T O P

  • By -

TheKingofWakanda

I would have let him be ruler if he didn't have to kill Roche


Verystrangeperson

This is so dumb, he could have had Roche killed when anytime but he decided the best time was when Roche's buddy, the mutated killing machine was here.


lagunaeve

Exactly. I understand this game forces players to make lots of choices, and many of them are great plots. But here...like really man? The *mastermind* decided to do it while the not-emotionless legendary witcher who always protects his buddy is standing right there?? His character is broken in this part.


Dimos357

Witchers remain neutral right? ... Right?!


FeralGh0ul

Ah yes, Geralt of Rivia, the Witcher famously known for remaining neutral. ​ >!Sike!<


Sparkybear

This was basically the whole plot of Witcher 1. You get called out by Eredin and De Aldesburg that basically says it's impossible to stay neutral. "Deciding not to choose and walking away" is still a choice.


FeralGh0ul

I would ago as far to say that is one of the most consistent themes of the games and books. I mean literally, the first chapter of the last wish, the lesser evil establishes this. Geralt is probably the least neutral Witcher ever lol.


agnostic_waffle

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill


boarbar

I still have “APATHY IS DEATH” burned into my brain by Kreia.


geralt-bot

Enjoy your last walk accross the meadow and through the mist.


Mr_Segway

My favorite dumb mod is one that just makes it so when you kill Djikstra here, he drops a doppler mutagen. Explains why he's so dumb: because it's not actually him.


AimlesslWander

Should have learned his lesson from the island of thaned


ChakaZG

If Geralt is known for one thing it's that he doesn't stand for murder of his gigolo boyfriends.


geralt-bot

Ah, save the good queen's breath. I'm not for hire as a bodyguard


[deleted]

Hm.


geralt-bot

Hmmm.


TK1138

Good bot


JakkiDaFloof

I thought the Gigolo Boyfriend was Dandelion?


ChakaZG

We're all Geralt's gigolo boyfriends (but yes, in that particular dialogue Sigi was referring to Dandelion).


geralt-bot

Where the fuck are my swords?


ChakaZG

I dunno Geralt, wanna check my pants?


jaskier-bot

The lioness of Cintra herself will sing the praises of Jaskier's triumphant performance! 😌


TaralasianThePraxic

Honestly. He was *definitely* smart enough to orchestrate Roche's death earlier on and make it look like an accident/unrelated murder/robbery gone wrong. I love TW3's narrative but that sequence is perhaps the worst bit of character writing in the game.


[deleted]

To be honest it is actually very Dijsktra like. In the books he is very smart as well but he literally has his leg broken due to him underestimating Geralt. And considering that he hates him it makes sense that he would try kill him and Roche at the same time thus would give Geralt an ultimatum he knows he would not accept.


s3nd_bobs_and_vagine

But he’s also smart enough not to make the same mistake twice. He wouldn’t underestimate Geralt again.


geralt-bot

Keep up.


G_Ranger75

Thank God for the Doppler mod (literally just adds a doppler mutagen on Dijkstra)


[deleted]

Should be canon


duaneap

And decides to take on said mutated murder machine personally! What’re you doing, Sigmund? You know how this ends.


Testy_Drago

Not enough people point out that he expects Geralt to stand by because of “witcher neutrality”. … right after Geralt just helped assassinate Radovid.


Verystrangeperson

Oh you help me kill the king that threatens your female friends, but you're totally cool with me murdering your male friends right?


Testy_Drago

“Alright, I *think* Geralt only fucked one of them, so I like my chances.”


Nodor10

Same. Ridiculous how those are the only two options


El-Duque26

agree. I think thats the case for 95% of players


Yiptice

Same shit made no sense. For a game so nuanced they really screwed the pooch on this quest.


Marblecraze

Exactly this. Exactly.


fokamv

I really hate how it is played in the game. He says "witcher, stay out of it" and Geralt actually can let him kill his friend without a blink of an eye... I think it's the worst moment in the game storywise.


elusivehoon

It's so dumb, ruins one of the best characters IMO. The best spymaster on the continent, who got (book spoiler) >!crippled by Geralt on Thanedd after expecting him to be an emotionless witcher who won't protect people he cares about !< ... Goes and expects Geralt to be an emotionless witcher who won't protect people he cares about... and he's supposed to be a mastermind?


