Why do so many prefer Temeria over Nilfgaard?

+
Nilfgaard doesn't care about suppressing the cultures of the lands it conquers. It only cares about suppressing dissent. Nilfgaard values order and power, and pretty much only those two things.

So,why doens't Emyr apply this behavior with "Nothen Kingdoms?... let me see.... Oh yes, Toussaint is a wealth and productive country who has no problem to "hire" its freedom, why destroy a kingdom if it's itself is a chicken of golden eggs? And Blathanna? Francesca sold their freedom for a piece of land..... and their Scoai'tels too,....

No, Nilfgaard doen'st preserve or respect people who cannot pay for it So, no.If you respect people freedom you first doesn't invad their farms nor attack them.
 
So,why doens't Emyr apply this behavior with "Nothen Kingdoms?... let me see.... Oh yes, Toussaint is a wealth and productive country who has no problem to "hire" its freedom, why destroy a kingdom if it's itself is a chicken of golden eggs? And Blathanna? Francesca sold their freedom for a piece of land..... and their Scoai'tels too,....

No, Nilfgaard doen'st preserve or respect people who cannot pay for it So, no.If you respect people freedom you first doesn't invad their farms nor attack them.

Well, yes, that is how being part of any country/empire works. It's called taxes. If you want to be a part of the country, be protected by the government, and have any rights, you have to pay taxes. Not just the people, but the regional governments and corporations, too, in most places. I'm sure that Toussaint pays no more or less than the other provinces. So, not only do those two examples still hold up, but the others that I used, too.

Order and power. Still fits. :p
 
Do any of you remember this guy from White Orchard?


He had a farmer flogged for him delivering spoilt grain, the bastard.

Sure, at first he was all chummy and lenient but look how that went.

So, point made. Side chosen. ^_^

However, and if I remember correctly, different things happen depending on your own choices and take on Nilfgaard in conversations. If you are chummy and agree that Nilfgaard bring order he doesn't flog the farmer. See Nilfgaard as an enemy and harsh oppressors, they prove indeed that they are just that.

This is why I love CDPR. Tailoring your experience like that. Hey devs, have I ever said that I love you??! :heart: ^_^
 
Last edited:
imagine you live free, poor but free, and then a foreign army comes and kills you and your family or enslaves everyone just because they think they have the right to do so or they feel like it (they don't have the right)
one does not have the right to kill or enslave other innocent people just for beeing bigger or stronger, or because the other is considered "primitive"
 
However, and if I remember correctly, different things happen depending on your own choices and take on Nilfgaard in conversations. If you are chummy and agree that Nilfgaard bring order he doesn't flog the farmer. See Nilfgaard as an enemy and harsh oppressors, they prove indeed that they are just that.

In my playthroughs, he was always flogged regardless of the choices made. I do not think I called Nilfgaard enemy or oppressors in the dialogues.
 
The fact they left out slavery from Nilfgaard seems designed to make it look artificially viable.

Like, "Oh, we wouldn't Ciri to be Empress if she has to support slavery now would we?"

Which is Roach poo given this is supposed to be more faithful to the books.

:)
 
Slavery is mentioned at one point by a Nilfgaardian noblewoman.
[These flower beds... They call this the royal garden? Seems the horticultural arts are still in their infancy in the North.]
— [The Emperor will soon bring in a hundred slaves from the duchess of Vicovaro's court. They'll tidy the palace up.]
Rich Nilfgaardians buy Velen peasants for silver mining.
Additionally, at Nilfgaardian camp two soldiers talk about resettling villages in Velen with their own people.
[It would be better to drive this rabble off. Bring in our own settlers.]
— [There are plans to do just that. But first we must drive the Redanians off, away from the Pontar.]
Peasants talk about Nilfgaardians bringing disease to Temerian villages.
Ye heard about them sick Black Ones bein' sent to Temeria? Word is the pox fell on whole villages near Vizima! Then they cut up the sick while they still breathed!
Temerian refugees in Novigrad talk about being displaced from their villages by Nilfgaardian soldiers.
What village're you from?
— Willows. It's in Temeria, two days' road from Vizima. Nilfgaard arrived there just afore winter. Black Ones didn't do no harm, not at first... Till guerrillas attacked their garrison, that is. Then they set our hovels alight.
Why? You hadn't done nothin' to 'em!
— Nilfgaardians are strict masters. Exact punishment for every crime. Even if they can't catch the criminal.
They've these special units that do naught but travel from village to village, murderin' folk... 'Tis extermination of the Temerian nation! And the world watches and does nothin'!
Corporal punishment is mentioned a few times. There's the peasant farmer in White Orchard who gets 15 lashings with a knout (heavy multiple whip, sometimes with metal wire or hooks incorporated) for bringing rotten wheat.

