Djikstra Choice (SPOILERS)

[LucAAde]

If I side with Djikstra does he redraw the old boarders in the northern realms or does it just all become Redania?
And what happens to the Big Four?

[WolfEisberg]

If you kill Djikstra and Radovid, then Nilfgard wins, Temeria border's get restored and able to rule itself but as a Vassal state of Nilfgard, and all the North ends up having peace and prosperity under Nilfgard rule.

If you Kill Radovid, but side with Djikstra, Djikstra becomes King, rules all of the Nortth, and rules cynically and ruthlessly often forcing his people to do things against their will.

[LucAAde]

Mainly Cleaver and the King of Beggars

[LucAAde]

Thanks! I was gonna side with Djikstra if he restored the boarders but Nilfgaard is probably a much better option since I HATE Radovid and only really care about Temeria.

[WolfEisberg]

Originally posted by Viscus:

Thanks! I was gonna side with Djikstra if he restored the boarders but Nilfgaard is probably a much better option since I HATE Radovid and only really care about Temeria.

Yeah, the only choice that ends with Temeria to be restored is killing Djikstra and Radovid.

[LucAAde]

Originally posted by eisberg:

Originally posted by Viscus:

Thanks! I was gonna side with Djikstra if he restored the boarders but Nilfgaard is probably a much better option since I HATE Radovid and only really care about Temeria.

Yeah, the only choice that ends with Temeria to be restored is killing Djikstra and Radovid.

It's a shame, I liked Djikstra in this game and really enjoyed the concept of the Big Four

[lonely2012]

I LOVE Dijkstra and have no problem with him as a tyrant, pity he just had to order Roche killed right in front of me. Big mistake. Seriously, the man basically forced me to burn him alive for no good reason. The funny thing is, I don't even like Roche. We just basically murdered two kings together. You don't stand back and watch a man being executed after that kind of bonding experience. You just don't. So I killed a man who wasn't even supposed to be fighting in the first place in cold blood despite really liking him.
If he'd gotten Roche strangled in his sleep by his own men, I'd be totally ok with it, also it would fit his character a lot more.

[LucAAde]

Originally posted by lonely2012:

I LOVE Dijkstra and have no problem with him as a tyrant, pity he just had to order Roche killed right in front of me. Big mistake. Seriously, the man basically forced me to burn him alive for no good reason. The funny thing is, I don't even like Roche. We just basically murdered two kings together. You don't stand back and watch a man being executed after that kind of bonding experience. You just don't. So I killed a man who wasn't even supposed to be fighting in the first place in cold blood despite really liking him.
If he'd gotten Roche strangled in his sleep by his own men, I'd be totally ok with it, also it would fit his character a lot more.

I like both of them which is why I was hoping for a compromise in which Djikstra became king of the North and agreed to help Roche restore the old boarders like they spoke about in the first cut scene after Geralt agreed to help.

[LucAAde]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

If Nilfgaard wins the war:

"The 3rd Nothern War ended -- the invader from the south achieve compelte victory.

Robbed of Radovid's tactical genius, the Northern Realms could not withstand Emhyr's countless legions. Black banners appeared over Novigrad and all Redania.

Weary of rebel raids, Emhyr var Emreis conceded, restoring Temeria as a realm in liege to the empire. When the guerillas laid down their arms, the emperor shifted his forces to other fronts. Through Nilfgaard's victory, Temerians got their country back, and history once again proved a consummate trickster.

Having dealt with Radovid, Emhyr var Emreis did the same with enemies domestic. The emperor's royal spies named all who had conspired against him -- traders, soldiers and aristocrats alike. Though their mutiny had only been a murky plan, the emperor showed no mercy. As was his wont."

Where in there does it say life was peaceful and prosperous for the conquered regions, I have no idea. Is any land happy to be conquered by a much larger, bullying force? History doesn't bear that out to be true. -- BB

If Radovid lives:

"Radovid had many faults. He was cruel, impetuous and pathologically ambitious. But he was a tactical genius -- that's undeniable. Commanding forces far outnumbered by his foe's, he handily defeated the invader from the south. The Redanian Eagle spread its wings, taking all the North, including Novigrad, beneath them.

With victory in the war against Nilfgaard secured, Radovid proceeded to complete his witch hunt. As they had in Novigrad, pyres burned in Temeria and Aedirn, lands now "liberated" by the Redanian monarch. In the drive for moral renewal, simple herbalists, pellars, healers and nonhumans -- all supposed heretics -- were murdered in droves. For many, freedom beneath Radovid's scepter proved more tragic than servitude to another."