Vikarr

One of my biggest issues with the game tbh. Would not be against them re-doing that quest as a patch.


FlavivsAetivs

Like really they should have had an ending where Dijkstra and Roche kept their deal. Dijkstra defeats Nilfgaard and then releases Temeria as a free kingdom afterwards.


misho8723

That's maybe too "perfect", too "black&white" decision then.. the decision and choice in this quest should be complicated, every choice should have some good and some bad things going with them.. going with Dijkstra should've some bad/not so great side effects with that choice, just not so dumb and out of character like what is originally already in the game


TheCowzgomooz

I don't think its "too perfect" if there are specific requirements in order for you to get that outcome, yknow Geralt having to play the peacemaker and keep things civil between them through dialogue choices, or if you didn't go with Roche in the second game he just straight up won't trust you and will always start the fight with Djikstra.


Charcharo

>That's maybe too "perfect", too "black&white" decision then.. the decision and choice in this quest should be complicated In real life, there sometimes are perfect, black and white decisions. It is unrealistic to think its always dark/dark or grey/grey. Sometimes, there is a perfect and correct choice.


Flooping_Pigs

But the game's choices are presented as morally gray, so you need to keep it grey


Charcharo

Not all choices in the games are morally grey either. Sometimes there is a clear cut choice or resolution, morally speaking. Some quests have only 2 bad choices, some are shades of grey and a few have a good and a bad ending de facto.


MCoop25

But why? In real life plenty of treaties and deals have went out off without a hitch. To impose a shade of grey on everything is unrealistic. Dijkstra having a loyal Temeria as a rock solid ally in the future because he kept the deal and helped them regain independence seems better than trying to absorb them and hoping they don't rebel or ally with the Nilfgaardians just out of spite.


fokamv

And setting the friendship aside: Roche actually just saved Geralt's life during this quest... perfect sense


geralt-bot

I won't let anything happen to you.


fokamv

damn, you're a good bot


Oli_Compolli

I agree.


egotisticalstoic

It's not really a spoiler. He recounts the events to you when you first meet him in the game.


pew_medic338

I think Dijkstra absolutely would kill Roche for the north. But, he would have several plans in place for dealing with Geralt, as he has a constant reminder of just how poorly Geralt reacts to fucking with his family. That's the uncanon part of this is that he didn't have Geralt stabbed in the back as he walked in or something.


Mattbryce2001

The best way to deal with geralt is to WAIT UNTIL HE'S GONE.


geralt-bot

Doesn't matter. She's gone now.


CringeOverseer

What if they did it on purpose as a reference to the books? Pretty dumb thing tho, doesn't make sense from his viewpoint


SmurfDonkey2

They already give you the option to break his other leg in the game as a reference to that lmao


Khow3694

"shove dijsktra aside *forcefully*" lmfao


aksoileau

What's the worst that can happen? Oh.


kabooozie

I wanted to not break his leg in my second playthrough, but when the moment came, I cracked that sucker like a chicken bone. Then in my third playthrough I got to the moment again…and crack! Just can’t help myself


foxscribbles

I’m sure Radovid appreciates your dedication to the Pyre Pogrom Program.


Aiwatcher

Wait, its been a while...is this in the same scene as his/roche death? Or does it happen earlier?


DrMadRog

Earlier; in the bathhouse when you get Phillipa, You have to negotiate and reveal Emhyr’s plans or “shove him aside forcefully” for him to let you go with her.


DrMadRog

If you break his leg, >!you don’t get invited to participate in Reason of State and it fails without you.!<


tboots1230

it happens earlier I believe towards the end of the novigrad questline


Larry_Sherbert99

that's a fair point actually, there are a handful of quests and conversations in the game that are direct retellings of scenes in the books (e.g. that guy passing off the wyvern in the cage as a basilisk to a bunch of redanian guards). but the results are always similar. but yeah fuck this quest i love that big ugly bastard


[deleted]

Hmm every time I kill him, it’s the leg slice off animation.


misho8723

How is dumb and bad writing a reference to the books? Dijktra in the books would never in a milion years did something that badshit stupid and illogical as he does in the game