After the audience, the Emperor's chamberlain mentions punishment, if Geralt doesn't bow.
Did the gentleman not understand? Did I not emphasize adequately that one must bow to the Emperor?
— Relax. Nothing happened.
To the gentleman. But I will be punished.
— How?
Please keep close and bother no one. We've had enough breaches of etiquette for one day.

However, I feel that all of this is too subtle. At no other point can I recall slavery being discussed outside of NPC chatter, nor resettling, nor culling of undesirables. All of it suggests towards whitewashing. While the North's moral shortcomings are on full display, Nilfgaard's are consistently downplayed.

In my opinion, the Northern Kingdoms and Nilfgaard balance each other out with their pros and cons. With the North you get bigotry, racism, superstition, and typical medieval slavery serfdom. With Nilfgaard you get fascism, slavery, and harsh corporal punishment. Nilfgaard may seem more advantageous in the long run, but are the short term sacrifices worth making for a potentially better future?

Personally, I prefer Nilfgaard. Their armor is stylish.
 
Last edited:
Slavery is mentioned at one point by a Nilfgaardian noblewoman.
[These flower beds... They call this the royal garden? Seems the horticultural arts are still in their infancy in the North.]
— [The Emperor will soon bring in a hundred slaves from the duchess of Vicovaro's court. They'll tidy the palace up.]
Rich Nilfgaardians buy Velen peasants for silver mining.
Additionally, at Nilfgaardian camp two soldiers talk about resettling villages in Velen with their own people.
[It would be better to drive this rabble off. Bring in our own settlers.]
— [There are plans to do just that. But first we must drive the Redanians off, away from the Pontar.]
Peasants talk about Nilfgaardians bringing disease to Temerian villages.
Ye heard about them sick Black Ones bein' sent to Temeria? Word is the pox fell on whole villages near Vizima! Then they cut up the sick while they still breathed!
Temerian refugees in Novigrad talk about being displaced from their villages by Nilfgaardian soldiers.
What village're you from?
— Willows. It's in Temeria, two days' road from Vizima. Nilfgaard arrived there just afore winter. Black Ones didn't do no harm, not at first... Till guerrillas attacked their garrison, that is. Then they set our hovels alight.
Why? You hadn't done nothin' to 'em!
— Nilfgaardians are strict masters. Exact punishment for every crime. Even if they can't catch the criminal.
They've these special units that do naught but travel from village to village, murderin' folk... 'Tis extermination of the Temerian nation! And the world watches and does nothin'!
Corporal punishment is mentioned a few times. There's the peasant farmer in White Orchard who gets 15 lashings with a knout (heavy multiple whip, sometimes with metal wire or hooks incorporated) for bringing rotten wheat.

After the audience, the Emperor's chamberlain mentions punishment, if Geralt doesn't bow.
Did the gentleman not understand? Did I not emphasize adequately that one must bow to the Emperor?
— Relax. Nothing happened.
To the gentleman. But I will be punished.
— How?
Please keep close and bother no one. We've had enough breaches of etiquette for one day.

However, I feel that all of this is too subtle. At no other point can I recall slavery being discussed outside of NPC chatter, nor resettling, nor culling of undesirables. All of it suggests towards whitewashing. While the North's moral shortcomings are on full display, Nilfgaard's are consistently downplayed.

In my opinion, the Northern Kingdoms and Nilfgaard balance each other out with their pros and cons. With the North you get bigotry, racism, superstition, and typical medieval slavery serfdom. With Nilfgaard you get fascism, slavery, and harsh corporal punishment. Nilfgaard may seem more advantageous in the long run, but are the short term sacrifices worth making for a potentially better future?

Personally, I prefer Nilfgaard. Their armor is stylish.
The fact that we only get to play in the Northern Realms is the reason why I'd say. We see how awful life can be because we're exposed to it first hand. We don't get to go to Nilfgaard so we don't really get an in-depth view of what life's like there.
 
You could also kinda consider Nilfgaard to be like the ancient roman empire. They had slaves too yet were usually treated in a rather decent way (though it depends on were a slave would be placed of course). Romans also demanded taxes payment etc. Not to mention it was considered as a rather modern nation for it's time.
 
However, I feel that all of this is too subtle. At no other point can I recall slavery being discussed outside of NPC chatter, nor resettling, nor culling of undesirables. All of it suggests towards whitewashing. While the North's moral shortcomings are on full display, Nilfgaard's are consistently downplayed.

