Siding With Roche in The Witcher 3: Consequences and Considerations
Siding with Vernon Roche in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, particularly during the quest “Reason of State,” leads to a specific outcome: Nilfgaard conquers the North. This victory for the empire, however, isn’t a simple “happily ever after.” Following the war, Emperor Emhyr var Emreis eliminates individuals he considers traitors and threats within the newly acquired territories. Choosing this path has significant implications for the political landscape of the game, as well as for the fates of key characters. This choice significantly affects the game’s ending, shifting the power balance and impacting the lives of many.
The Broader Implications
The immediate aftermath of siding with Roche involves the successful assassination of King Radovid V of Redania. Radovid’s death removes a major obstacle to Nilfgaard’s ambitions. The war then shifts decisively in Nilfgaard’s favor. However, the long-term ramifications are more complex. Nilfgaardian rule, while potentially more stable than Radovid’s tyrannical reign, comes at the cost of Northern autonomy.
Beyond the political implications, the “Reason of State” quest forces a moral choice: betraying Dijkstra. While Dijkstra’s methods are often ruthless, his ambition is to see Redania thrive independently. Choosing Roche means siding with honor and loyalty, but at the potential expense of long-term stability for the North.
Why Choose Roche?
Despite the potentially grim outcome, there are valid reasons to side with Roche:
- Loyalty: Roche is a steadfast ally to Geralt. Siding with him feels like honoring a bond built throughout the Witcher series.
- Radovid’s Tyranny: Radovid’s persecution of mages and non-humans is extreme. Eliminating him is, in many ways, a moral imperative.
- Rejecting Dijkstra’s Pragmatism: Dijkstra’s vision for Redania involves ruthless tactics and a sacrifice of individual liberties, which some players find unacceptable.
The Moral Ambiguity
The Witcher 3 thrives on moral ambiguity, and the “Reason of State” quest perfectly exemplifies this. There’s no objectively “good” outcome. Each choice has its own set of consequences and sacrifices. Siding with Roche is not inherently better or worse than siding with Dijkstra or allowing Radovid to live. It’s a matter of prioritizing values and accepting the resulting consequences. Examining such decisions makes the game a valuable platform for exploring moral and ethical concepts. You can explore more on such topics on Games Learning Society.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What happens if you let Dijkstra kill Roche?
If you allow Dijkstra to kill Roche, Dijkstra becomes the ruler of Redania after winning the war. His rule is characterized by fear and suppression of personal freedoms, although the Continent’s industry experiences growth. This is a highly pragmatic, albeit potentially brutal, outcome.
What happens if you don’t kill Radovid?
If you choose not to assassinate Radovid, he continues his reign of terror, persecuting mages and non-humans with increasing brutality. He ultimately wins the war against Nilfgaard and continues to rule with his witch hunters using tactics and behaviors reminiscent of the Nazi regime in WWII.
Is Radovid a bad guy?
Radovid is portrayed as a complex character who descends into darkness due to traumatic experiences and paranoia. His hatred of magic stems from his father’s assassination by a mage and his subsequent manipulation by Philippa Eilhart. While he is undeniably a tyrannical ruler, the game attempts to provide some context for his actions, although that doesn’t excuse his brutality.
Can Ciri become a witcher if you kill Radovid?
Killing Radovid is not directly related to Ciri becoming a witcher. Ciri’s fate is determined by your choices in specific interactions with her throughout the game. To get the Ciri becomes a witcher ending, you need to make choices that support her independence and respect her agency.
Why should you sacrifice Roche in The Witcher 3?
There is no compelling reason to intentionally sacrifice Roche. The game does not present a scenario where sacrificing Roche directly benefits Geralt or the overall outcome. Any perceived benefit would be a result of siding with Dijkstra’s vision for Redania, which comes at the cost of Roche’s life.
Is killing Radovid a good thing?
Killing Radovid removes a tyrannical ruler who persecutes mages and non-humans. From a purely moral standpoint, it can be seen as a positive act. However, the consequences of his death, particularly the rise of Nilfgaard, are far from ideal.
Should you kill Radovid for the good ending?
There’s no single “good ending” in The Witcher 3. Killing Radovid leads to one set of consequences, while allowing him to live leads to another. The “best” ending is subjective and depends on the player’s values and priorities. Helping to kill Radovid and siding with Roche means that Nilfgaard will conquer the north.
Does killing Radovid change anything?
Yes, killing Radovid significantly alters the political landscape of the game. It weakens Redania, allowing Nilfgaard to advance its conquest. It also opens the door for either Dijkstra or Roche to potentially take control of the North, depending on your choices during “Reason of State.”
Does killing Radovid change the ending?
Yes, killing Radovid is a key factor in determining the game’s ending. It impacts who wins the war and, consequently, the overall political climate of the Continent. Your choices in “Reason of State” directly influence which faction emerges victorious.
Who is the most evil character in The Witcher series?
This is subjective, but King Radovid is often considered one of the most evil due to his fanatical persecution of mages and non-humans. His cruelty and paranoia make him a dangerous and unpredictable force. Other characters like Eredin and certain Nilfgaardian figures also vie for the title.
What happens if you help Dijkstra kill Radovid?
This is a misconception. You don’t directly help Dijkstra kill Radovid. The quest “Reason of State” presents a choice between siding with Roche or betraying him to Dijkstra. If you side with Dijkstra (by allowing him to kill Roche after Radovid is dealt with), Dijkstra becomes the ruler of Redania.
Is Ciri becoming Empress a good ending?
Whether Ciri becoming Empress is a “good” ending is a matter of perspective. While it offers her a life of security and power, it’s not necessarily what she desires. Some players feel it’s the most responsible outcome, while others believe it sacrifices her personal happiness and freedom.
How do you keep Dijkstra and Roche alive?
It is impossible to keep both Dijkstra and Roche alive if you pursue the quest to assassinate Radovid. The quest “Reason of State” forces you to choose between them. If you want to keep them both alive, you must abandon the assassination plot entirely, allowing Radovid to live, but he will continue to hunt down mages and non-humans in the North.
Should you help Radovid or Dijkstra?
This depends on your preferences. Helping Radovid means allowing his persecution of mages and non-humans to continue. Siding with Dijkstra leads to a pragmatic but potentially oppressive regime. Both choices have significant moral implications. Ultimately, the choice is up to the player.
Will Dijkstra help at Kaer Morhen?
Dijkstra will never offer help at Kaer Morhen. Even if you complete his treasure retrieval quest, he’ll only offer money, not manpower or strategic assistance. His focus remains solely on Redania’s interests.