kind of ruler they want.

 

[Ortwyn]

The problem is that Emhyr and Phillipa will attempt to mold her into the kind of ruler they want.

Emhyr and Philippa? Mutually exclusive. Emhyr knows Philippa very well, he will protect his daughter. And he still dislikes mages.

Philippa will move to Kovir and have threesome with Triss and Geralt.

 

[Zeroscape]

My stance, after numerous discussions, is that I'm not convinced the potential good Ciri can do as empress will be worth the price she is paying. I see it as her relinquishing all of her own aspirations to dedicate herself to a need to prevent misery in the world, which is borne out of her traumatic experiences.

What price is too high to pay?
Will she cope as the most powerful ruler in the world given the emotional hole she would likely have?
Why push away Yen and Geralt? Strikes me as odd given the books, but maybe this choice is merely there to reinforce the "chick leaving the nest" theme. Doesn't matter, big head scratcher.

I admit, I want to see Ciri catch a break and be happy for once, but I could also accept it if she was absolutely determined that this was the correct path and there was no better way to go.

But the game doesn't reassure us on any of those points. I guess that's the point in these two "good" endings and we're meant to fill in the blanks. It's kind of hard when it feels like the game lore is being inconsistent with what's been presented in the past though. Or it's just my own fault for reading the books. /shrug

---------- Updated at 01:15 AM ----------

Philippa will move to Kovir and have threesome with Triss and Geralt.

Maybe Phil will take Cynthia with her? I think Geralt's motto when it comes to Sorceresses is: "The more the merrier."

 

[Ortwyn]

Maybe Phil will take Cynthia with her? I think Geralt's motto when it comes to Sorceresses is: "The more the merrier."

Not Cynthia, but Margarita. Margarita and Philippa chat about Geralt and his interest in sorceresses on the ship.