Why "Ciri Witcher" is not a good ending in my view (spoilers)

+
Ay, Gwent offers quite a. . . flexible perspective on some of the characters' positions within the lore, often resulting in rather unorthodox combinations. I'd say it's a wee bit perilous to infer too much from the cards.
 
Actually I don't think that this could be more explicitly clear if you just join the pieces instead of ignore them. We have a line in the own game talking about that, we have a cardgame set in the same universe, we have the books where the orignal lore comes from and all. But that's okay, you're free to think whatever you want. Like for example, all Nilfgaard leader cards are all of emperors of Nilfgaard but for you, Voorhis is the only exception, right?

But that's okay, can't force you think anything. Although I must say that's quite nice headcanon of yours where Voorhis is the emperor only in the books when the own Gwent itself described him with all the characteristics a "emperor" has which is already more than enough proof to contradict what you are saying. Also, Elder Unseen is some kind of leader figure and Wild Hunter is not the only type of "monsters" that exist, you see. Gwent is army simulator game with proper leaders figures leading their soldiers (so what would be the leader figure of an empire?), but if you have problems accepting this, sorry but can't do much.

One more thing, this may be a surprse but the ending is nothing more than a mere epilogue to describe an vague image of the future choosen, it's kind of obvious that there will not be proper details of this future because you know, there's already other ways to show this (like in the middle of the own game where you can ignore the line talking about that or some cardgame set in the same universe) explain everything explicitly is not the only way to explain things but is indeed a very tedious one. But like I said, the only people who don't see are the ones who just don't want see ;)
 
As Riven said Gwint is just a flexible way for CDPR to show some stuff from the books, too, which were not possible to show in the game. The WIld Hunter are explained as monsters like gouls, but the are just Aen Elle. This is the same as calling dwarves monsters. Gwint is just a card game for CDPR and don't complete or expnad the game canon.
Plus you have on Nilfgaard side 3 emperors at the same time, this is also not real possible. Just a very nice card game, this is possible to use more characters of the witcherverse.

And yepp the end is not a cut off end and after this the world ends, but we have to use what the game explicit give us for the end, and agai there is never said that Morvran become the emperor. Never. I know he said he could be when he marry Ciri but this is the only thing that happens. What we get explicitly is, that in one ending the oposition wins over Nilfgaard and in another end Ciri is the ruler. Nothing about Morvran, this is a simple truth of facts.
 
Last edited:
You see, I believe somethings are not even worthy to explain, like the facts that the Nilfgaard leader cards are the governing line in successive order of time, that despite the fact that the Aen Alle are not actual monsters the fact that they actually want to be seen as spectral monsters makes it strange that people don't see them that way, that Gwent actually explained a bit more of Gauter O'Dim throught the description of his card and avatar and that in the new Gwent trailer showed that Gerald preferred to stand by the Northern Kingdoms and fight against Nilfgaard and not the other way around. But again, that's all hints, right? Nothing was actually explicitly explained, right? So people have all the right to ignore all those hints and believe whatever their heads want, right?

In that case what can I do? Fine then, if you want to ignore all hints so much. Ignore them and trust in your headcanon then. Although I prefer much more trust in the facts that I have seen instead. So until CD Projekt Red confirms the opposite, all things lead to believe that if Ciri becames empress she will marry with Morvran Voorhis (that will rule) because that's the wish of imperial court (that believe it or not, it's not small matter at all in the empire), followed by Jan Calveit as emperor, suggesting a not so very pleasing destination to Ciri's bloodline.

Like or not, those are the facts implied by CD Projeket so far, but again you're free to ignore all them and trust in your headcanon as much as you want.
 
You see, I believe somethings are not even worthy to explain, like the facts that the Nilfgaard leader cards are the governing line in successive order of time, that despite the fact that the Aen Alle are not actual monsters the fact that they actually want to be seen as spectral monsters makes it strange that people don't see them that way, that Gwent actually explained a bit more of Gauter O'Dim throught the description of his card and avatar and that in the new Gwent trailer showed that Gerald preferred to stand by the Northern Kingdoms and fight against Nilfgaard and not the other way around. But again, that's all hints, right? Nothing was actually explicitly explained, right? So people have all the right to ignore all those hints and believe whatever their heads want, right?

