Dijkstra or Rocher? (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
What do you think, who better to choose? Who is more wiser and better to become the king of Redania?Only Dijkstra and no one else. He is the most sane character and manager. But, I soaked it - how to live without the idiots Roche and Thaler? )))
Well, somehow it is not in the nature of Geralt to leave his striped zatty to death and
Dijkstra's comrades , anyway, Adda will then gobble up
The choice is between helping the whole north prosper (Dijkstra through industrial développent) or let the already fucked northern realm controlled by the muddy emperor of nilfgard.... Don't let your friendship with roche clouded you from the greater good
Sakvo
I chose Roche because he helped in kaer morhen and did a lot in the 2nd part of autumn. And dijkstra is a dick
On the one hand, in The Witcher 3, Roche demonstrates friendship towards Geralt (for example, saves him from execution at the time of the assassination attempt on Radovid; arrives to help in Kaer Morhen; helps to find the Younger). On the other hand, in The Witcher 2, Rocher was completely different, and in The Witcher 3, his character, which was partly in distrust of Geralt, is merged. For Rocher, his own country is more important than Geralt. The latter is only a partner of Roche. If Roche had a choice between Temeria and Geralt, then Roche would help Temeria. I believe that Roche cannot be trusted, even if Geralt followed his path in The Witcher 2 and Roche called him a comrade when meeting in The Witcher 3 (in the Polish version, so generally a friend).
Besides, there are other points. I do not really believe that Dijkstra will simply unite the entire North. Maybe he will "oredan" him in general (he will crush him under Redania by introducing the appropriate laws). However, if I'm right, the Redan mentality is closer to the northerners than the Nilfgaardian one, so such an occupation will be much easier to bear than the Nilfgaardian one.
In addition, if I'm right, Redania is the most powerful kingdom in the North (the weakest is Aedirn), and I would not want to give such a powerful state to the Nilfs. Personally, for the last time in The Witcher 2, I followed the path of Roche and preserved the independence of Temeria as one of the most powerful kingdoms in the North, having previously surrendered Kimbolt and Maravel, and in The Witcher 3 Tmeria and Kaedwen, powerful kingdoms, no longer existed, but Redania remained, so I supported Redania. I feel that if the sequel to The Witcher 3 comes out, then the developers will again merge the endings, as was the case with The Witcher 2.
As I understand it, the choice of tamshet is very simple.
Either you choose Rocher as a friend, and the whole north is captured by the "civilized" Nilfgaard, which, in principle, is not bad - look how beautiful Toussaint they have. And Roche, Bianca and Thaler also survive, who are with us from part 2, and Thaler in general from part 1.
Either you choose Dijkstra as the ruler, and the north survives in a fierce struggle and develops on its own, in a slow, painstaking way, but friends die .
As for me, all the same, friends are higher than the country. After all, Gerald de facto has no country, and he should have a side to the north, besides, under Nilfgaard, ordinary hard workers will suffer the least, which means everyone wins.
But the choice is stupid, yes, I don’t know what Dijkstra hoped for, for the patriotism of a wandering witcher?)))))) Sorcerers are not killed under Emhyr, just like nonhumans - everything is in the black.