Witcher 3 Politics and Relevance

[voyagerscom]

Hi there, I started playing the Witcher series, being new to this fantasy realm. While I played, I encountered random conversations, for ex a tavern drunk discussion (along the lines of eff Nilfguard and this king or that one). Then the game would prompt me to respond and choose a side.

The problem is I have zero clue how these politics are relevant specifically to Geralt.

For the role playing reasons, I'd like to receive a bit more context. Can anyone be so kind as to list a few reasons why Geralt would support one country or another?

Right now the map in my head looks approximately like: South is the big Nilfguard Empire at war with the North. North has two kingdoms (the better one got mangled and the other is ruled by some arsehole fighting Nilf guys, and there is one neutral rich city both north and south want to force to ally with them.

The story line and quests, are more relevant to people close to Geralt and previous games put you in the middle of the humans vs no humans conflict, but the quests don't really target politics among humans, thus, I have no context why I should eff Nilfguard or not or why I should care about any of those sides.

Can anyone explain why Geralt would choose any of those human factions whether for personal or more global reasons?

[charly4711]

To explain this, one would basically have to give a run-down of half of the game world's lore.

Generally speaking, Geralt's story is one that is a lot about trying to stay neutral as the witcher code prescribes but being unable to. Geralt always gets dragged into situations where he is forced to take some kind of side because not taking a side is also taking side.

So, Nilfgaard started a war against the North for purely imperialistic reasons, but Radovid otoh is a madman. Foltest of Temeria wasn't such a great guy, either, Henselt of Kaedwen ... don't get me started. You save the mages and the Eternal Fire turns against non-humans. The North is kinda your home and you have a bad history with the emperor of Nilfgaard.

There is a lot of trying to do what you feel is right in a world that doesn't really offer many easy choices. I feel like in most dialogues there are options to stay out of stuff, though it may not always be possible. If you really care about it, there's no way around learning the lore. That means either reading every bit of text you find in game and piecing it together, or maybe reading stuff up on the internet, or maybe reading the novels, first. Playing TW2 first, also helps.

Or you could just wing it and pick random choices where you just don't know.

[voyagerscom]

My problem is that I haven't been given any context that would make me care about any of those countries. I gathered that I'm at conflict with the Nilf King from the very beginning, but that just means I won't bow to his pompous arse at our meeting - that doesn't mean I'm willing to get into a fist fight with a bunch of drunks at the tavern for political reasons and stand on a soap box claiming Nilfgaard is bad.

Actually, wandering around I heard someone say that the world is in disarray and it wouldn't hurt for a powerful empire like Nilf to just conquer all the squabbling factions and place a single order. And I'm like wtf not? From Witcher's perspective all those monsters are given breeding grounds at the times where the government can't control things. Given how unstable everything is, I actually rather like Nilfgaard because they're the only ones so far Geralt came across who more or less have some kind of order.

However, I don't want to screw things up on a global scale due to not knowing in general. I thought Tamaria was a decent kingdom, but I guess the most competent guy in the North got assassinated, so that's that. I see no reason to support the ashes.

In terms of doing what's right - I just tend to decide on a purely personal level when the quests come up and judge each situation based on my Witcher's morality compass. However, I am completely at a loss when I'm prompted about global issues because I just don't get wth is going on around me. All the factions seem to have serious issues, nobody is nice and clean.

[Demosthenes424]

Originally posted by voyagerscom:

My problem is that I haven't been given any context that would make me care about any of those countries. I gathered that I'm at conflict with the Nilf King from the very beginning, but that just means I won't bow to his pompous arse at our meeting - that doesn't mean I'm willing to get into a fist fight with a bunch of drunks at the tavern for political reasons and stand on a soap box claiming Nilfgaard is bad.

Actually, wandering around I heard someone say that the world is in disarray and it wouldn't hurt for a powerful empire like Nilf to just conquer all the squabbling factions and place a single order. And I'm like wtf not? From Witcher's perspective all those monsters are given breeding grounds at the times where the government can't control things. Given how unstable everything is, I actually rather like Nilfgaard because they're the only ones so far Geralt came across who more or less have some kind of order.