In that case what can I do? Fine then, if you want to ignore all hints so much. Ignore them and trust in your headcanon then. Although I prefer much more trust in the facts that I have seen instead. So until CD Projekt Red confirms the opposite, all things lead to believe that if Ciri becames empress she will marry with Morvran Voorhis (that will rule) because that's the wish of imperial court (that believe it or not, it's not small matter at all in the empire), followed by Jan Calveit as emperor, suggesting a not so very pleasing destination to Ciri's bloodline.

Like or not, those are the facts implied by CD Projeket so far, but again you're free to ignore all them and trust in your headcanon as much as you want.

Not denying that there is evidence for what you're saying, but I'm not sure why you believe it's so overwhelming. I believe that your argument puts too much emphasis on "potential". Kind of like the key flaw with numerology: as long as I continue doing math, I can eventually make a combination of factors mean anything I want. I just stop doing the math at the point I'm satisfied and call it a conclusion. The only problem is, if someone else takes up the formula and continues working on it, we have a mess of numbers that no longer line up anymore...until they eventually line up a whole new way later on. Magic... But it's not -- it's inevitable. The value of numbers are infinite, but the numbers themselves are a regularly repeating system. They'll always line up eventually. In the same sense, it's a fallacy of reasoning to try to make an argument about "canon" based upon a choose-your-own-adventure story.

Ciri marrying Voorhis makes a definite sense. Voorhis securing the throne by outmaneuvering Ciri politically makes sense. Ciri deciding she doesn't really give a muffin and warping off to some other dimension makes sense. Selected hints and clues arranged a certain way cannot refute counter-evidence. Only the future eventuality actually occurring can do that.

I'll go primarily on one thing CDPR said: that Geralt's story is done. And I agree. It was a wonderful place to resolve the narrative. I think moving the story forward in any capacity would be a creative mistake. I think it would leave many players feeling as if the first three games were invalidated. It would suffer the same overplayed thing that happened to Halo after Halo 3. Halo 3 was a beautiful resolution. They should have left it alone.
 
As you said "implied" and "until they confirm the opposite". You proof my point: Nothing of this is explictly said.
With the same thoughts you can say Ciri will become a real witcher by doing the trial of grasses after the end of TW3, because until CDPR don't say the opposite it will happen.
Filippa will be at the side of the empress and will controll her like she did before, because it is iimplied in the story arc with the sun stone.

Those are no facts, just ideas. Like fanfiction. Believing that Morvan will be defenitly the emperor is pure fanfiction untill CDPR will say domething different. And same counts for the other way around.
Hints, implies etc. are no facts and never will be facts untill the developer will say it's true. pretty simple :)

And Gwint is just a game which allows CDPR to show more of the Witcher lore. It's like the simple fact that no one really knows how Ciri looked like but she has a card in the game. It is some kind of meta space in the game. And it doesn't show the real world. So you are right, all just hints and nothing is explicitly explained.
 
How Ciri empress is a good ending? Since when caring about people is enough for you to be a good ruler? Its like saying dandelion can be a good ruler ...

A good ruler need to be:
- Cool and calm, even a little bit cold blood ( but know the boundaries )
- Experience
- Good with politic, planning, economy, military..etc..

Look at witcher world, most famous leader is very cool, calm, can be cold blood. Emhyr, Radovid, Djkstra. All of them, not only process mentality of a ruler, they are also good at skills that fit rulers: politic, planning, economy, military..etc..

Meanwhile Ciri is:
- Is very hot tempered
- Care way too much for others ( which can be bad for a ruler in grand scheme )
- Know nothing about politic, planning, economy, military..etc..

Of course she can learn, like many have said. But geralt, yen, triss, dandelion, can also learn to be a ruler. That doesnt mean they show great quality to be a leader. Unless you want to bet entire citizen future on Ciri ability to learn to be a good ruler...
 
How Ciri empress is a good ending? Since when caring about people is enough for you to be a good ruler? Its like saying dandelion can be a good ruler ...

Rulers very, very rarely rule alone. And Nilfgaard has an entire web of offices and titles that serve as delegation.

Check the farmer-made-commander in White Orchard during the prologue. As much as I don't like Gwynleve very much in the end, it's extremely hard to fault him. He's responsible for both occupying an enemy town, securing it against an active rebellion, readying it for formal attack from any remaining Temerian forces, protecting and providing for its people while ensuring they become productive members of the Nilfgaardian empire, and generally keeping the peace. (There's also this royal bloody griffin stalking the countryside...) Do they choose some high-born, noble fop to rule from a cushy manor house somewhere? Nope -- they assign some nobody that used to be a farmer because they know he has what it takes to get the job done. And the soldiers under him, regardless of their own "social class" know enough to respect his office and his decisions.

