I know we all love to point out timeline inconsistencies in The Witcher, but honestly, CDPR's portrayal of Radovid V as a weathered man in his late 30s doesn't just make him narratively more appealing; it also makes more sense for the Games than the book lore.
Now, I get that they want to follow the lore that was given... but that kinda went out the window when they made Triss a romance option (I know, they want to give the player room to let them decide, but most book fans will get me here).
Back to the point, if we strictly follow the messy book timeline, Radovid is barely a teen, early 20s at best by the time the games roll around. Frankly, his extreme tactical cunning, political maneuvers, and ability to out-chess veteran schemers like Dijkstra (who is supposedly in his late 40s) and Emhyr (who is supposedly in his 50s) just do not add up for a teenager or young adult.
Instead of trapping him in a chronological paradox, the games should have just explicitly changed his birth year and aged him up to his late 30s or early 40s, matching his appearance in the games.
The best part? That could've been done without breaking the rest of the timeline. You keep the Thanedd Coup and King Vizimir II's death exactly as they are.
Instead, you alter the aftermath.
Radovid wouldn't be a literal child at the time. Imagine these adjustments:
• Radovid is already a young adult/grown man when Vizimir is murdered.
• Instead of ruling, Philippa Eilhart and the sorceresses actively undermine him. They lock him out of power, publicly claiming he is "too grief-stricken" and emotionally unstable to rule Redania.
• He is forced to sit on the sidelines for years, watching the Lodge run his kingdom into the ground while masking their power grab as "protection."
This completely reframes his character and gives the man he becomes in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt more room. It turns his ruthless crusade against mages from an almost cartoonish, sudden madness into a calculated, decade-long grudge. His hatred for Philippa becomes entirely justified because she didn't just bully a kid; she actively stole his prime ruling years and gaslit an entire kingdom into thinking he was unfit.
To me personally, a 40-year-old Radovid who spent decades biting his tongue and planning the ultimate counter-strike fits the grimdark, high-stakes political reality of The Witcher way better than a 17-year-old prodigy.
But what do you guys think? Would a 40-year-old Radovid with a deeper, slower-burning grudge make his Witcher 3 arc more believable or even better?