How to keep ciri alive?

[Vantalane]

So I kinda got to the end, I spoke to avallac'h and ciri says yea yea I askforthis and stuff.
So she died from the white frost and I really want her alive.
What are the thing that decide this fate?
Please guys
You can comment spoilerfull just let me know everything

[Ozone]

You must have more good points than bad points.

1) After the Battle of Kaer Morhen, you can have a snowball fight with Ciri (good) or drink with her (bad)

2) If you visit the Emperor, you can take money from him (bad)

3) When Philippa and Margarita want to speak with Ciri, you can let her go alone (good) or go with her (bad)

4) Ciri asks you to visit Avallac'h s laboratory. You can refuse (bad) or go with her. If you go with her, at the end you can offer her the necklace (bad) or destory the laboratory (good)

5) Ciri asks you to visit Skjall's grave. You can go with her (good) or not (bad).

I think this is everything

[Reoden]

Would be awesome if people could have some consideration and not put major story spoilers in the titles of their posts..

[Ozone]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

2. Just visiting Emhyr will ensure the empress ending if there are more positives than negatives for the other choices. Not visiting him with the same circumstances will ensure that she becomes a witcher.

4. Was not even aware that refusing to go with Ciri and Yen to check out Avallac'h's lab was an option. Can't think of any legit reason for Geralt to say no since even Yen is going.

2) Unless Dijkstra wins the war, which is my favourite outcome. Still, I haven't once visited Enhyr. I asked Ciri what she think and she did not want to go. Why would I force her?

4) Strange, I know...

[Ozone]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by Ozone:

2) Unless Dijkstra wins the war, which is my favourite outcome. Still, I haven't once visited Enhyr. I asked Ciri what she think and she did not want to go. Why would I force her?

4) Strange, I know...

2. Never been able to go that route. Would feel like a cad just abandoning Roche, Ves and Thaler to their deaths. Not worth it in my opinion. I have taken her (just once) to see Emhyr because I wanted to experience all three endings for myself. I know she didn't want to go but insisted because the SOB is her father and had hoped she'd tell him to go plough himself but she didn't. Oh well.

4. I'd never say no to going. I'd be too curious to see what's in that lab for myself.

Depends on how you look at it. Thaler, Roche and Ves are just puppets that Emhyr uses because of his own incompetance. Like Letho and the other witcher from the school of the cat for example. Giving all the North away for a vassal state is not worth it, no matter how much Roche lies to himself thinking it is. He becomes a traitor without even realizing it. It feels bad to abandon them (Thales especially) but I just can't let Emhyr win... or Radovid.

[s]

kill dijkstra, visit sjkall, dont visit emperor, snowball fight, let her be by herself

[Ozone]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by Ozone:

Depends on how you look at it. Thaler, Roche and Ves are just puppets that Emhyr uses because of his own incompetance. Like Letho and the other witcher from the school of the cat for example. Giving all the North away for a vassal state is not worth it, no matter how much Roche lies to himself thinking it is. He becomes a traitor without even realizing it. It feels bad to abandon them (Thales especially) but I just can't let Emhyr win... or Radovid.

Roche, Ves and Thaler are Geralt's friends though. It's more Geralt's feelings that I have in mind. He would do anything for his friends. This has always been a constant where he's concerned. I just can't see him walking away and allowing the three to die. Just doesn't seem right to me and not something that he would do.

And the deal Thaler brokered wouldn't be giving away the entire North for their benefit. The deal was that Emhyr would keep Aedirn and Lyria unchallenged in exchange for Radovid's death and the cessation of further guerilla attacks.

Roche is a Temerian and was fighting for Temeria, not the entire North so it's hard to argue that he's betrayed anything since the brokered deal would mean Nilfgaard will leave Temeria alone.

But Dijkstra, on the other hand, doesn't hide what he plans at all. He's exactly like Emhyr. He doesn't plan to free the North from Nilfgaard grasp. He plans to grab it all for himself. He wants to unite the entire North under his own rule. How is that any different than what Emhyr wants? He has no intention of liberating each region so they can self-rule once more. He wants to be Emperor of the North.

Without any ruler, Nilfgaard will quickly take over Kaedwen and Redania too while Tameria would become a vassal (like Toussaint).

