[ spoilers ] Blood and Wine Ending. WTF?!

[Lytha]

No, there is no evidence at all that those knights raped her. She was flogged at one point of her life (you can see a few scars looking like the result of a flogin on her back if you let her drag you into a tumble in the haystack). So much is true.

However, that rape and the origin of her scars... That is just a subjective interpretation of one of the lines coming from Syanna's mouth that some people have made; there is enough evidence against it to put enough doubts into the (a) the truthfulness of any statements of this bandit lady, (b) the interpretation itself. And first and foremost, she did not force Dettlaff to deal "revenge" in what would be the most likely way for a "revenge for a rape" (castrating the rapist would be the "eye for an eye" type of justice to expect from a morally degenerate like Syanna). Secondly, a person who "has her ways with silent strong men" like her would use the "I was raped by them" card to get even more sympathy - she did not do that. Another reason to not believe in that interpretation.

For the flogging - I guess a bandit leader like her had plenty of opportunity to receive such if captured by any force of the law during her years of leading her merry gang in the bandit business (theft, destruction of property, murder, torture. abduction, rape of peasants - we know these merry bandit ways from more than enough notes in the game.) Might of course also have been as she told: One of the 4 knights cruelly punishing her for escaping on the way out of Toussaint. Might also be that her merry team of knightly bandits actually gave her those scars when she met them, and she twisted the facts and lied when she claimed how good and honorable those bandits were. Maybe she had a Stockholm syndrom going. Or maybe they're the result from her being really into really kinky sex. Who knows.


Anyway, it's like in those waifu wars where lines get subjectively interpreted in some specific way by the different "teams" and each "team" thinks that they know the "truth". Which then upsets members of "the other team" and provokes backlashes.

Some people believe everything Syanna says and interpret every vague line in her favour and consider their personal angle as as the "one and only truth"; that's how "she was raped and tortured" statements happen. Some people don't share those personal interpretations, have doubts and see things differently.

It may also be partially down to "Syanna is more attractive than Dettlaff or Regis", to be honest. Or "She is a woman, she appealed to my protective instincts." Or "She used the same lines as my waifu Yen does" (gut reaction to this can swing both ways though, from "this is sexy" to "this makes me really really angry"). Or a simple "I find dark haired women in black really sexy and don't care about details".


Anyway, in the end, it's up to you how you interpret the ingame statements.

 

[Jehane]

Thanks for your thoughts on this - I really thought I had missed the "Those guys raped me"-dialogue and was wondering how that could have happened. So... it's all grey again and open to interpretation. Phew My gut kept telling me that, when dealing with Syanna, I should be extra careful. I didn't trust her although there was a small amount of sympathy because she was treated so badly when she was a child. But being treated badly doesn't justify that sort of revenge. I mean - I can see where it's coming from. I just didn't believe for a second that she was doing what she did for a greater good. There's one line of dialogue towards the end of the conversation in her prison cell in which Geralt tells her that at last she's being honest and shows her true colours. Also, when you decide to insult her, you can see on her face that Geralt has hit a weak spot. She doesn't like that he's able to see through her charade. Not one bit.

 

[Barquiel]

Hang on - the four knights raped and tortured Syanna? Must have missed that bit How's that possible? *argh*
It doesn't justify her actions, though - even in that world, there are trials, and Anna Henrietta would surely have helped her get justice. I still think it's wrong to make another person the tool of vengance, however justified these deaths may be. But manipulating a higher vampire into doing these killings for her? I mean - she could have gone to Dettlaff, told him what those guys did and asked him to deal with them. Instead, she chose to fake her own abduction and was thus responsible for a lot of bloodshed at Dun Tynne - everybody got killed there because of her. Lots of people in Beauclair got killed because of her - although I would also hold Anna Henrietta responsible for the attack on Beauclair. Geralt told her that Dettlaff would attack the city if he couldn't talk to Syanna; she should have listened to that and could have prevented a lot of death.

I disagree. The deaths in Beauclair were solely the fault of Dettlaff, I can't blame Syanna or Anna Henrietta for this. Murdering hundreds of innocents was his decision alone. He knows that killing innocent people is the way to hurt Syanna, and lure her out of hiding. When he attacks Beauclair, he's using the actual act of murdering as a tool to force her hand much the same way Syanna used the threat of murdering an "innocent" as a tool to force Dettlaff's. It is just something far worse because Syanna tries to avoid harming anyone save her targets (the people who abused her)...while Dettlaff flies off the handle and attempts to butcher a whole city for the actions of one woman. And he actually thinks he is the victim in all that, he doesn't think he did anything wrong when he murdered all these people. At least Syanna acknowledges that her actions are terrible, and I think she could really redeem herself. And I definitely don't blame Anna Henrietta. As a ruler you're not supposed to give in to demands and threats of terrorists. I mean, isn't their whole culture based on honor, standing up to your own beliefs and not giving in to villainy?


