[Various spoilers] [Wall of text] My thoughts on Witcher 3 canon ending.

[firevoodoo]

Hello Nexus!

 

I posted it on Reddit couple of weeks earlier but apparently no one read it. Will try my luck here.

 

So I just spent two last month in W3 universe (yes I’m little bit slow but hey – it is better late than never) and after picking my jaw from the floor I must declare W3 is not just the best game to this day, it is masterpiece.

 

Now I would like to discuss the cannon ending for the series and the game itself a little bit. First things first though: I would like to apologize for my English, I am Russian, but I will do my best not to butcher it too much.

 

Regardless whom you chose Triss or Shani you’ll end up with Triss at the start of W2. Shani will even scold you in HoS for leaving her. Likewise, whether you spare Aryan his mother will end up with Nilfgaardians. Even better: whether you chose Roche or Iorveth, the latter is nowhere to be seen while the former will act as if you are old pals in W3. Rescuing Sheala will only end up with you granting her coup de grace in prison in W3 (oh the ridiculousness of it).

 

Therefore there IS some cannon ending in W3 which will provide the state of the world for W4 (whatever the name or MC).

 

The main questions of W3 are the outcome of the war and Ciri’s destiny. As for the latter, I’m not entirely sure and will discuss it later, while the former is clear: Nilfgaard won & Temeria is its vassal state.

 

My reasons are obvious parallels both books and games provide with the actual medieval European powers of predominantly XIII-XIV centuries (with some minor anachronisms). Because we know the outcome of their struggles, we can safely predict the outcome of struggles of their W-counterparts.

 

First, let’s look at the South and the North in general. Both worship something the same but not entirely the same: Great Sun of the South vs Eternal Fire of the North. Which is clear metaphor for the different flavors of Christianity. In this sense, The South is obviously Catholic part of Slavic world, while the North represents the Orthodox. Both books and game lore are very clear on that. If you still think, it is the other way around - there is Toussaint (literally “All Saints’ Day” in French) for you. In the South. Obviously, Southerners and Nordlings love each other dearly like good Catholics and Orthodox did back then.

 

As for the kingdoms themselves. Nilfgaard is the Kingdom of Poland circa XIII-XIV, Temeria – is the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (thus Vizima is Wilno), Redania is Grand Duchy of Moscow apparently, while all other northern realms are the rest of warring Russian kingdoms and principalities like Principality of Tver etc. Novigrad is Novgorod (geopolitically at least) – though visually it is more like Gdansk, while Oxenfurt is Kiev and thus Oxenfurt Academy is kind of Kiev Mohyla Academy. Btw townies and villagers of Kiev area shared Stjepan’s sentiments towards Kiev Academy’s students wholeheartedly. Wild Hunt thus is kind of Golden Horde. Btw despite all the cliché about the Horde in the West it was the one of the most technologically developed military power at the time with very sophisticated Chinese siege machinery, logistic systems etc. Orient-inspired architecture of their settlements included.

 

There are heavy political, cultural and even visual allusions in both books and games for that.

 

Nilfgaard. The most influential and civilized power of the W-world (created by Poles) is clearly the Kingdom of Poland in its glory days when it spread the Light of Catholicism, Western culture etc. to those unwashed Orthodox barbarians.

 

Unique political system. While Nilfgaard is still normal medieval European monarchy, there are already the signs of things to come: rise of powerful and ignorant aristocracy undermining power of the king (and eventually of the whole state in couple hundreds of years). The history of Emhyr’s struggle with his magnates is very telling: he managed to defeat the coup to impose Morvran Voorhis on his throne, but Morvran himself ended up being the general of the most powerful military unit. He then openly discuss his plans for crown with apparently anyone willing to hear and even ended up becoming the emperor indeed. In any other European monarchy he would rot in prison despite his apparent innocence (neither him nor his father knew about conspiracy) just to be sure, just in case.