However, I don't want to screw things up on a global scale due to not knowing in general. I thought Tamaria was a decent kingdom, but I guess the most competent guy in the North got assassinated, so that's that. I see no reason to support the ashes.

In terms of doing what's right - I just tend to decide on a purely personal level when the quests come up and judge each situation based on my Witcher's morality compass. However, I am completely at a loss when I'm prompted about global issues because I just don't get wth is going on around me. All the factions seem to have serious issues, nobody is nice and clean.

That's pretty much how you're supposed to feel, I think. You might or might not entirely get what's going on right now, but even once you know every detail you're probably not gonna feel better about supporting any given side. They're all pretty terrible if you're trying to use any kind of moral compass as a guide. I've played Witcher 1 & Witcher 2, and read summaries of the books, and I still don't think there's any "right" choices to make as far as the politics of the world. Very realistic, if nothing else...

[Dr.Abscondus]

Geralt is apolitical so if you're role playing him then you would stay uninvolved. He doesn't care about kingdoms or whether a particular country gets conquered or even ceases to exist. He only cares about Ciri, since she's like a daughter to him, and his two sorceress love interests. He has some affection for the other Witchers, Dandelion, and Zoltan, and will help them if asked. So, he only cares about politics when it affects those few people, but Ciri most of all. He regards the others as capable adults who can look after themselves. He's protective of Ciri because he remembers her as the tween he trained at Caer Morhen, and not as the capable fighter she has become. You can become involved or not as you wish.

[Valden21]

When you get right down to it, Geralt doesn't really care about the war. As a general rule, witchers don't give a hoot one way or the other about politics, because they go all over the map. If a particular political issue affects someone he cares about, he'll get involved just in order to help that person. Otherwise, he tries to stay out of it as best he can.

[Neon Noodles]

Just wanted to echo what the others have said: Witchers do not purposefully get involved in politics.

This is primarily because they may need to move across multiple boarders quickly in pursuit of monsters and its easier to do so if everyone knows that Witchers are neutral.

As far as Geralt is concerned, he has been a political actor in the past and does so in the game as well, but, its only collateral to what he's actually trying to do. Anytime he gets involved in something its because of a personal obligation. Maybe he likes the individual asking him for a favor, maybe he wants to do something for a love interest, or maybe its just someone kidnapping Ciri again but its never about what's politically the right\wrong move.

From a game play perspective, there's very little reason to back any faction over any other. They are all pretty even. Sure some of them seem less evil than others but they aren't really. Dig deep enough and you'll find that nobody is perfect.

To quote Geralt, "if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all."

[charly4711]

Seems to me that many of the opinions voiced here kinda assume there is a magical barrier between politics and things that affect regular people. I would argue that even in books the stories often revolve around how this distinction that witchers _try_ to make doesn't work. The number of times Geralt is forced to meddle in politics actually goes to show that politics don't happen in a vacuum, they affect people. It's almost as if that's part of the moral of the stories.

So, he doesn't join any country's army because there really isn't any he can subscribe to 100% (probably not even 50%), but he will have an opinion about burning mages and non-humans at the stake. Having an opinion and taking a stance about a policy like that is in no way less political than being for or against taxation of my income.

[acbatchelor]

Originally posted by voyagerscom:

Actually, wandering around I heard someone say that the world is in disarray and it wouldn't hurt for a powerful empire like Nilf to just conquer all the squabbling factions and place a single order. And I'm like wtf not? From Witcher's perspective all those monsters are given breeding grounds at the times where the government can't control things. Given how unstable everything is, I actually rather like Nilfgaard because they're the only ones so far Geralt came across who more or less have some kind of order.

I'd just like to point out that this is partly thanks to Nilfgaard. The northern countries used to be less unstable but mercenaries hired by Nilfgaard assassinated a few of the northern kings. This was Nilfgaard's strategy, to cause chaos which would soften up the north for invasion. This was the major plot in the previous game.