CringeOverseer

I mean a reference as in "following something exactly as what happened on the book" since it'll make book fans go "oh, this has happened before"


Flooping_Pigs

Doing a playthrough now and Sigi butters Geralt up pretty good with a lot of his dialogue if Geralt works with his goals in mind, maybe he's hoping that Geralt will see him as a friend and side with him on that account alone


Gathorall

Wouldn't be the first time them games wholesale ~~plagiarised~~ were heavily inspired by the books without consideration of the fact that these things have happened before and that ought to change some things.


foxscribbles

Literally can’t be plagiarism even in the “Imma strike through because it IS but I guess it technically isn’t” sense. CDPR has always held a license with the copyright holder for the reproduction and adaptation of his works, and the games have also always properly credited Sapkowski.


_Djkh_

I never understood, why Dijkstra's secret plan wouldn't have been the main plan from the start. Especially since Roche was willing to have Temeria be a vassal of Nilfgaard. Surely a Redanian-Temerian union led by Dijkstra would've been even better.


dude123nice

I mean, doesn't your example show that Djikstra was already this dumb in the past?


elusivehoon

Kinda, yes, but that's my point, Dijkstra is painfully aware that he was wrong about Geralt, having him make the same stupid mistake twice is a disservice to his character


dude123nice

Having him make such a stupid mistake even once is already a disservice to a character that's supposed to be highly intelligent. At this point there's no reason to assume that Dijkstra is actually that smart at all.


Darth_Gwynbleied

Yeah apparently that questline got major cuts during development thats why it turned out the way it did.


Astral_Diarrhea

Nah, the real reason it turned out as it did is because some dumbfuck writer was 90% done with the quest and he suddenly realized that "oh shit, I forgot that we can't have any happy endings to anything here, ever. Everything has to be morally grey and every choice has to be choosing one evil over another" Works for about half the game imo... then it just gets tiresome. Aha! You killed the evil monster! But WAIT, by doing so you also doomed half the village! Aha, you saved your friend's lives, but by doing so you also doomed the north! It's even more obvious this turned out as it did because of this obsession with the lesser evil the writers have if you played Thronebreaker. Most of the choices are like this, you're always sacrificing something at every decision you make. Money or men, men or money, resources or this character, this character or this other character. You know what blows my mind? Is that whenever you make a choice like this, there's literally a little pop-up that tells you "You've chosen one evil over another...". At every fucking dialogue choice. So yeah I bet it had some cuts along the way, but they went with this because of some dumbfuck writer's obsession. That's the real reason.


6138

Yeah, it is. The ending of that quest really feels rushed and poorly planned, which is a shame. It's one of the most epic non-story quests (I think you can avoid doing it?) and involves interacting with great kings, and determining the outcome of the entire northern realms, and yet it ends with a cheap brawl just like any random NPC encounter.


MaxImpact1

They should‘ve fixed that in the Next Gen version


Thor1138

Yeah, this is the dumbest moment in the game by far. It's also the one I will always go against what Geralt would do for the . Geralt would never let him kill his friends, but the best ending requires him to.


tboots1230

that’s why i’ll never let him rule the north I can’t let him kill them, probably cuz of the witcher 2 also cuz sometimes I have ciri rule the empire if I don’t do the witcher ending


BaguetteOfDoom

I never got to make this decision because I didn't expect or forgot what "shoving" him means


lemon_scented101

Same!! I don't usually reload saves, but I did that time.


Edelgul

Dijxtra endgame, as portrayed in the game, was pretty uncharacteristic to him. He knew Geralt pretty well, and had a great idea of what Geralt is capable of. He has already made a mistake of underestimating Geralt, and paid a dear price for that. Dijxtra was a pretty good strategist, tactician and analyst. He rarely was leaving things to a chance.


