Who Should Win the War in The Witcher 3? A Deep Dive into Nilfgaard, Redania, and Skellige
Fast answer first. Then use the tabs or video for more detail.
- Watch the video explanation below for a faster overview.
- Game mechanics may change with updates or patches.
- Use this block to get the short answer without scrolling the whole page.
- Read the FAQ section if the article has one.
- Use the table of contents to jump straight to the detailed section you need.
- Watch the video first, then skim the article for specifics.
The question of who should win the war in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is far more nuanced than a simple good vs. evil dichotomy. There’s no clear-cut “right” answer, as each potential outcome carries significant consequences for the game’s world and its inhabitants. However, considering the long-term stability, the well-being of non-humans, and the potential for a more just society, Nilfgaard’s victory, with specific conditions, represents the least detrimental option for the Continent. This conclusion necessitates understanding the intricate motivations of each faction and the implications of their respective reigns.
Analyzing the Factions: Morality in a Shades-of-Gray World
The Witcher universe thrives on moral ambiguity. Neither Nilfgaard, Redania, nor Skellige are paragons of virtue. Each faction harbors its own flaws and engages in ethically questionable practices. Determining the “best” victor requires weighing these factors and prioritizing the most desirable outcome.
Nilfgaard: Order at a Cost?
Emhyr var Emreis, the Emperor of Nilfgaard, is a complex and often ruthless ruler. His ambition is to bring order and prosperity to the Continent under Nilfgaardian rule. While his methods can be brutal – including invasion and subjugation – he also possesses a certain pragmatism. The text suggests that Emhyr could be considered the “least evil of the continent’s current monarchs.” A Nilfgaardian victory promises stability and infrastructure development, potentially benefiting trade and overall economic growth. Furthermore, Nilfgaard’s society, while hierarchical, is somewhat more tolerant of non-humans than Redania under Radovid. The key is to ensure that Emhyr, after potentially winning the war, does not claim Ciri as his heir, since the text points out that she is unhappy with that possibility.
Redania: Fanaticism and Intolerance
Radovid V, the King of Redania, is a brilliant military strategist, but also a paranoid and fanatical tyrant. His reign is characterized by the persecution of mages and non-humans, leading to widespread terror and injustice. A Redanian victory under Radovid spells disaster for anyone deemed “different,” plunging the Continent into an era of brutal witch hunts and societal regression. As the text indicates, a Radovid victory would give him the opportunity to “burn mages and non-humans alive.”
Skellige: Independence and Tradition
Skellige, the island kingdom, values independence and tradition above all else. While not directly vying for control of the Continent, Skellige’s leadership plays a crucial role in shaping the political landscape. The choice of ruler – Cerys or Hjalmar an Craite – significantly impacts Skellige’s future and its relationship with the other powers. The text shows that it’s best to back Cerys as the next ruler in Skellige.
The Ideal Outcome: A Nilfgaardian Victory Tempered by Moderation
The ideal scenario involves Nilfgaard winning the war, but only if Geralt successfully navigates the political landscape to ensure Ciri’s well-being and Skellige’s stability under Cerys an Craite. This outcome hinges on the following crucial decisions:
- Siding with Roche and Ves in “Reason of State”: This prevents Dijkstra from seizing power in Redania, a scenario that, while seemingly pragmatic, ultimately leads to an oppressive and unstable North. The text shows that by siding with Djikstra, he will rise to power and claim the north as his own, and his subjects won’t be pleased with that at all.
- Supporting Cerys an Craite as Queen of Skellige: Cerys’s rule promises peace and prosperity for Skellige, fostering a stable and reliable ally in the region. As the text indicates, she rules with purpose and ensures the comfort and safety of her people above all else.
- Helping Ciri become a Witcher: This allows Ciri to pursue her own destiny and prevents her from being forced into a role she doesn’t desire, like becoming Empress of Nilfgaard. It can be argued that the Empress Ciri ending of The Witcher 3 is the best because that life is much safer than that of a Witcher. However, it isn’t what Ciri wants from life, and she is unhappy to take the role.
This combination of factors creates a Continent where Nilfgaardian order is tempered by regional autonomy and a commitment to relative tolerance. While not a utopian ideal, it represents the most pragmatic and beneficial outcome, minimizing suffering and maximizing the potential for long-term stability. This outcome also acknowledges Ciri’s agency, allowing her to choose a path that aligns with her own desires. This outcome does not necessarily result in an ideal world, but it is likely the most stable scenario.
Why Nilfgaard’s Victory Matters
A Nilfgaardian victory, under the right circumstances, offers several advantages:
- Stability: Nilfgaard’s centralized power structure can bring much-needed stability to a war-torn Continent.
