Letho decision: where do you stand?

+
Letho decision: where do you stand?

Considering everything that Letho did in The Witcher 2 does he deserve to die or did his debt to Geralt give him a measure of slack and he should be set free.

where does everyone stand on this, and why?
 
I decided to fight him only because he said he kills Geralt if he asks for a duel, otherwise, I would've let him go, but Letho had to boast about his strength...
 
I released him, though not for any special role-playing reason -- I just want to find out what becomes him in The Witcher 3.
 
I spared him because the damage was done. Nilfgaard was crossing the Yaruga and the North was in disarray. His death serves no purpose and only feeds on the player's revenge. Yes, he puts your life and Triss' life in danger but there are plenty more times where he actually never wants to hurt you. He has no issues with Geralt and even cared for Yennefer. I always spare him because he and the witchers of the Viper have played their game and finished it with whatever was desired.
 
I killed him, as I thought he might behave even stupider in the future, and endanger the lives of more thousands than he did already, just to satisfy his own ego/greed.

DP
 

Aditya

Forum veteran
spared him on all my playthroughs coz- doesn't make sense irrespective of it- he is such a badass WANT him in the next game *surprise appearance*
 
I killed him because he broke the faith of witcher neutrality. Killing kings and helping plunge the northern kingdoms into war for Nilfgard's needs.
 
I fought him once just because I wanted to see if I could beat him, but my "real" decision is to let him go. I just feel like Geralt doesn't really owe it to Foltest to avenge him, and at that point, so much other stuff has happened that killing Letho just because it's what Geralt originally set out to do seems kind of petty. Besides, if you didn't run and save Triss, Letho does it for you. Granted, she wouldn't be in trouble if it wasn't for him in the first place, but he kind of makes up for it.
 
In my canon I let him walk, his methods may be suspect but he is not doing the Emperor's bidding for selfish reasons, he is seeking to avoid the extinction of his order and brethren. Plus his intelligence and competence should be rewarded, he single handedly de-stabilised the north and achieved fairly much all of his objectives, with the bare minimum of spilled blood.

Unlike Geralt who broods and philosiphises on a Witchers purpose and seeks to cling on to the codes of the past, Letho chooses to do something about his fate and takes matters into his own hands. In so doing he becomes a tool of a secular power, and thus any blame for Foltests, Demavends and any others deaths must rest with his master The White Flame Dancing on the Graves of his Foes.

Letho is a weapon, cleaned of the rust of disuse and pointless endeavour and given purpose in fresh hands. I blame the weilder.
 
I let him go, without hesitation.

My Geralt fully understood what kind of influence Letho had had and actually made on the different events in the North, but I felt no grudge, nor revenge for Letho. His intentions and his agenda weren't evil, his goal was always to ensure the rebuildment of the Witchers of the Viper school. He didn't have an idealistic view on the world, but rather a realistic one. While Geralt simply accepts that Witchers are relics, and will eventually 'go exctinct', Letho actually accepts what the world has come to, and actively wants to make a change on that. I doubt he cares who is the ruler, or who is the winner in the upcoming war. He simply has his own goals that he pursues and wants to achieve, and will take down almost anyone and 'aid' anyone if it strenghtens his goals, to some extent. My Geralt respected what Letho motives were, and while I may not have approved of Letho's so called "interference" on the stability of the North, his involvement could have ultimately made --as Geralt himself states-- the North even stronger and more united than ever (though it depends a large part on the different choices made in the game, and a lot if it is actually up to speculations in the end).

Another part to why I let him go is that I feel a certain amount of respect for him, and I believe Letho does this as well to Geralt. This can easily be seen when Letho offers Geralt Vodka which, if chosen, Geralt drinks from. Letho is certainly very ruthless, but he is also reasonable and compassionate. He did spare Geralt's life in Act 1, he (depending on choices made) saved Triss, and even throughout the dialogs you have with him, he took care of Yennefer when Geralt wasn't around. There's a lot more to Letho than meets the eye, and that makes him lot more interesting.

And as Geralt states himself, killing Letho will make no difference. The damage had been done, and Geralt had "cleared" his name to some extent. His death would've achieved nothing, if not only for stopping him for doing anything else in the future, which I doubt he will, if not blackmailed or anything between.

But truth be told, him being such a great antagonist also played a big role why I ultimately decided to let him go. And I'm as well interested to see what the future holds for him.
 
agreed, Letho wasnt a cold hearted and mindless killer, he had his motives, whether justifiable or not. he was still a man of honor and i just didnt feel the need to kill him
 
I released him because I'm an anarchist and wish death upon every king and I like what he did so no point in killing him. Also he as a character is much more interesting and atractive than Geralt for me.
 
I kill him every time, just for the cool fight and the great cutscene at the end - when The Witcher 3 hits my hard drive (SSD, that is :D ), i will have a save ready where i let him go, that's for sure :)
 
I always let him go. No deep meaning behind it really, just because he's such an awesome character. That, and I don't see a point in killing him.
 
It's funny, you guys are actually a bit myopic about Letho's goals, and I say this as someone who prefers to let him go. Letho kills thousands with one hit every time he takes down a king, fully aware that the North will burn if his mission is properly fulfilled. But you think it's justified because it improves the lot of a few dozen discriminated people at best.

Yeah, I let Letho go out of curiousity, but I seriously can't see how his actions can be considered to be remotely justified.
 
Agbeth said:
I released him because I'm an anarchist and wish death upon every king and I like what he did so no point in killing him. Also he as a character is much more interesting and atractive than Geralt for me.

Well I had a socialist education and it's something you can't scub off easily, that's why it's Jorveth's path and letting Letho live for me ;) Besides, if you spare Letho there's the chance he will reappear in TW3, he surely deserves to.
 
Let him go. The damage is already done, and killing Letho will be pointless and won't change anything since his role is already finished. If you would confront him earlier, before he executed his plan, only then killing him would make sense as you might have been able to stop him.In addition, let him go, and one day, if destiny will want so, you might find yourself fighting beside him (as fighting against him in the future is unlikely due to story components).
 
Top Bottom