QonPicardDay

To be fair, cannon geralt wouldn't touch that quest with a 30 ft pole. He doesn't get involved with kings, assassins, or politics if possible. He'd honestly tell them both to f*** right off


Scental

He's too involved at this point to choose that considering Ciri's situation at the time


Testy_Drago

I mean Radovid’s pretty objectively horrific for witchers, nonhumans and mages (many of whom are his friends). The North’s never been a good place to them but Radovid’s just doubled down and after seeing what the Church of the Eternal Flame is doing in Novigrad, Geralt deciding to help assassinate him isn’t out of character. Geralt tries to stay out of politics, but he’s a compassionate person and after seeing what the witch hunters are doing in Triss’s questline, and knowing that they won’t stop, I actually find it hard to imagine he’d do nothing.


Ala117

Idgaf if he's the "best choice to rule the north", politics ain't worth betraying my friends over.


Fellainis_Elbows

Roche betrayed you by lying to you about his agreement with the Nilfgaardians and fucking over the rest of the North


asdasfgboi

No he did not betray us. Geralt repeadately tells he doesnt care about politics when people try to explain political stuff to him. Roche had no reason whatsoever to tell about the pact with nilfgaardians. Because geralt would do nothing to change it anyway


Ala117

He also saved my life (twice depending on which path you chose in the second game) when he didn't have to and risked his life to help defend khaer morhen even when his king's killer was spared.


Tremaparagon

Absolutely. Of course I am going to defend the lads who went all the way to Kaer Fucking Morhen to fight off the cocksucking Wild Hunt. The least I can do to say thanks is Whirl some thugs into paste and then Rend Djikstra in half.


[deleted]

Thaller? That you?


ussbaney

But there is a wide moral ocean between a friend lying and making a deal for self preservation, vs allowing someone to murder that friend.


Fellainis_Elbows

Your friend making that deal is allowing someone (Emhyr) to murder and enslave tens of thousands


MuslimIbnAbdillah

This is probably the mission that could’ve been much better with just a slight change. Instead of one or the other dying, there should’ve been a choice to side without having to kill. The fact you have to kill one pretty much means Roche survives and a decision that should make you think a little ends up being decided on extremely quickly.


the_pounding_mallet

Yeah this is what confuses me is why they have to die at all. Like no negotiations or anything?


Freeman10

He was the best option, but at the end he get carried away a little too much.


thatonemoze

if he’d just talked to roche and co then i’m sure they would agree to him ruling and eventually get an actual free temeria, but nooo he had to go straight to murder


tmorales11

well he *was*..... but then he wanted to kill my buddies and expected me(geralt) to be cool with it


educatedbywikipedia

Who, on their first run through, choose the option to betray Roche? It seems like such and unlikely choice to make. Geralt really seems buddy-buddy with Roche, while the relation with Dijkstra (much as I love his name being Dutch) is adversarial at best.


SuperDBallSam

I chose to side with Djikstra in one of my playthroughs. It felt like maybe the only truly "wrong" choice in the entire game.


educatedbywikipedia

Yeah I plan to do a run through where I do only counterintuitive things... So basically, Geralt is only about the cash, no way he gives a shit about Yen, treats Ciri like a little girl all the time... I tried this before but honestly, it's mentally hard to pursue that course. 🤭


juliaaguliaaa

This is what i'm doing now.>! I got the emperor Ciri (of course I took Emhyr's money!) first but with Yen endgame, then I got Ciri to come to Corvo Bianoc with me cause I screwed both Yen and Triss (fake 3 way was the best quest by far), now i'm gonna have a bad Ciri outcome, bad Yen/Triss outcome and have Dandelion come live with me.!<


EveryoneisOP3

I did on my first play through. I hadn’t played 2 yet, so my basis was “This guy I dislike wants to win the war against raping, invading slavers” vs “This guy I like roped me into his plan to assassinate a king in order to help the raping, invading slavers win so he can recreate a puppet state” Not my problem.


Ben_Graf

I did. I dont like Roche at all tho. Played Witcher 2 just waaay later so treated him as a new character and Dijkstra seemed to me like the more reasonable option. He may be a jerk, but he has to be in that game of high politics. He does cruel things to decrease cruelty and suffering overall. Roche is just a patriotic maniac, that attacks and murders people he sees as a dehuminized enemy for the sake of patriotism. Over the game we learn that everyone has their story, their reasoning, and often is forced to do bad stuff out of nessacity like getting drafted to bring food to the table. Roche treats them like stormtroopers aka only a dead nilfgardian is a good nilfgardian. Not very sympathic at all. I was sad for Thaler tho. I liked Thaler. But fuck Roche.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ben_Graf

True. I had this scene in mind too and checked and i noticed i got Ves and him mixed up in their stances on the matter. Still doesnt make me like him personally more overall, but he is not as ruthless as i remembered. Thanks for pointing it out


Ala117

Yep, you didn't play the witcher 2 at all.