As for the rape.
"I was sure they (The bandits) would rape me or kill me or both... that's when I realized that a robber and a murderer can be a better man than a knight in shining armor."
"But Crespi was not ordered to beat me with a horsewhip after my first escape attempt....and Du Lac had no instruction to deny me food and abuse me." -> How did Du Lac abuse her, if not through the beating and starvation?
Syanna also mentions being left in the woods with a "torn" dress.

 

[Jehane]

I think it's a chain of reaction that cannot be broken:

- Syanna deceives Dettlaff, stages her own abduction and makes him kill people. She does so because she wants to teach him a lesson, that lesson being that you can trust nobody. She does this although she knows how emotionally unstable he is. She was with him long enough to know that he'd fly off the handle. I can't believe she wouldn't know that. So the bloodshed at Dun Tynne - that's on her. I still think it's awfully stupid to stage your own abduction just to teach your ex a lesson. She wanted revenge? Fine. Do it openly. Go to Dettlaff and ask him to kill those people for you.

- When Dettlaff finds out, he's full of rage - quite understandably, I think, because no one likes to be manipulated like this. However, he says that all he wants is to talk to Syanna about the whole situation. If she doesn't agree, he'll attack the city.

- Syanna agrees to talking to Dettlaff but is brought to Fairyland by Anna Henrietta. So Dettlaff cannot lure her out of hiding simply because she's not there to see what he's doing. It's one point in her favour that she agrees to talking to Dettlaff to end the bloodshed. Anna Henrietta prevents it. I understand that as a ruler you cannot show weakness when being threatened like this but to take the chances and wait to see what happens? That was stupid.

As for the rape: That first quote could also be interpreted in a very general meaning, simply stating that criminals can have some decency too and that knights are not always as noble as they are supposed to be. Not necessarily proof that she's been raped. Abuse can also be verbal; it's not necessarily rape. Same goes for the torn dress. It's all open to interpretation, really, and vague enough to leave us wondering what really happened. I do have some sympathy for Syanna because she has been dealt a shitty hand, what with the alleged curse. But in the end, she chose to become what people always "knew" she would become. When dealing with her, I always had the feeling that she was trying to manipulate Geralt as well; she says so during the conversation in her prison room even though I made Geralt behave nicely towards her while in Fairyland.

 

[Draconifors]

:angry2: I have done all three ending and on the one where Dettlaff kills Syanna is my favorite but why is that a bad ending? that should be the best ending. That woman betrayed and broke dettlaff's heart. Syanna should pay and everyone should understand and thank Geralt for making an executive decision. anyone else feel like me that Dettlaff doesnt deserve to die for this to be a happy ending?

Agreed 100 %. By the time the entire truth was revealed I felt really bad for Dettlaff, and absolutely loathed Syanna (and to a lesser extent Anna Henrietta). The only thing about that ending that I didn't like was what happened to Geralt. "Unfair" doesn't even begin to cover it.

I tried a different ending, but then Regis ended up being forced to leave Toussaint...

I'm with those who say Dettlaff doesn't deserve to die but Syanna definitely does. I already know I'm going to arrange that ending again once I get to Toussaint. Maybe someday I'll try the Orianna path... maybe.

 

[Barquiel]

I think it's a chain of reaction that cannot be broken:

- Syanna deceives Dettlaff, stages her own abduction and makes him kill people. She does so because she wants to teach him a lesson, that lesson being that you can trust nobody. She does this although she knows how emotionally unstable he is. She was with him long enough to know that he'd fly off the handle. I can't believe she wouldn't know that. So the bloodshed at Dun Tynne - that's on her. I still think it's awfully stupid to stage your own abduction just to teach your ex a lesson. She wanted revenge? Fine. Do it openly. Go to Dettlaff and ask him to kill those people for you.

- When Dettlaff finds out, he's full of rage - quite understandably, I think, because no one likes to be manipulated like this. However, he says that all he wants is to talk to Syanna about the whole situation. If she doesn't agree, he'll attack the city.

