Why do so many prefer Temeria over Nilfgaard?

+
honestly the game structure is built so that it's much easier to favor nilfgaard than temeria/northern kingdoms.

the Emperor is depicted as a hard, but ultimately sane and actually quite fair man whom makes a LOT of allowances for Geralt (note if you get the witcher ending, he doesn't throw your arse in jail even if you go out of your way to insult him). that's already better than Anarietta.

Radovid on the other hand throws you to the wolves. same thing with Dijkstra.

from Geralt's standpoint, if his adopted daughter is going to become Empress anyway, better her in power than either crazy Radovid or Dijkstra honestly, and the prospect of massive continued bloodshed from the North all the way to Skellige.

from a power perspective, it's pretty clear that the Northern Kingdoms is only holding on by the skin of its teeth because Radovid is a military genius. IE if the Third Northern War ended in a defeat for Nilfgaard anyways, it's pretty clear it's just a temporary setback like the previous one.
 
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.

North Korea is a disciplined state with a large (conscripted) army, where crime is minimal because of harsh sentencing; Would you like to be invaded by them?
 
For me it isn't just about Temeria but the Northern Realms in general . From playing the three games and reading the books you spend a lot of time in the North . I feel it is as an affront to work and relationships you foster through this journey to see Nilfgaard trash the little bit of hope you bring the inhabitants . You get to see a little of the potential the North has from seeing Novigrad and Oxenfert . The constant warring whether from Nilfgaard or the Northern kings has left most of the rural populous in dire straights . It is the time spent with the down trodden of the North that make me resist Nilfgaard especially when you see what a little hope can do for the populous using Saskia as an example . In general the fighting needs to stop I choose siding with the North because of the potential ehich would be better than Nilfgaard rule .
 
Start a new game, then go into White Orchard, and read the first two notices on the Notice Board.

Could you ever imagine a Northern king writing that?

There was also something in the books that caught my attention; the Nilfgaardians always offer city leaders a chance to surrender. If they take it, they pass through the city, and don't touch a hair on their backs. If they don't take it, they kill all who oppose them. All kings and emperors would do the latter, but how many would do the former? Only Nilfgaard.

By the way, that quote was either in Time of Contempt, or Baptism of Fire, for those who are curious. Dandelion tells Geralt about it while Geralt is healing.
 
There was also something in the books that caught my attention; the Nilfgaardians always offer city leaders a chance to surrender. If they take it, they pass through the city, and don't touch a hair on their backs. If they don't take it, they kill all who oppose them. All kings and emperors would do the latter, but how many would do the former? Only Nilfgaard.

You are forgetting one important thing.

Soon later, Emhyr gets tired of the "nice way" and resolve to "send a message" to the North. - The Nilfgaardian army should attack every city and village; kill every single person they see and burn every building and house they found - no talk, deals or making the mistake to letting someone escape the massacre.

Only rape would be out of question, because "there was no time to lose with such thing". Anything else, would be a show on what the North should expect if a single nation keep fighting. They would conquer a land of ashes if need be.

About Dandelion, he also says on "Sword of Destiny", how Nilfgaard is different from any other nation at war. They don't let people live, don't keep the houses... they just march and make sure everything left behind is destroyed. That is how they conquered Cintra the first time, and how they made so many peoples fear them.

Plus, Sapkowski himself already compared them with the Nazis, and admitted the inspiration while writing them. Mostly, with their "superiority complex" while attacking other nations.
 
Last edited:
The point is (as many others player have said before) that TW3 doesn't treat Nilfgaard as the books or the previous games. In the books, Nilfgaard was the threat that unified most of the North under one banner. This threat was an empire which allows slavery and has an obsession with order. The will of the emperor is like the will of a god and there is literally nothing which could to stop him. Also, they don't have mercy with their enemies and they feel like a superior race comparing themselves with the nordlings. There are good things like the stability within the empire and that non-human races are respected but that's all.

On the other hand, there are the Northern Realms. They main problems are racism and that they are a complete chaos in many ways but they have something which made them special: some kind of freedom. Slavery has been forbidden. Mages were a real power who could confront the kings and the people have much more freedom in their daily lives. If I had to make a comparison, Nilfgaard for me is like the Roman Empire with something of the Nazi Regime and the Northern Realms were like Europe in the final years of the Middle Ages.

IMHO, this was the political landscape of the books and of TW1 and TW2. Why this changed so suddenly? I think that is the same reason that affect so many aspects of this game. TW3 was clearly designed for new players. It had to be understandable for people who only had heard of The Witcher Saga mainly because TW2. And politics is much more easy to understand if there are only 2 sides and one of them is a little bit better that the other one. Also, if you have in mind that one of the main characters could be the leader of one of these two factions, it would be better if this faction are the good ones. IMO, that explains why Nilfgaard has been whitewashed and now there is only one northern realm on the other side (killing the beauty of the other 4 realms which made the northern politics so interesting). Obviously, in order to do this, you have to change a lot and that's why everything feels so rushed and weird in TW3 story (at least in which refers to politics)

Why so many prefer Temeria over Nilfgaard? I think it is because everyone who has read the books and has played the other two games feels much more attached to Temeria and the Northern Realms because they used to be the good side. And they were the place where Geralt lived the majority of his adventures. Also the "freedom" of these kindgoms made them complicate, unique and far more interesting to understand versus the Nilfgardian Empire and it's black order. IMO, most of Nilgardian supporters (not all of course) are those who knows The Witcher Saga only by playing TW3
 
Last edited:
It boggles the mind what they did with Radovid. He's insane, but apparently a military genius commander, lulz.

Nilfgaard all the way.

My headcanon is that Radovid suffers fits and he's competent 90% of the time. Basically, my headcanon is he's this guy.

 
My headcanon is that Radovid suffers fits and he's competent 90% of the time. Basically, my headcanon is he's this guy.

I think the simplest explanation to Radovid's madness is that it may be the result of paranoia related to Philippa (who abused him when he was a child, and is also said to be responsible for the assassination of his father), which extended to all magic users, and then all "freaks". When he learned at the end of the second game that Philippa and the Lodge of Sorceresses conspired to assassinate the kings of the Northern Realms (including him), that - even though not actually true - was probably the final straw. He was also still very young with a not very well developed personality, even if this is not apparent from how he looks like in the games. But again, "madness" does not necessarily imply stupidity.
 
goodmongo,



Dijkstra orders Geralt's death if Geralt tells him that he can't kill Roche and Ves.

Radovid orders Geralt's death because Geralt "is too arrogant and smug".

Well if you disobey the Emperor he says he'll kill you next time you meet. So basically you claim they throw you to the wolves when you side against them. Isn't that a Duh response then? Dijkstra has no issues with you if you side with him. Honestly you are applying a double standard here.
 
Last edited:
Well if you disobey the Emperor he says he'll kill you next time you meet.

The only reason why Emhyr doesn't kill Geralt (and he even say that), is because of Ciri. He knows that Ciri loves Geralt, and that the girl is his only escape from death at Nilfgaard. If he hurts Geralt and/or Yennefer, she would never listen or trust on him again. For Ehmyr, is better to get Ciri's mother/Yen to his side and try to destroy the image of Geralt, as if he's selling her if possible.

But look close, and you see all his manipulations to "look good" while sacrifices Ciri, to stay safe.
 
Last edited:
Eh, simple doesn't explain why Radovid acts like a paranoid schizophrenic in a Bedlam house when you meet with him.
 
Top Bottom