As for Geralt's friends, I totaly get that. It sucks that you have to let them die. It would have been awesome if Geralt could convince them to cooperate somehow, but it's unfortunately not possible because Roche has his head buried so deep into his stupid patriotism. Still, I believe that Dijkstra wants the North to be free. He doesn't even become a king or emperor, he becomes a chancellor, which is different. After all the conflicts that happened in the books (the invasion of Cintra -where Ciri's family is slaughtered; the Battle of Sodden Hill; battle of Brenna- in which Coen, the witcher who trained Ciri died and so many more...), it is obvious that Nilfgaard would never stop until they reached their objective. Dijkstra realizes that The North wouldn't be able to defend itself forever if it wasn't united. He also begins industrialization, developing the economy and the population so he's capable to kickstart them in the right direction.

[Ozone]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by Ozone:

Without any ruler, Nilfgaard will quickly take over Kaedwen and Redania too while Tameria would become a vassal (like Toussaint).

As for Geralt's friends, I totaly get that. It sucks that you have to let them die. It would have been awesome if Geralt could convince them to cooperate somehow, but it's unfortunately not possible because Roche has his head buried so deep into his stupid patriotism. Still, I believe that Dijkstra wants the North to be free. He doesn't even become a king or emperor, he becomes a chancellor, which is different. After all the conflicts that happened in the books (the invasion of Cintra -where Ciri's family is slaughtered; the Battle of Sodden Hill; battle of Brenna- in which Coen, the witcher who trained Ciri died and so many more...), it is obvious that Nilfgaard would never stop until they reached their objective. Dijkstra realizes that The North wouldn't be able to defend itself forever if it wasn't united. He also begins industrialization, developing the economy and the population so he's capable to kickstart them in the right direction.

Have you seen the epilogue if Dijkstra rules?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7KDR2QkSY4

They're not free. They're united under his rule. How is that different from Emhyr again? How long until the North rises up against Redanian rule, because that's what it will be?

And how long until the Nilfgaardians start discussing the "price of neutrality" in Tameria's case like they were doing for Toussaint when you first reach Vizima? There are no "good" choice here. All Radovid, Dijkstra and Emhyr are evil. I just think Dijkstra is the lesser evil. I would have considered Emhyr, had I not read the books.
But I think we can both agree that this quest was a bit rushed for some reason. Dijkstra's actions are way too sudden and going against Geralt and Roche in open battle is plain stupid. Or maybe it just feels like that to me

[Ozone]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

A simple discussion about the price of neutrality doesn't imply that what's left of the Nilfgaardian Empire would soon decide to plunge into war once more. This last one was the most costly by far and supporters at home had had enough of losses.

And yes we can agree that it was rushed. Too much of the main story felt that way, with again, as in Blood and Wine, tons of filler taking up the slack everywhere. Not saying that much of the side quests and contracts weren't entertaining enough but they were filler. Many have complained about the "distractions" throughout seemingly preventing you from pursuing what is meant to be an urgent quest -- that of finding Ciri.

The war itself seemed like some sort of justification for the first two games' existence. And Emhyr wanting to put Ciri on the throne never felt believable to me as his reason for demanding both Yen and Geralt's help in finding Ciri. It all felt forced and quite rushed. Yes I know the assassinations were a plot and Letho was used but it felt forced.

Depends on how "urgent" you percieve this quest. If you feel the need to rush through the story because Ciri might die at any moment, then yes, even doing a simple side quest or treaure hunt might feel out of place. If you approach it as a long, uncertain investigation you will need to take it slow, look at all the details, talk to everyone, make connections etc. it won't have that feeling of urgency. Nothing felt 'forced' or rushed to me, aside from these things in Act 3: Dijkstra's behaviour at the end of "Reasons of State" and a couple that happens after you activate the sunstone. Like Ciri's plan to stop the White Frost that came out of nowhere, Eredin boss fight was a bit easy and dissapointing, and the fact that the last time we see most of the characters we cared so much about is before the Battle with the Wild Hunt. In the epilogue only Geralt and Ciri appear (if she even does). I wanted to see them all, Yennefer, Triss, Dandelion, Priscilla, Zoltan, Eskel and so on. Well at least BaW brought a bit of closure for us.

[Nothgott]

GIVE HER ♥♥♥♥ !

wow nice, forum guy marked text as black, to not spoiler

Cool thing !