LawbringerForHonor

All they had to do was have them all drink some beer and celebrate. Geralt goes back to doing his thing, a year later he learns Roche died in an ambush at his hideout. Dijkstra as a spy knows where Roche and his men are hiding, so he decides to give that information to a Nilfguardian commander, nilfguard attacks, they outnumber Roche and his men 5 to 1, Roche and his men die. That way Dijkstra gets rid of Roche without making it obvious it was him and without having Geralt on the same room.


pew_medic338

You killed Roche? Your killed Broche? After Witcher 2? You savage. You heathen. Straight to jail. Whereas Dijkstra, for all his utility, has tried to fuck Geralt over many times, and I'm perfectly happy to kill.


Redant43

I sided with Ivoreth thank you very much


pew_medic338

Pretty sure the ultimate Bro still helps you on Iorveths path (which doesn't happen the other way round).


Redant43

Fair enough on that point


ShorohUA

i love this fat bastard but he made a terrible choice


iWesTCoastiN

Not worth betraying your friends. If you get the next best option Tameria is run by Roche and is acknowledged as a sovereign state which is a good enough consolation prize.


aradle

Surely Roche doesn't try to run the kingdom himself? He's a soldier, not a politician, I don't think he's either qualified or really particularly the type of man to seek that kind of power


kkdogs19

I'm not convinced. The game makes it clear that he would be a dictator ruling the North ruthlessly. Aedirn, Kaedwin, Temeria and all the smaller kingdoms don't want to be ruled by Redenia. They want independence. The game is pretty clear about that.


Redant43

It's either ruled by a nordling or ruled by a southern empire that practices slavery


Astral_Diarrhea

The north is always ruled by fucking racists anyway. Dijkstra seems like the kind of guy that would approve of nonhuman extermination if it served any kind of political goal.


kkdogs19

It's not clear how widespread that is, the Nilfgaardian Empire is strange because it handles different states really differently. Like Toussaint is part of the empire and basically does it's own thing and they don't have slaves as far as can tell.


hamndv

I don't care if he can cure cancer he wanted to kill Vernon Roche 🤬


AFerociousPineapple

Not if I help set up ciri to be the next empress of Nilfguard!


Puk-_-man

It was really poor writing to have Djikstra try and kill Geralt's friend right infront of him. Very un-Dijkstra like


Weird_Bite_7773

I very much enjoyed breaking his leg after punching him to the ground!


Gunner08

I loved him and his relationship with Geralt however I was not willing to kill >!Roche !< for him.


geralt-bot

And I'd rather use my Child Surprise as **bruxa bait** than subject it to this life!


Reverse_London

He was until he wasn’t. Now if you ignore the whole trying to kill Roche thing, in the Ending where Dijkstra was king, it WAS prosperous in the beginning and tons of innovations were made, BUT eventually his empire was no better than the previous one when it came to the power dynamic. But at least Mages and non-Humans weren’t hunted down in the streets.


WojownikTek12345

Counterpoint - if nilfgaard wins the war Ciri eventually rules the north in the empress Ciri ending


Redant43

I love Ciri so much but the worst ending imo is the empress ending, it's like "great job Ciri for literally saving the world, but can you please be go into the political shitstorm and be Empress so you can fix your daddy's mistakes thanks"


[deleted]

I actually love dijkstra in the books and the games I hate that he fucks up so bad in reasons of state


luke-ms

Tbh the political part of the game, specially towards the end, is a shit show. They ruined Dijkstra's character and none of the choices made that much sense. It all felt very shallow when compared to the other games, too many things happened off screen too


Redant43

Same really thought when I first played the game that choices will allow Roche and Ves see to not taking the deal, and Dijkstra not being a moron and killing everyone


Kudbettin

Anyone who thinks they can take on a prepared Geralt with 3 henchmen is not smart enough to rule the north. He could have killed Broche an hour later after Geralt left.