- Syanna agrees to talking to Dettlaff but is brought to Fairyland by Anna Henrietta. So Dettlaff cannot lure her out of hiding simply because she's not there to see what he's doing. It's one point in her favour that she agrees to talking to Dettlaff to end the bloodshed. Anna Henrietta prevents it. I understand that as a ruler you cannot show weakness when being threatened like this but to take the chances and wait to see what happens? That was stupid.

As for the rape: That first quote could also be interpreted in a very general meaning, simply stating that criminals can have some decency too and that knights are not always as noble as they are supposed to be. Not necessarily proof that she's been raped. Abuse can also be verbal; it's not necessarily rape. Same goes for the torn dress. It's all open to interpretation, really, and vague enough to leave us wondering what really happened. I do have some sympathy for Syanna because she has been dealt a shitty hand, what with the alleged curse. But in the end, she chose to become what people always "knew" she would become. When dealing with her, I always had the feeling that she was trying to manipulate Geralt as well; she says so during the conversation in her prison room even though I made Geralt behave nicely towards her while in Fairyland.

Syanna used Dettlaff because killing four elite knights without anyone noticing isn't all that easy. It was the shock she received from the hypocrisy of what's considered good in Toussaint is what dictated her actions, not the wish to teach Dettlaff a lesson. Explaining the situation to Anna would have been better ofc, but it was also logical for Syanna to assume her sister betrayed and abandoned her while she was away because she couldn't possible know what Anna was doing while they were apart. Keep in mind that her last clear memory of them two was Anna not standing up for her when they got in trouble as children. By staging her kidnapping not only could she get away from Dettlaff, she could also take her vengeance on those who abused her. So yes, what she did was bad. But at least there is some rhyme or reason to it. Objectively speaking, she probably gets off too easy for the series of events she started because she is a noble and Anarietta’s sister, but all in all I feel everyone got what they deserved in the happy ending. And I don't think she could have predicted Dettlaff's reaction...I mean, even Regis misjudged him and promised that Syanna won't be harmed for example.


I don't think Dettlaff's reaction is understandable and I don't give a **** how betrayed he feels, you don't butcher a city no matter what. That was HIS choice alone. If he had simply tried to find Syanna, ok...that's something I could accept. But I don't recall a lot of active searching being done during the attack on Beauclair; just mostly vampires in the streets focusing on killing innocent people who have nothing to do with the whole affair. If they truly were looking for her, there'd be more than a handful of vampires at the Beauclair Palace, they'd have converged on it from the beginning. I honestly can't imagine even if a peaceful solution were possible that Geralt could in good conscious let Detlaff walk away. As for Anna Henrietta, as I've said...I think it's mostly a cultural thing and the fact that she blamed herself for not standing up for her sister when they were children. And I mean, at the end of the day she guessed correctly that Detlaff didn't want to just have a conversation with Syanna. He goes to meet her with the intention to kill her, doesn't he?


As for the rape, I think the writers' intention was clear enough. And why would Syanna lie about it? She didn't hestitate to meet Dettlaff in order to minimize bloodshed in the city despite the fact she would probably be killed and Geralt has already agreed to help her. I think what got to her in the happy ending was Geralt being nice to her without any particular reason (and tickles). She was used to people treating her horribly and then Geralt showed her that there are good people in the world. This is referenced first when he retrieves her ribbon and she’s truly surprised he’d do it for her. And then again, when she said “you really want that happy ending” in the tower.

 

[Jehane]

Oh, but Syanna herself says that Dettlaff needs to learn that people cannot be trusted. So she did what she did in order to teach him that lesson. That and to get revenge. I can understand that she's angry because she's been treated badly but that doesn't justify treating another being like she did. I always had the impression that she was a cold woman and that she tried to manipulate everyone around her, especially men.

As for Syanna and Anarietta: The simple fact that Anna put Syanna in Fableland should have told Syanna that her sister was concerned for her safety. She could also have tried to talk to her. If my sister had not stood up for me and I had the feeling that she betrayed me, I'd try to talk to her first instead of hiring someone to kill her because she must be one of the bad guys and because my view of the world is just black and white.

I never said that Dettlaff's attack on Beauclair is understandable. His rage, however, is. He's been betrayed by the woman he loves. His reaction is way over the top, of course, and I would have liked the option of finding Syanna BEFORE the three days are up in order to prevent all that bloodshed. The attack on Beauclair really annoyed me for various reasons, one being that it only seemed to be there to have a lot of vampires in action.