 

Both books and game-narrative (Gwent-cards descriptions included) emphasize that the bulk of Nilfgaard forces is powerful and well-organized cavalry consisted of heavily armored knights with winged helmets. While the rest of its enemies heavily rely on hordes of “pore f***ing infantry”. Obviously, it is famous undefeatable “Husaria”. Poles got the best heavy armored cavalry in Eastern Europe for centuries. For hundreds of years Husaria lost exactly zero battles. The peak of its might was “the Battle of Klushino” in 1610 where 6 800 hussars defeated combined 35 000 Russo-Swedish army. Polish general was none other than famous Stanislaw Zolkiewski. He then proceeded and took over Moscow by the orders of Polish king though he himself was strong opponent of this whole Russian adventure where Poles spent great deal of resources with no practical end.

 

Nilfgaardian Field Marshal Menno Coehoorn is obvious nod to Zolkiewski (despite his name being reference to other general from Netherlands). The most emotional part of Coehoorn story – circumstances of his death, depicted in book saga – is basically the depiction of Zolkiewski’s failed raid against Ottoman Empire. It was the time when Vienna was about to become the border city between Europe and Turkey so no shame to lost to enemy like that. Hundred years later the first Russian emperor Peter the Great barely escaped with his life from exactly the same sport on the bank of river Prut where Zolkiewski perished.

 

I can go on and on proving Nilfgaard is Poland, but it is the wall of text already, so my last point is Toussaint – The most beautiful and the easiest recognizable part of the W-world. Supposedly vassal state but apparently said vassal pays no tribute to its Nilfgaard sovereign, takes no part in its military endeavors while its ruler even scolds her suzerain for brutalities of war with the North and demands to stop it at once (sic!). There should be another wall of text about special relations between Poland and France, but I’ll pass.

 

Temeria. European-styled capital, monarch and aristocracy with clearly Malo-Russian (or Malo-Poland – depending on point of view) looking countryside and peasants. Just check out walls in the inn and other homes in the White Orchard (and in parts of Velen which is in itself clear reference to the Wild Fields – Ukraine (literally “Borderland”) between Poland and Russia) – you can find those ornaments on any folk souvenir in Kiev any day. Along with Toussaint-France, there is yet another absolutely direct and unmistakable historical reference - the “Wild ones” – who are none other than Cossacks (literally “freemen” in Turkish). Not surprisingly, they are placed in Velen. There was only one such state in medieval Europe - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Unlike modern-day Lithuania it stretched from Baltic to Black sea thus being on par with Poland in terms of size and relative military power. The only problem was Lithuanian elite being such a minority they were forced to use Russian in their official documents, with Orthodox Christianity dominating their spiritual life. Thus it safe to say they were de-facto more part of the “North” but more than willing to swap sides. The only problem was – the loss of their Russian territories.

 

Redania – “Protector of the North” – with its drive to consolidate northern realms - is obvious reference to Grand Duchy of Moscow, which always sought to consolidate ancient Russian lands. While Radovid V – thin tall cleanly shaved power hungry and little bit mad king – is little bit anachronic reference to Peter the Great creator of Russian Empire - who lived couple of hundreds years later.

 

Now to summarize the geopolitical outcome of W3 all we need is to remember the outcome of the struggle between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: they formed common state called Rzeczpospolita (literally “Republic”) where Poland played the leading role, while Lithuania, forfeiting its Russian lands become minor partner.

 

In a way, W-games do not continue the story of book saga but rather adopt it in a very creative manner. They adopted it while claiming it is a continuation. Very awkward story with Geralt’s amnesia and voila! Geralt is alive and ready to roll. Still many of his new stories are adaptations of his former ones. Like the story of Renfri killed by Geralt (for which he got his infamous title the “Butcher of Blaviken”) is recycled at least twice in W3. First time when he is to deny the Little Red to exact revenge over traitor-informer (he is to slaughter her altogether with her gang to that). Second time – the whole story of Sylvia Anna (like Renfri – princess exiled because of the Black Sun curse). The list goes on. The main plot repeats book saga main plot as well: Nilfgaard took Temeria as vassal state (Foltest turned on his alleys) while Geralt dies in the end in a very symbolic manner. W3 also tells the story where Geralt is to find and deliver Ciri to Emhyr (the only difference is this time he does know he is her farther). In book saga he does it and is ordered to kill himself by Emhyr along with Yenn. Emhyr’s only clemency is couple of hours Geralt to spend with Yenn before that. The moment Geralt submits he dies regardless of the change of thought Emhyr did after that. Sapkowski illustrates thus the power of destiny when shortly after that Geralt is killed anyways by some no-name peasant with pitchfork and dies along with Yenn who exhausted herself to death trying to heal him.