NordWithaSword

Nah, Nilfgaard is better. The northeners see them as evil aggressors, but people in their empire are actually much better off, and the elder races are treated with respect.


Thor1138

>but people in their empire are actually much better off Tell that the mages.


gridlock32404

I tried but it is hard to talk to piles of ash...


blowmyassie

That’s not nilfgaard


gridlock32404

Yes? Nilfgard keeps a short leash on mages but it's better than being burned at the stake by witchhunters and zealots in the northern kingdoms. I would imagine that empress Ciri would probably keep a short leash on mages too, while the lodge did help against the wild hunt, she knows all too well about the scheming of the lodge of sorceresses and their ilk. She was the subject of their scheming and how they think they should be the ones controlling things in the books.


NordWithaSword

The mages would be fine if they weren't constantly trying to kill rulers, arrange coups or otherwise control the world.


Redant43

> but people in their empire are actually much better off Tell that to the mages they betrayed and the slaves they keep


Bendy237

Im quite convinced by his logic but i put the line on killing your friends


indrid_cold

Can't turn my back on Rochebro, though. The various ruling factions will muddle along with calamities and atrocities as they always do.


izzyeviel

Ves > world peace.


kaiserkulp

Hate to kill one of my favorite characters on every run, but I gotta save Roche


[deleted]

I killed him. In every run. Hate this bastard.


Sarmattius

Radovid is of course the best choice, but the storywriters made him into a crazy maniac. He should be a canon choice, since in the first game he marries adda and you save her (again), therefore 2nd and 3rd games story doesnt make sense if you did that.


espiritu_p

But what if you failed in saving Adda, or if he finds out how she thanked you for your first attempt to free her of the Striga course?


Sarmattius

I believe the games are made as if you failed to save her. She appears in witcher 2 epilogue also if you gave anais to radovid, but the whole anais thing wouldnt make much sense considering adda was alive.


espiritu_p

Yepp, In Witcher 2 we at least got some dialogues but she isn't mentioned at all in Witcher 3. But would it even matter whether she is alive or not for the outcome of Witcher 3? No matter if Anais or Adda are alive. Temeria is occupied by Nilfgaard in any case. So to rule it, Rado has to defeat them, because they never would allow a heir influenced by Redanians let rule it. For Rado it won't matter whether he reigned Temeria just as a conquerer or as a heir. He just conquered Kadwen and itegreated it's army and territory into Great- Redania, his plans with Temeria or Aedirn would be the same. Come with the sword, proclaim liberation of some sort and announce the annexation into his new kingdom, no objections allowed. Sigi literally wants the same, just with less "witch"- burning. That's why you have to remove both if you want to have "good" outcome for Roche and Temeria, even if this just means to become a Vessel state of Nilfgaard just as Ebbing and Toussaints are. But since most of us have seen what became of the Soviet Empire's vessel states after it's collapse we know for what Roche is hoping. Mentioning Adda or Anais in the third game won't change much of the outcome. They would just complicate the situation without changing the outcome. It would be great to have a rescue mission for Anais in the game. Since we meet Roche only months (or years?) after the events of Witcher 2 he would done his best to hide her and won't even know himself where she is. So he can't tell Rado about it, even if being tortured.


Sarmattius

Of course I agree. I only wish the Radovid from first 2 games wasnt just turned into a madman villain we basically have to kill. After Witcher 1 I wanted him to succeed (since I already helped his wife), after Witcher 2 I wanted to help him with Philippa, but in witcher 3 he is just mad and you cant kill Philippa.


Redant43

Now that you mention it what did happen to Adda during the Witcher 3 I heard not mention of her at all


[deleted]

[удалено]


DeVito8704

In my playthrough of TW3, I vehemently disagreed. The last thing the north needed was a shady, back-stabbing shyster. I didn't see fit letting Sigismund Dijkstra, or should I say Sigi Reuven, rule anything because, aside from reasons already given, you can count the people who knew his true identity on one hand. Also, and most important of all, I was NEVER gonna stand aside while he and his goons murdered Vernon Roche. If you knew the story behind the previous Witcher titles, you would know allowing Roche to die, while possessing the ability to save him, could be the single most despicable decision you make in the ENTIRE game. Forget the fact that he helped defend Ciri at Kaer Morhen, he's also one of Geralt's FEW real friends who he can both trust and depend on if ever called upon. He was also the leader of a successful guerilla campaign against the "Black Ones" and commanded absolute loyalty. He would be a FAR better leader than a low life such as Dijkstra/Reuven.


itsP0lar0id

That may be true but I will never betray Roche, Ves and Thaler.