If Dijkstra lives:

"The 3rd Northen War was a clash between two great strategists: Radovid V, known as "The Stern," and Emhyr var Emreis. Both seemed invincible, yet both were defeated. Nilfgaard, invading from the south, was repelled in the field, while the North's "supreme leader" fell victim to assassins.

Yet Redania stood victorious, and a man who had thus far operated in shadow took up the reins of power. That man was Sigismun Dijkstra.

Once firmly in the chancellor's seat, Dijkstra ruled the victorious North in his patently cynical and ruthless manner. He knew that to preserve peace he would need to prepare for war. Following Nilfgaard's example, he consolidated his rule over vast lands through a broad program of settlement and industrialization. All for the good of his subjects -- though often contrary to their will."

Yeah I've read this so many times but it didn't detail what would happen to the other Kingdoms if Djikstra won so I asked on here.

[lonely2012]

Originally posted by Viscus:

I like both of them which is why I was hoping for a compromise in which Djikstra became king of the North and agreed to help Roche restore the old boarders like they spoke about in the first cut scene after Geralt agreed to help.

Roche is really a rather fanatical nationalist with strong Che Guevara-like tendencies. He is great to have around in the time of revolt, but he absolutely has to go when it's time for proper politics, just ask Fidel.

[Wintermute]

Wait, so Dijkstra can survive? ♥♥♥♥ YES. The guy is complete badass

[Wintermute]

Originally posted by lonely2012:

Originally posted by Viscus:

I like both of them which is why I was hoping for a compromise in which Djikstra became king of the North and agreed to help Roche restore the old boarders like they spoke about in the first cut scene after Geralt agreed to help.

Roche is really a rather fanatical nationalist with strong Che Guevara-like tendencies. He is great to have around in the time of revolt, but he absolutely has to go when it's time for proper politics, just ask Fidel.

Roche is about as instrumental for goverment as any spec-ops groups nowadays. It's not like Scoya-how-the-♥♥♥♥-do-you-write-it-tayels will suddenly vanish any time soon.

[lonely2012]

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Roche is about as instrumental for goverment as any spec-ops groups nowadays. It's not like Scoya-how-the-♥♥♥♥-do-you-write-it-tayels will suddenly vanish any time soon.

He started that way under Foltest, but then he got the taste of going rogue. Instead of being a good guard dog, he now realizes that nobody is untouchable and can effectively operate outside the system. Dijkstra absolutely needs to at least seem untouchable, he doesn't even have a royal lineage to rely upon.
Also, notice how much less of a problem squirrels are in Witcher 3. One camp with a bunch of barely trained elven youth. They just don't multiply fast enough to be proper terrorists.

[mentant]

Never really got the "bromance" with Roche. Roche forces you to aid him in Witcher 2 (he can even kill you in the interrogation room if you don't go along). He runs a conspiracy against Helselt which gives the Kaedwani king a reason to kill all the blue stripes, wants to help the assassin of kings by killing Henselt, and then provies to be mistaken about the ultimate impact of Anias.

Ves is essentially damaged goods that just follows whatever Roche says.

Thaler really isn't your friend in W1 (you can even side against him and have him killed). All he does in W2 is send you a note. And, aside from a swearing scene or two, he doesn't do much in W3. I get that nostalgia and his demeanor makes him seem more sympathetic, but really, he doesn't do much.

If Roche didn't easily accept your request for help at Kaer Morhen, the choice whether to kill him or not would be far easier. But its not really like he, Ves, or Thaler are Geralt's best buds.

[LucAAde]

Originally posted by lonely2012:

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Roche is about as instrumental for goverment as any spec-ops groups nowadays. It's not like Scoya-how-the-♥♥♥♥-do-you-write-it-tayels will suddenly vanish any time soon.

He started that way under Foltest, but then he got the taste of going rogue. Instead of being a good guard dog, he now realizes that nobody is untouchable and can effectively operate outside the system. Dijkstra absolutely needs to at least seem untouchable, he doesn't even have a royal lineage to rely upon.
Also, notice how much less of a problem squirrels are in Witcher 3. One camp with a bunch of barely trained elven youth. They just don't multiply fast enough to be proper terrorists.

So can I assume you all sided witb Ioverth in Witcher 2? Such a shame he wasn't in 3 but I suppose there isn't any need for him anymore since the Squirrels are the least of anyones problems and they already have Dol Blathanna.

Djikstra is a total badass, pretty funny and isn't too different to Emhyr in terms of leadership style but I don't like Redania.