Overall, I cannot shake off the feeling that the characters - Anarietta, Syanna, Dettlaff - have been bent to fit the story. Regis states over and over again that Dettlaff hates killing people. Still, he launches that attack on Beauclair which just doesn't make any sense. I don't think Regis misjudged Dettlaff. I think this is sloppy writing or rather an example of how to make characters act out of character because you want to have lots of vampires in full action. There was no other way to have all those vamps attack Beauclair so you just throw over board everything you have written about a character and make him go berserk even though you let another character who's known him for hundreds of years state that no, he's not bloodthirsty at all. Character writing just don't fit the story. I had the feeling that the writers wanted to create "grey" characters as in the main game but didn't quite achieve it and in the end gave up the characters in order to have the bloodshed in Beauclair and a reason for the fight against Dettlaff in the end.

I'm not sure if Dettlaff goes to Tesham Mutna with the intention of killing Syanna. He's still full of rage, yes, but when he first arrives, he seems to want to talk. Only when he realises that she's been deceiving him does he give in to his instincts and tries to kill her - which, in my playthrough, he didn't manage because she was protected by that ribbon.

 

[jimmywon34]

because he does not feel responsible for the killings he's commited - human life means nothing to him

I disagree detlaff showed remorse after killing his first contract, even cutting off his own hand. detlaff just didn't have to attack the entire city but as regis said a vampire in a state of rage is unpredictable, rage that was put their by Syanna, she knew how much he loved her and how dangerous he is. i haven't played through all the endings but what i want is to be able to spare detlaff, still be good with Anna, and have an ending so Regis doesn't have to flee. is that possible?

 

[Thomas999]

I disagree detlaff showed remorse after killing his first contract, even cutting off his own hand. detlaff just didn't have to attack the entire city but as regis said a vampire in a state of rage is unpredictable, rage that was put their by Syanna, she knew how much he loved her and how dangerous he is. i haven't played through all the endings but what i want is to be able to spare detlaff, still be good with Anna, and have an ending so Regis doesn't have to flee. is that possible?

There's no doubt that Dettlaff is a victim too under the circumstances, but he's nonetheless wildly unstable and ruthless enough to swarm a city with monsters because of a lovers' spat. At that point you aren't just a victim, you're a serious ongoing threat to others that needs to be addressed and certainly can't be trusted to walk free. And unlike a bandit or a king or a witcher who all face challenges and natural or social roadblocks that keep them somewhat in check, a murderous high vampire is virtually unstoppable under normal circumstances, meaning that Geralt would not simply be leaving Dettlaff's fate in his own hands if he spared him, he would be leaving entire populations completely at the mercy of Dettlaff's unreliable temperament.

When I first faced the choice, there was just no way in hell I could justify wasting time to find and negotiate with Syanna so as to avoid having to kill him while people were being massacred by his vampire buddies. It was only afterwards that I realized that Geralt betting on being able to figure it out with an elder vampire and then actually take Dettlaff in combat is more or less as risky and desperate as him betting on being able to talk the vampire down and trust Dettlaff to keep his cool in the future, making the choice a little less of a no-brainer.

The "tragic" ending is very unfortunate, sure, but I never felt like anyone was being untrue to their character or doing anything that didn't make internal sense. Henrietta really was pathologically reckless, Toussaint as a whole really was inviting disaster with their heedless superstition, traditions, naivete and hypocrisy, Dettlaff really was untrustworthy, Syanna really was too far gone, Regis really was unfairly biased and making excuses for Dettlaff and his falling out with the other vampires really was worth it to put a stop to the latter's rampage. It felt like a true ending, even if it was a sad one, and I was pretty satisfied with it. Felt more like 'lessons learned all around, time to move on' than a real downer ending, or even a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[Rasta48]

Its all about consequences in my opinion, and no one alltogether suffers morally and physically as much as Regis do if Dettlaff died. First of all he simply betrayed him, he has dept that he is not pay to Dettlaff yet, and no need to mention that they are friends and same clan, and on the other side - Geralt, Regis die for him once, and as good friend he cant forget it just like that. Trivially at the end we have too simple chooses - who you want to support? Choose one - Ruler who lost her mind(sister bla, bla, bla - she wants to refresh their own storyline no matter what...but what about justice? you play with different animal now) and trying to kill ancient creature who simply was right and want to avenge the betrayal, he deserve it, but Anna trying to outwit and ambush Dettlaff, disgusting move, but there was never joke anymore, that was enough for Dettlaff, and you need to respect him, especially if he was right. And choose two - Friend who again was willing to give his life for Geralt no matter the outcome, he can die at once this time, and he did not gave a chance to Dettlaff, a chance that Dettlaff presented him before, new beggining and this burden is very heavy morally + bonus vampiric curse which is very heavy physically. My personal best ending is where Syanna dies and Dettlaff got a second chance, Regis helps him went through this and Geralt potentially get two godlike Vampires at his side if it need be. Anna suffer but shes alive and soon realize what really happend, that perhaps this vampire had saved her life. There are no very bad consequences for no one in this ending, Geralt maybe lost some attitude, but as we all know - Geralt is a hero and good friend, IMO.