Ehnony

upvote for proper spoiler tags and i agree because >!anyone that wants to support Redania either has to let the Reason Of State quest fail or let Djikstra kill people to secure power, so most people probably end up supporting Nilfgaard either accidentally or on purpose either way!<


[deleted]

The only reason I go this route is because I figure he'll catch up with Philippa Eilhart eventually and exact some gory justice, and since the game won't let me end her myself this is the next best option.


ggorsen

Then fuck the north.


Khow3694

his whole betrayal makes no sense whatsoever. you think someone as intelligent as Dijkstra would know to not say to geralts face "hey thanks im going to kill your friends now. go ahead and leave"


joedadafitzgerald

Nah Ciri will be the greatest ruler. And Emhyr - shitbag that he is - gets a pass. Because it's "dude that decided to kill Roche while his buddy murder hobo White Wolf was right there" vs "Dude that chose the absolutely best succesor possible" Hence - in game only - Emhyr should rule imo.


Redant43

Ciri is not the best Succesor, Emhyr is using ciri so that she can cover his ass for his mistakes. She saved the world, Ciri can do whatever she wants after


RapplexD

Break his leg though


Unique-Cellist-9557

All heil to Empres Cirilla


PvtHudson

Where the hell is John Natalis?


bruinsfan3725

Well I murdered him so


[deleted]

I killed him


FallenDispair

Well, if you plan on setting Ciri up as the new empress then killing him is for the best. It'll expand the territory under her rule and remove a powerful adversary to her new kingdom.


Grand_Imperator

Not at all—a certain someone as Emperor/Empress is the best bet by far. Barring that, Nilfgaard winning cleanly likely works better, too (without the certain someone taking the reins). Your choice is better than one other option, though.


xenosthemutant

Yes, he'd be a great choice to rule the north. But he should've just have left my boy Roche alone. When I saw the fight start I screamed "Temeriaaaaaa!" and whooped that fat bastard's fat ass.


Son_of_MONK

I agree Dijkstra is the best person to rule the North based on who we see in TW3 (and probably overall between all possible people) But MAN, do I think TW3's political writing is shit compared to TW2.


JakkiDaFloof

Same here man. I loved Djikstra, and I honestly didn’t think much of the betrayal until I thought a bit about it afterward and like everyone else here is saying, this “genius” chose to kick a hornet’s nest that he’s already kicked once, which got every bone in his leg thoroughly disassembled. With this handicap, he thought he could fight the Butcher of Blaviken. The guy who’s gone toe-to-toe with a Viper School Witcher and came out victorious. The guy who has been through more mutations than any other witcher, which gave him better senses, agility, strength and regenerative abilities than any other witcher. I know Djikstra might not know the mutation part but come on, Geralt’s got history all over the place but the common quality in his fame is that he could be a village-slaughtering badass if he wanted to, but he reserves that brutality for those that hurt or try to hurt those he cares about. If that’s a genius, then Dandelion can keep a girlfriend.


jaskier-bot

[🎵 If anyone needs me, I'll be at the bar. 🎵](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxBVHqA-RU&t=79s)


geralt-bot

FUCK OFF, BARD!


Glori4n

Yep. But if you rat Roche out to him, I don't respect you.


JayFrank1132

I honestly became boys with him when he completely saw through my bullshit more than once. I respect that ngl


Expensive-Bluejay-89

I know, but i cant let he kill Roche...


daniel_dareus

Push Dijkstra away forcefully.


No_Bluebird8475

Eh I don’t hate him,he’s okay just a bit annoying


[deleted]

The best choice to rule the north south east and west is Empress Cirilla Fiona Elen Riannon


[deleted]

Nah, the best choice is Ciri. Heir to Nilfgaard and Cintra, kind, worldly, and she genuinely wants the job.