 

Anyways as far as geopolitical outcome concerned, we can safely assume, based on historical parallels and on book saga grand finale, that Nilfgaard took Temeria as Vassal state.

 

A for Geralt and Ciri – I’m not so sure. In book grand finale, Ciri took Geralt and Yenn to Avalon – obvious symbolic metaphor of Paradise. In game series which are in a way rather adaptation than continuation – Geralt ends up in game version of Avalon paradise – Toussaint. In a way, it might be a hint that the cannon ending of W3 is the variation of so-called bad-ending where Geralt physically perishes after taking vengeance to the last Crone while still ending up in Toussaint paradise. Flashbacks from future suggest Morvran Voorhis is the emperor while Ciri is nowhere to be seen.

 

So what are your thoughts guys?

Edited May 14, 2018 by firevoodoo

[RoadKill47]

I really liked your analogy, and they're true. But before I give my thoughts I'll be clear that I won't be using the terms "good ending/bittersweet ending/bad ending" or whatever, as player's definition of these endings could vary. And I'll also be clear that my thoughts mainly comprise Ciri's endings.

 

I got the ending where Ciri dies and Geralt kills the last Crone, and I felt messed up. But when I thought about it, I realised how each ending is shaped beautifully, even though it was very clear CDPR wanted to make the Ciri-witcher ending the most popular. The fact that CDPR never announced any "canon" ending must be stressed. There are, however, some hints about the "canon" ending. When you first meet the Crones, they'll predict that when Geralt meets Ciri, she'll die. Now I'm willing to take the word of some ugly, evil crones for a grain of salt, but again, a hint. The last crone also predicts that Geralt will die in the hands of those necrophages but he doesn't, instead he ends up in Touissant 2 years later. I'll assume that CDPR intended to kill Geralt in this ending but then they had to change that at the last second so they could do the DLCs. With this assumption, I'll assume once more that CDPR kept the witcher and empress endings in mind while making the expansions, but then it wouldn't be fair to all players so they decided to let Geralt survive. Now I've heard some arguments in the internet that Ciri just doesn't visit Geralt in BoW as he "called her off way too many times". Now I'm not willing to validate that argument. That just doesn't sound like Ciri, and you don't get that ending if Geralt "hurts" Ciri, but if he shakes her confidence. You can tell her that she doesn't have to be good at everything, accompany her to the Lodge and tell her to calm down in that lab, while still visiting Skjall's grave and not meeting Emhyr, and you will STILL get Ciri's death ending. Besides, its stated that she disappears in the variation. Now coming to what you said is canon for Ciri, it is true that there is no mention of Ciri in those flashes, but it should be noted that she could also have become a witcher. If you get the empress ending, it is true that she's not mentioned in those flashes, but that could be because Morvran Voorhis becomes Emperor in EVERY ending and that he has much, much more experience in running an empire, so he has the prime power over Ciri, while Ciri could be acting as some sort of a guidance figure, helping him make decisions, magic-users-related stuff in particular.

 

As for the empire's ending, its pretty clear that Nilfgaard winning the war is more "canon". Geralt is no fool, and I don't think he will possibly allow a madman rule the North, even though he doesn't give a damn about politics. But recent events have forced him to take on a role in the political stage, and since he has loved ones who use magic, I don't think he won't be willing to take on the role once more for their safety. It also doesn't sound like Geralt to let Dijkstra kill Roche, especially if you took Iorveth's path in W2, in which case Geralt states that he's tired to tell Roche that he's indebted to him. Besides, he also helped at the Battle of Kaer Morhen. So yes, Nilfgaard wins ending looks more canon.

 

Final thoughts:

Its not really a good idea to judge a particular ending as "canon", its the nature of an RPG to let players select their own canon choices.