Like others have said, I would recommend doing research on the lore if you don't want to play the previous games. Maybe a video that gives a summary on the first two games would be enough.

[tekhedd]

Originally posted by voyagerscom:

My problem is that I haven't been given any context that would make me care about any of those countries.

Yes, it's more of a "short story format" style storytelling and not so much the modern "exposit endlessly assuming that the audience are idiots" that seems to be en vogue ever since the Netflix "10 hour-long episodes to tell a story that would have fit quite neatly into 90 minutes" format has become the norm. The trick is to relax into it, but if you haven't read a lot of short stories that might be a new experience.

[Valden21]

Originally posted by charly4711:

Seems to me that many of the opinions voiced here kinda assume there is a magical barrier between politics and things that affect regular people. I would argue that even in books the stories often revolve around how this distinction that witchers _try_ to make doesn't work. The number of times Geralt is forced to meddle in politics actually goes to show that politics don't happen in a vacuum, they affect people. It's almost as if that's part of the moral of the stories.

So, he doesn't join any country's army because there really isn't any he can subscribe to 100% (probably not even 50%), but he will have an opinion about burning mages and non-humans at the stake. Having an opinion and taking a stance about a policy like that is in no way less political than being for or against taxation of my income.

I believe you're over-thinking it here. He most certainly has an opinion about politics, but he doesn't let that opinion be the sole determining factor in his actions. If someone important to him or someone he respects gets involved in a political issue, he'll get involved. But otherwise, he'd prefer to stay out of it if possible. Geralt doesn't ignore politics, but he'd prefer to just avoid the headache and problems for himself that getting involved would create, as that's happened to him before.

[Capdaddy]

To add something here, even though I'm not 100% certain which book it was in (Season of Storms?) or if I imagined it...

The rule that witchers remain politically neutral isn't actually true. Geralt tells people it's a rule so they don't try to drag him into their problems. Man got his own problems. Issue is that he often feels compelled to involve himself somehow for whatever reason which usually ends with him in the thick of it.

[mw00]

Nilfguard - foreign imperialistic invaders, but tolerant.
Redania - native ruling class, but intolerant.
That's the gist of it. It's the exact same set up as Skyrim - nords are native, but intolerant and racist, and those roman esque guys are expansionist imperialists, but tolerant.
Don't think too hard about this, devs and Sapkowski sure didn't lol.

[Sentient_Toaster]

Politics made things very personal for him and Cirilla, against their will.

(Book spoilers follow...)


To roughly summarize *some* bits, Ciri is a a daughter of the Emperor of Nilfgaard; heir to the throne of Cintra; and prophesied to bear a son who will rule the world. Emhyr wanted to capture his own daughter in order to father that son with her, and was willing to force Geralt and Yennifer to commit suicide so as to no longer be able to inferfere with this. The monarchs of the northern kingdoms planned to *murder* Ciri before this could happen. A wizard named Vilgefortz schemed with Emhyr, in a plan that would have gained him extreme power and rulership of the North. And certain people who were involved in Emhyr's scheming actually had other designs, instead plotting to overthrow Emhyr and, again, to murder Ciri to prevent Emhyr from fulfilling his plans for her.

At one point there was even a woman who sufficiently resembled Ciri as to be kidnapped and forced into the position of impersonating Ciri, so that she could be married by Emhyr in order to to legalize Nilfgaardian claims over the kingdom of Cinta.

So, even before the plotline of the games, politics have repeatedly found them, with intent to use them (or, simply, murder them).

Less directly focused on them, but still involving them, politics between Nilfgaard vs. the Northern Kingdoms lead to open hostilities at a meeting of mages in Thanedd. Mages weren't merely advistors to rulers at this point, but schemers, combatants and targets. This led to the Brotherhood of Sorcerers being dissolved, to be followed by the creation of Lodge of Sorceresses (who would then themselves seek to control Ciri for their own ends, while Geralt and Yennifer both seek to protect her from such).