It is not really whitewashing since the information is already there. It was just made subtle (only appearing in books/letters or chat between NPCs) because it is not directly relevant to the story, which is told as it is seen through Geralt's eyes. And the game does show you Nilfgaard's negative aspects in the areas invaded by them (White Orchard and Velen), it is just easy to forget about that after spending time in Novigrad and learning more about Radovid. :)
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Why I prefer Temeria (or any other Northern realm) over Nilfgaard? In short:

1) I always support the victims of aggression
2) Most often I root for the underdogs (though admittedly, when Emperor Hedgehog with his "impeccable" leadership skills leads Nilfgaard into the war, the underdogs are somehow always the favorites :D)
3) They are ruled by an incestuous child molester and uxoricide
4) Conquest Massacre of Cintra
5) The slavery
6) Whitewashing they received in TW3 compared to their representation in the books and TW2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my playthroughs, he was always flogged regardless of the choices made. I do not think I called Nilfgaard enemy or oppressors in the dialogues.

Then I guess I remember it wrong and Nilfgaard captain was all bastard.

Personally, I prefer Nilfgaard. Their armor is stylish.

Presenting that extensive list and then letting the matter be settled because of armour. ^_^

But I agree though, armour looks sweet, but I prefer the Impera Brigade armour with no Nilfgaardian sun present whatsoever.



EDIT: Oh, and I'd switch to this armour in a flash if I could.


 
Last edited:
Presenting that extensive list and then letting the matter be settled because of armour. ^_^

But I agree though, armour looks sweet, but I prefer the Impera Brigade armour with no Nilfgaardian sun present whatsoever.



EDIT: Oh, and I'd switch to this armour in a flash if I could. :happy:


Haha, well, I could create a list just as extensive for Redania. Yes, I based my decision on the better aesthetic. And it's not Redania. Primary colors.. :thumbdown:

I do think Nilfgaard is worse for the sake of being the aggressor, but siding with the Northern Realms means siding with Radovid or Dijkstra, and I don't like them. So there you have it. Pushed between a rock and a hard place... at least one has good fashion sense.

Have you seen the Great Sun armor? It's similar to the Impera Brigade armor but is golden instead of silver. It's my personal choice.

---------- Updated at 04:02 AM ----------

The fact that we only get to play in the Northern Realms is the reason why I'd say. We see how awful life can be because we're exposed to it first hand. We don't get to go to Nilfgaard so we don't really get an in-depth view of what life's like there.

True, but we do visit a Nilfgaardian-occupied province. (Velen) I expected a broader perspective on Nilfgaardian rulership, not necessarily how they live. Velen would've been a perfect opportunity for that.
 
I understand discontent with Nilfgaard's conquests, and that they may do some questionable things, but even so, Temeria just seems so... unrefined.

Patriotism aside, it seems like things are generally better under Nilfgaard's rule, and especially in TW3, you would think that most people outside of Skellige and Novigrad would desire anything other than their current leadership. You hear peasants complain about the war, and that Nilfgaard ruins/takes their sources of food, but their lifestyle and overall mannerisms suggest they aren't the way they are, and their situation isn't the way it is, solely because of Nilfgaard's recent advances. This isn't even discussing things like Nilfgaard's disciplined, well-suited army, strong economy, and various other factors indicative of an overall good society.

Still, people seem to like Temeria, and I was just curious if there's something I'm missing, or if it's just because of Vernon Roche.

Have you ever played the other two games?
 
Hello,
I have played the other two games and recently listened to the books. I do not think the question is not why so many like Temeria, it should be why they prefer the north.
I am not totally happy how they depicted some characters in the Witcher 3. I personally liked king Radovid, except the part about torturing a certain sorceress, in the first two games. He is young and has ambitions, and also reasonable and not driven by madness and hate against mages.
He even arranged himself with the mages in the Witcher 2, after choosing a certain end. If another end is chosen, it led to a disastrous bloodshed.
But I think Radovid and also the other northern kings had some serious trust issues with the mages. In my opinion they’re right to distrust, though I dislike the solution of Radovid with this issue
I would like to remind everyone about Thanedd, Vilgefortz and the acts of the lodge and have to add the actions of the lodge in the Witcher 2 which led to the killing of Demawend and in the long turn also Foltest. In the books it is even mentioned, that before the second war with Nilfgaard they (the Kings) used messengers instead of using thier court mages. Ok, the kings are kings and not elected rulers but they are souvereigns, and I think the mages won't accept even a democratic sovereignty. If I would be a souverign or elected sovereign I wouldn't accept their opinion to be superior to sovereignty and take steps against this way of thinking.
Mages before the Radovian campaign (Henselt and the others some joined him first) against them had a far better life in the north in comparison to living under the strict of Nilfgaard.
I think the madman Radovid and the good covering of his deeds drove many players to the decision that Nilfgaard is better, but I think this is a problem in the story and it does not count for me. They did not even give us the choice to unite the north and let Roche and Thaler live?

