Talk:Cerys an Craite/@comment-184.95.41.158-20180816233644

For those claiming bias: Just no. Cerys has more political savvy from an outsider's perspective - less predictable and more likely to catch on to subterfuge - but is also less able to unite her own people who are staunch traditionalists and isolationists used to straightforward militant approaches and shows of strength. To us she might seem clever, particularly as we see it pay off, but to them she would appear indecisive or downright sneaky which undermines their confidence. Hjalmar is less savvy and prefers a hawkish stance on foreign relations but can better rally the troops than Cerys and handle the in-fighting of the clans - or at the very least put on a strong enough front that they would temporarily unite under his banner in a crisis - which would be crucial in the event of an invasion, which frankly given Nilfgaard's tendencies is pretty likely to happen whether there's a diplomat on the throne or not. It's all a matter of perspective. Cerys might delay an invasion or lay bare complex machinations before they do damage but Hjalmar appears better prepared to handle an all-out war.

Claiming bias because of in-game rewards falls into a different trap: Ethically compromising decisions often have a greater immediate reward or lack repercussions and seemingly moral choices can backfire later down the line. Again it's all about perspective and this is a series that will gut-punch your expectations in that regard.

Unfortunately from my perspective I find people have different opinions of the same politics depending on exactly who espouses them. What *would* these conversations look like with genders inverted or removed as a concern?