- Infrastructure: Nilfgaardian rule often leads to improvements in infrastructure, benefiting trade and communication.
- Relative Tolerance: While not perfect, Nilfgaard is generally more tolerant of non-humans than Radovid’s Redania.
- Ciri’s Agency: Allowing Ciri to choose her own destiny, whether as a Witcher or otherwise, is crucial to a positive ending.
Ultimately, the question of who should win the war in The Witcher 3 is a matter of perspective and priorities. However, considering the long-term implications and the well-being of the Continent’s diverse population, a Nilfgaardian victory, achieved through careful decision-making, represents the least undesirable outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Here are 15 frequently asked questions about the war in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt:
1. What are the different endings for the war in The Witcher 3?
The primary outcomes are a Nilfgaardian victory, a Redanian victory under Radovid, and a Redanian victory under Dijkstra. The Skellige outcome also factors into the overall state of the world and Geralt’s success.
2. How do I ensure Nilfgaard wins the war?
To ensure Nilfgaard wins, side with Roche in the quest “Reason of State” and be polite to Dijkstra earlier in the quest. Avoid siding with Dijkstra to secure Nilfgaard’s victory. The text also recommends that to help Nilfgaard win the war, the player must complete the Assassin Quests in The Witcher 2 or to have decided to kill the kings in the simulation conversation with Morvran Voorhis.
3. What happens if Radovid wins the war?
If Radovid wins, he persecutes mages and non-humans relentlessly, leading to widespread suffering and injustice. Thus, Radovid can’t die, and if he’s alive, he stays as Redania’s leader and topples Nilfgaard. That gives him the opportunity to further explore his hobbies — playing chess and burning mages and non-humans alive.
4. What are the consequences of siding with Dijkstra?
Siding with Dijkstra leads to a Redanian victory, but under his ruthless rule. This results in a new oppressive regime, with political purges and societal instability.
5. Who is the best ruler for Skellige?
Cerys an Craite is widely considered the best ruler for Skellige. Her rule brings peace and prosperity to the islands. Though her time as queen weakens the nation’s military arm, this brings about a more sustainable means of living for her people.
6. How does the choice of Skellige’s ruler affect the overall ending?
The choice of ruler in Skellige affects the region’s stability and its alliances, indirectly influencing the overall balance of power on the Continent.
7. Does killing Radovid change anything?
Yes, killing Radovid is crucial to preventing his fanatical reign. The series is not only introducing Radovid, but giving him a much more dynamic and interesting story. He is not just a villain, but an actual human who turns to darkness for a reason. This change undeniably makes his character far better than it could have been.
8. Is it better for Ciri to become a Witcher or Empress?
The “best” outcome depends on Ciri’s desires. While becoming Empress is safer, Ciri is unhappy in that role. Allowing her to become a Witcher aligns with her adventurous spirit.
9. How do I get the “good” ending in The Witcher 3?
The “good” ending typically involves Ciri surviving, Nilfgaard winning (under specific conditions), and Ciri pursuing a path she desires.
10. How do I prevent Ciri from dying?
To prevent Ciri from dying, make positive choices that support her independence and self-esteem throughout the game. The text shows that for Ciri to stay alive, you’ll need to rack up at least three positive points. If you get any less, she vanishes from the game with the implication that she’s dead.
11. Does Ciri become a Witcher if Nilfgaard wins the war?
Ciri can become a Witcher regardless of whether Nilfgaard wins or loses the war, as long as you meet the criteria for that ending.
12. What is the significance of the “Reason of State” quest?
“Reason of State” is pivotal. Choosing between Roche and Dijkstra determines who controls Redania and, consequently, the outcome of the war.
13. What happens if Hjalmar becomes king?
If Hjalmar becomes king, he organizes regular raids against Nilfgaard, leading to unnecessary bloodshed and instability for Skellige.
14. Is Nilfgaard truly “evil”?
Nilfgaard is not inherently evil, but rather an imperialistic power with its own agenda. Their methods can be brutal, but they also bring order and infrastructure. The imperialistic nature of the empire establishes their need to consistently expand and invade their neighboring regions and communities. That is why Nilfgaard is one of the main antagonists in The Witcher franchise.
15. How does the Witcher’s code fit into the game’s moral choices?
The Witcher’s code, emphasizing neutrality, is constantly challenged by the complex moral dilemmas presented in the game, forcing players to make difficult choices with far-reaching consequences. Understanding these nuances is vital for navigating the narrative effectively.
These complexities are exactly what make games so engaging and why the study of game-based learning is important. For further information on how games can be used to enhance educational outcomes, please visit GamesLearningSociety.org.