Also in the first two games the people tell us stories about the victory of Brenna and how they hate the Nilfgaardians, and how happy they are because of this victory. I have to accept it that Radovid is mad and the Nilfgaardians are the good ones? Invaders but they are fine because they do not kill mages and other races?
But their campaigns led to massive bloodshed and loss of countless human lives. You can say the northern Kings are also war waging against each other, but come on the only real asshole in the games and the books is Henselt, the other Rulers are quite reasonable. He is the only one (in the books and games), who again and again ( 3 times) tries to occupy parts of the upper pontar valley, may it be Aedirn or Kaedwen
But the question can’t be Kaedwenn against Nilfgaard because they never occupied Kaedwenian territory (?).
The decision that has to be in favour of the north because, if one of the four/five kingdoms is ruled by Nilgaard the other will follow which will lead to more wars and killing on behalf of the empire.
The second point about Nilfgaardians and invasions is the use of scoiatel. I don’t think the humans will always live peacefully together with the different races but using young Non-Humans in their war against the north and providing them with their support led to more hatred between the races.
They and Francesca Findabair even sold them after the second war and so, those who fought for Nilfgaard were betrayed.
I also think, that
in the comic series the Nilfgaardians attacked Vergen, which stands peaceful live of all races with each other. Another point is that Leeuwarden(a Nilfgaardian) in the book mentioned to Oesterlen Nilfgaard in all their economic strength could like Kovir and Povis just try to trade with the North and slowly make them more dependable on Nilfgaard. Kovir and Poviss became independent from Redania because of their economic success. So why we have to wage wars?
The Nilfgaardians are in my opinion ware waging people with a heartless person as their ruler. So I think if there’s a possibility to choose the side of the northern kingdom’s, people who read the book or played the first two games will prefer Temeria in any possible way to Nilfgaard, which is an aggressor.

So as a conlusion I would like to emphasize that the point of whitewashing and character development of other characters in the Witcher 3 led me to the decission against Nilfgaard. And that because I played the other games first,

Sorry for the long text.
Nemo
 
Civilization no matter how wicked is still much better than the lack of it.
Nilfgaard all the way for me.

Do any of you remember this guy from White Orchard?


He had a farmer flogged for him delivering spoilt grain, the bastard.

Sure, at first he was all chummy and lenient but look how that went.

So, point made. Side chosen.

Actually he was quite fair in my book. He said to the farmer he is a farmer himself (implying he is not going to ask for unreasonable amounts and that in Nilfgaard common people can rise on the ranks if they are skilled thus meritocracy), he asked him legitimately how much grain can be provided. They agreed on a specific amount and the farmer still gave him spoiled grain. The farmer called that on himself as the commander had to feed his troops.
 
Last edited:
Civilization no matter how wicked is still much better than the lack of it.
Nilfgaard all the way for me.

.

Congrats! But the matter for me is not civilization (slavery is civilized? :what2:)

It's not Nilfgaard or any kingdom or even any culte. It's the imposition. Idon't like the Empire of the white flame, I don't like the white rose nor the Eternal Fire.

Oh, blessed Melitele, preserve us from this kind of horrors, and make everyone of them stay at their homes without bothering thier neighbors! Allow us remain free and share our gifts instead impose them by violence to whom doesn't want them. Oh Blessed Melitele!
 
If the North had a righteous and strong leader like Foltest, sure i would have preferred a united Northern Realm under his rule. I love the medieval feel of the North. But someone like Radovid the Stern?? Come on , he is a mad man and a cruel monster. He started with the mages but the burning would go on with the non-humans later i'm sure of that.

Nilfgaard on the other hand is a really structured and disciplined empire. It will be difficult to change the northern mentality and revolts will ensue (maybe a huge rebellion under a new king in the future) but nonetheless i think is a better choice than Radovid.
 
Congrats! But the matter for me is not civilization (slavery is civilized? :what2:)

It's not Nilfgaard or any kingdom or even any culte. It's the imposition. Idon't like the Empire of the white flame, I don't like the white rose nor the Eternal Fire.

Oh, blessed Melitele, preserve us from this kind of horrors, and make everyone of them stay at their homes without bothering thier neighbors! Allow us remain free and share our gifts instead impose them by violence to whom doesn't want them. Oh Blessed Melitele!

Well that is the ideal world but we don't have the ideal option, most of the times you choose the lesser of the two evils. My choice is Nilfgaard who isn't perfect but less flawed than the Northern Realms at least for me.
 
Top Bottom