That's indicative of Nilfgaard's relatively advanced system of ensuring the proper people are holding the positions. It comes from very ingrained cultural understanding, and it would be impossible for Ciri, even as empress, to subvert that to any degree. Nilfgaard wouldn't have it. So, if she makes poor decisions or doesn't seem to recognize important considerations, there would likely be 20 people around her constantly to do her job for her.

She's been chosen primarily to continue the dynasty. As long as she has a child that carries the var Emreis name, it solves a lot of problems with any form of power void or political infighting once Emhyr kicks the bucket. She'd be appointed as a puppet ruler to hold the name, primarily.

Plus, Ciri isn't all altruism. She's also been a brigand, murderer, and rapist. She's been taken advantage of and tortured. The fact she can literally bend space and time to her will and cross freely in and out of one reality and another might come in handy, too. And she's always been ambitious, driven, and a pretty fast learner. I think she'd do just fine.

(Although, I will say, as far as her overall arc in the game goes, along with the prophecy, I think the most "canon" ending is: )

Geralt tells Emyhr Ciri dies.
Ciri meets Geralt in disguise in White Orchard, and the two share the road.
Geralt retires with Yen.
Nilfgaard eventually conquers the north, but cede it when guerilla attacks make it impossible to hold.
Djikstra eventually rises to power.
The Bloody Baron saves Anna and lives in peace.
Cerys brings Skellige to new peace and prosperity.

And I have NEVER been able to get this ending in 5 playthroughs. :think: I always manage to botch something up after having Radovid assassinated.
 
Rulers very, very rarely rule alone. And Nilfgaard has an entire web of offices and titles that serve as delegation.

Check the farmer-made-commander in White Orchard during the prologue. As much as I don't like Gwynleve very much in the end, it's extremely hard to fault him. He's responsible for both occupying an enemy town, securing it against an active rebellion, readying it for formal attack from any remaining Temerian forces, protecting and providing for its people while ensuring they become productive members of the Nilfgaardian empire, and generally keeping the peace. (There's also this royal bloody griffin stalking the countryside...) Do they choose some high-born, noble fop to rule from a cushy manor house somewhere? Nope -- they assign some nobody that used to be a farmer because they know he has what it takes to get the job done. And the soldiers under him, regardless of their own "social class" know enough to respect his office and his decisions.

That's indicative of Nilfgaard's relatively advanced system of ensuring the proper people are holding the positions. It comes from very ingrained cultural understanding, and it would be impossible for Ciri, even as empress, to subvert that to any degree. Nilfgaard wouldn't have it. So, if she makes poor decisions or doesn't seem to recognize important considerations, there would likely be 20 people around her constantly to do her job for her.

She's been chosen primarily to continue the dynasty. As long as she has a child that carries the var Emreis name, it solves a lot of problems with any form of power void or political infighting once Emhyr kicks the bucket. She'd be appointed as a puppet ruler to hold the name, primarily.

Plus, Ciri isn't all altruism. She's also been a brigand, murderer, and rapist. She's been taken advantage of and tortured. The fact she can literally bend space and time to her will and cross freely in and out of one reality and another might come in handy, too. And she's always been ambitious, driven, and a pretty fast learner. I think she'd do just fine.

(Although, I will say, as far as her overall arc in the game goes, along with the prophecy, I think the most "canon" ending is: )

Geralt tells Emyhr Ciri dies.
Ciri meets Geralt in disguise in White Orchard, and the two share the road.
Geralt retires with Yen.
Nilfgaard eventually conquers the north, but cede it when guerilla attacks make it impossible to hold.
Djikstra eventually rises to power.
The Bloody Baron saves Anna and lives in peace.
Cerys brings Skellige to new peace and prosperity.

And I have NEVER been able to get this ending in 5 playthroughs. :think: I always manage to botch something up after having Radovid assassinated.

Good deduction and you have a point but I dont know. In order for me to give up Ciri's freedom and dream, it has to be something great, like she is actually capable of bringing the brightest future to citizens. Puppet ruler or listen to others 20 people does not sound worthy. I mean maybe even one or some of those 20 can take advantage of Ciri inability and corrupt the country or something. I guess we can go on and on with the deduction.