Within the "Witcher 2" plotline, politics again motivate things heavily.

Notably, the Lodge of Sorcereresses has been established (post-Thanedd), with Philippa being a driving force. By the time of TW2, they're scheming to undermine certain Northern kingdoms in order to carve out a new country that they could rule. This scheming goes all the way to regicide. Unfortunately for them, their scheming intersects with the plotting of Emhyr, who takes advantage by having the same assassins kill additional kings to further destabilize the North and then to pin them all on the members of the Lodge.

TW2 begins with a retro sequence where Foltest of Temeria has already pressed Geralt into becoming his bodyguard, after Geralt had proven successful in a more witcherly-related task. Various events happen, and Geralt is still thought by many to have been involved in assassinating Foltest.

Offhand, with respect to specific politics-entangled other characters, in no particular order:

* Emperor Emhyr: emperor of Nilfgaard, most powerful ruler on the Continent, has repeatedly waged war on the Northern Kingdoms, has attempted to arrange the deaths of Geralt and Yennifer and... well, worse crimes (see spoilers above). Working together at all only happens because Emhyr believes that he needs their skills and ties to Ciri, and that Yennifer and Geralt need the information that Emhyr provides to find her. However, it would be entirely within character for Geralt to be lying through his teeth about about any promises to bring her to him, ever.

* King Radovid: by this point, the most powerful of the remaining Northern leaders, since the others are... mostly dead. Hates Philippa with a burning passion (she was behind the assassination of his father, for instance, which led to power going to Philippa and Djikstra... things sort of become tense between the two when the latter found out that the former was behind the killing) and all mages in general; hence, supporting the murderous pogroms by witch hunters as well as civilian mobs. By this point he is also intensely paranoid and utterly insane. Geralt's not a fan of the political scheming of the sorceresses, but he's much more into... er, being inside them, rather than see them burned at the stake for practicing magic... not to mention that he personally knows a little magic and a little alchemy, and actually knows what it's like to be killed for being different.

* Sigmund Djikstra; former spymaster of Redania, computer programmer, former lover of Philippa Eilhart, schemer. At one point had taken Geralt as a prisoner... a situation that ended with Geralt escaping and breaking one of Djikstra's legs in the process. There's mutual wariness and grudges here.

* Vernon Roche: formerly a commander of the Temerian Blue Stripes, i.e. special forces, a fugitive at this point. They interact, potentially quite a lot, in the previous game. Even if things are kept to a minimum, the previous game begins with Geralt being interrogated by Roche to get Geralt's version of certain events, where Geralt was otherwise looking at being executed... which leads to Roche personally deciding that he will allow Geralt to escape in order to be able to uncover the truth of what really happened. While Geralt may not be as helpful witihin TW2 as he could have (actual choices to be made), there's definitely mutual respect here. Ves is Roche's second, and somebody with whom Geralt may also interact a fair bit during the events of TW2.

* Philippa Eilhart: founding member and driver behind the Lodge of Sorceresses. Plans, plans, and more plans. Bitter enemy of her former student, King Radovid, and former lover, Djikstra. Her plans have sometimes involved killing kings and creating new countries. Other plans have involved attempting to find Ciri with the idea of compelling her to act in the Lodge's interest. Geralt has little reason to trust her, but there's mutual respect and he knows that Philippa can be reasoned with -- she's Machiavellian, but not some "for the evulz" lolrandom monster. Triss, incidentally, sided with Philippa during book events involving their scheming regarding Ciri. The games are much more generous towards Triss's character...

[Neon Noodles]

Originally posted by error2k:

devs and Sapkowski sure didn't lol.

Mmm, this isn't totally accurate. If you want to find lore, you'll find lore. In specific, the Witcher's 12th and 13th centuries were ridiculously detailed.
https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Northern_War_II#Peace_of_Cintra

[GoreTiger]

To put it short, Witcher is Geralt's failed attempts at staying neutral in situations. Many times your decisions will have both a negative and positive effect on something.