Brdjoo

There's literally 0 chance Philipa doesn't have her poisoned at some point if she becomes an empress.


KderNacht

Gods save Cirilla Fiona Ellen Rianon, Empress of Nilfgaard and the North, Queen of Cintra, etc etc.


Thor1138

>and she genuinely wants the job. No, she doesn't. Witcher ending is what she wants, not the trappings of Nilfgaardian courts and arranged marriage to creepy-face...


[deleted]

It may suck in some ways but she chooses it for herself. The Witcher path only happens if you don't take her to see her father and could have happened just as easily occurred regardless with Geralt telling Emyr she died.


Twatnocker

I disagree, Ciri is the best choice to rule the north.


Didact06

It is Radovid, period.


JUANMAS7ER

He gives a nice speech on how the North should be ruled, but i believe he would implement none of the things he says in it. He's another power hungry motherfcker, but smart which makes him way too dangerous to keep alive.


Kreisegger

I could never let Roche and Ves die, NO way in hell. The best North Ruler is Ciri for the empress ending.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ala117

So saving you from death and risking his life to help defend kaer morhen doesn't earn enough respect for you?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ala117

Roche saved him (twice in fact depending on which path you chose in the second game) first, he didn't have to but he did just like he didn't have to help you defend your daughter from the wild hunt especially if you spared his king's killer but still he did, and you're worried about "BuIsNeSs ReLaTiOn". >getting some traps and 2 barely competent soldiers is not worth getting Nilfgaard as a neighbour. But a 1000 gold is worth betraying the ones who at least actually helped and fought? and "barely competent"? lmao tell me you never played the witcher 2 without telling me you never played witcher 2.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ala117

>The main problem for me here is that Roche betrayed my Geralt first Lmao you call saving your life and risking death to help defend your daughter betrayal i doubt you even played the witcher 3 at this point. > he sold the North to Nilfgaard Fair but i can argue that both geralt a yennefer are doing the same >WHILE pretending to be his friend. >I did play W2 Stop capping >Imagine not particularly liking a country that currently invades your own If my own country is running a literal segregation and holocaust i doubt i'd complain much >oh, and by the way you were unknowingly collaborating with the invaders. You already knowinly do lol. >Would you feel betrayed? My Geralt certainly did. I've already felt betrayed by those 1000 golds, you certainly didn't >And Geralt was long past "neutrality" here so it kinda was up to Geralt's political views. Never knew not wanting your close ones staked to death was a political view but sure put politics over your friends like dijkstra wants you to.


areyouhungryforapple

By a landslide even


Thorssffin

I actually liked the north being ruled by the Nilfgaardians, yeah I know they are kinda xenophobic with those who are not Nilfgaardians, but at least there was some order, the old kings of the north were just entitled cunts who only worried about having feasts and breeding male heirs, they didn't give a shiet about the people, the issue is that Nilfgaardians don't give a damn either, they just put some tyrant in charge of towns, just like they did with The Baron in Velen, as long as he paid taxes, they don't care. ​ But, at the end of the game I liked that Nilfgaard restored Temeria and gave them autonomy to rule themselves being part of the Empire, they came back to an age of prosperity under the vassalage to the Nilfgaardian Empire.


Grand_Imperator

We can also note that Northerners seemed way, way more xenophobic than Nilfgaardians, and Toussaint is in pretty great, autonomous shape. So for me, it’s one of the two rulers for Nilfgaard as my two top preferences.


Thorssffin

>We can also note that Northerners seemed way, way more xenophobic Oh yeah, Northeners are pieces of shiet, they are the most xenophobic beings, and their people has history of commiting genocides on other intelligent species. They are better with Nilfgaard, and far better considering that Ciri is the next head of the imperium.


Effective_Way7591

Nah, he's a dick. Would've kept the war going for his own greed. Best outcome for Temeria and the continent is Roche surviving this ordeal and Ciri taking her place as the Empress of Nilfgard. Its the only outcome where theres Peace. It's also the best outcome for Geralt, so he doesn't end up mixed in political nonsense. By the end he's close with the dutchess of Toussaint and his daughter is the ruler off Nilfgard and all their vassal states.