What I do know is that, from what is presented in the game, Djikstra is superior comparing to Ciri in term of leadership.
- Great military skill. He beats Emhyr if we let him live.
- Experience in politic, planing, evil plans.
- Cold blood but know boundaries.

Like I remember the battle in Kaer Morhen, Ciri was told to stay inside but she still went out to save people. it is very heroic of her and a quality of a hero, but not a quality of a ruler. Imagine a battle between millions and your ruler die just to save one comrade, that would demoralize the whole army and lead to the death of many.

I am not saying Djkstra is the best ever, but between Djikstra, Radovid, Ciri, I believe Djkstra would be the best for citizen. I am saying that, from what presented in the game, Ciri seems to have quality to be a great hero, not a great ruler.

Now you put a very good point about royal blood and carry the child "var Emreis" and maybe she can do "fine". But why do only do just "fine" and sacrifice your dream and freedom when you can have both: be witcher and let the more capable ruler rules.

Thats why I believe, of course everyone can get their own ending, but when it comes to which is consider the "best" ending, it has to be the witcher ending, for both Ciri and the citizen.

Your most "canon" ending is almost as similar as mine. Except in mine, Baron necks himself...
 
Last edited:
Good deduction and you have a point but I dont know. In order for me to give up Ciri's freedom and dream, it has to be something great, like she is actually capable of bringing the brightest future to citizens. Puppet ruler or listen to others 20 people does not sound worthy. I mean maybe even one or some of those 20 can take advantage of Ciri inability and corrupt the country or something. I guess we can go on and on with the deduction.

And that's what an open-ended RPG is all about, in the end! :D

But I'll also point out that a "happy ending" is very far from the general energy of The Witcher universe. I would even go so far as to argue that it has no place in the story. If I were to go to great, great lengths and try to create "the most canon ending possible" (in terms of both the books and the games), I would say that Ciri should leave to confront the White Frost...and no one ever learns what ultimately happened. The rest of those who knew Ciri will live on realizing that if she failed, the White Frost will eventually consume them. If she succeeded, the only way the world will know is if the White Frost never reaches them. When that will be finally realized...no one can possible know.

In the centuries that follow, tales and legends spring up all over about her. That she was killed by the Frost...that she eventually became the Empress of Nilfgaard...that she travels space and time to this day, everywhere and nowhere...that she never even really existed.

So...nothing truly changes. The people of the world continue on much as they always have "...in darkness and in doubt."


I am not saying Djkstra is the best ever, but between Djikstra, Radovid, Ciri, I believe Djkstra would be the best for citizen. I am saying that, from what presented in the game, Ciri seems to have quality to be a great hero, not a great ruler.

Agree completely. Plus, Djikstra strikes almost the perfect balance no matter where he is. Granted, I think the north would be a largely lawless place with him running things (lots of ugly stuff would happen and just be shoveled under the rug), but I think people would have more of a chance to just live and let live under Djikstra.

And yeah, definitely -- Ciri is no ruler, nor does she want to be a ruler. She's happiest doing exactly what she does, I'd say.


Now you put a very good point about royal blood and carry the child "var Emreis" and maybe she can do "fine". But why do only do just "fine" and sacrifice your dream and freedom when you can have both: be witcher and let the more capable ruler rules.

And again, she wouldn't. She would sit on the throne, wear elegant dresses, host ambassadors from other countries, etc. The decisions would be made by people that truly knew what was best, and the greater military might would ensure that people stayed loyal to the var Emreis throne. (Whoever happens to be seated on it.)

Of course, there would still be political in-fighting and threats from the outside, etc. (When is there ever not?) But Ciri would be part of the theatrics. A face to recognize, probably one many people would honestly come to love, and that's it. I'd say the biggest threat to the Empire that Emhyr faces is dying with no heir. THAT would send Nilfgaard into chaos, simply because there are probably several heirs-apparent in that situation that would all be (justifiably) stepping forward to claim leadership. At best, that would leave a fractured empire that dissolved into independent kingdoms / nations to keep the peace (for a while); at worst, it would instantly dissolve into a massive civil war. But having the empire he built secured by his daughter and her child, that's worth more than gold -- even if the new emperor / empress is a complete, flaming idiot. (Idiots are easy to manipulate and control; no real threat there.)

Ciri, I think, would wind up being great. She's no one's fool, and she generally cares for people and wants to do what's right. I imagine she'd probably spend most of her time letting the governers govern while personally terrorizing the greatest threats to the peace. (Sort of like a medieval Batman...:p)
 
Top Bottom