 

[bti79]

Syanna: targetted specific individual who she felt had wronged her greatly. I'm incliened to go with the 'torture and rape"-intrepretation, but even without it the point stands. At worst her actions were over emotional and immature. So I felt right about saving Syanna. In addtion it was right for Anna who needed to find peace with her sister.

Detlaff: Let himself be played like a fool by Syanna and then goes on a rampage to destroy the entire city just to get to her. That's a real madman - he needed to die if for no other reason then to get him off the street - permanently. Regis being exiled was unfortunate but ultimately his own decision and for the greater good.

 

[Corewolf]

Oh look, Witchers are talking about morals of killing a monster vs killing a human.

Simple fact is that we, as Witchers, are not paid to pass judgement on human affairs and it isn't our place to choose whether Syanna lives or dies. Detlaff however is a creature that is not human and thus falls into the range of things Witchers are supposed to deal with. Detlaff, for whatever reason, endangered an entire city and country. Intelligence aside, he would have a contract put on him simply for the fact that he, unlike other intelligent monsters, does not value nor understand human life. (While more powerful, he isn't any different than a Bruxa or similar. Humans aren't that important to him outside minor exceptions). Syanna is human, thus it isn't up to us to judge her crime of stealing wine and murdering humans. It's a job for the government, which unfortunately in this case is her sister.

 

[Thomas999]

Personally, my favorite ending is the Unseen Elder one, with Dettlaff getting put down as quickly and reliably as possible and the sisters both getting themselves killed in the aftermath through no-one's fault but their own. I don't feel the other quest-line properly acknowledges the fact that hundreds of people are literally being torn to shreds while Syanna's and Dettlaff's relative moralities and sympathetic merit are being quibbled over, or properly punishes Anna Henrietta for her criminal recklessness and incompetence. Or the people of Toussaint for their delusional optimism and superstition, for that matter.

The whole situation should seize to be about individual punishment when dozens and dozens of guards who are just doing their jobs are killed on both sides in the assault on Dun Tynne, and even more so when vampires descend on Beauclair. By then, whether Syanna or Dettlaff survives or deserves to should be irrelevant compared to ending and preventing more whole-scale slaughter, to Geralt's mind.

I'd argue that Dettlaff does seem to value human life to some degree. The problem is that he's pretty unstoppable once he gets going, impossible to contain and too unstable to be trusted to walk around without causing disaster. Not to mention that under the particular circumstances, his death would call off the vampires terrorizing an entire city with certainty, while convincing him to call them off even with Syanna in tow is a gamble.

 

[DPredator]

Syanna: targetted specific individual who she felt had wronged her greatly. I'm incliened to go with the 'torture and rape"-intrepretation, but even without it the point stands. At worst her actions were over emotional and immature. So I felt right about saving Syanna. In addtion it was right for Anna who needed to find peace with her sister.

Not surprising. Due to Syanna's "Curse" (I honestly really doubt that there actually really was a curse at all, it at the very least become a some what self-fulfilling prophecy, even Geralt had serious doubt this curse exists "Though Geralt had serious doubts whether this curse truly existed") she was shunned, and feared, and eventually exiled, which is hardly conducive for forming a good moral compass, and instilling good morals and values. I think ultimately the ones to blame for all of this mess are the parents of Syanna and Anna-Henrietta for having believed in the Curse in the first place.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Moral gray aside...
I can relate with the pain of someone that could drive them for revenge, like Syanna
I cannot relate with the pain of someone that drives them to genocide, like Dattlaff.

One is of reason, good or bad, the other is just of evil.
And really, I couldn't care less about the motivations of evil people, characters, etc. I just want them neutralized.
Prevent people from becoming evil? Absolutely. Feel bad for people who are evil? Not a chance.

 

[Guest 3823474]

Probably slightly related to this, so I'll link my view here.


As for the good, bad, ugly ending judgment: As so often with Witcher, it's all full of gray areas. The arguably best ending just has more rainbows, hah. Fairytale style.

The story showed how just about anybody can be MADE a monster or SEEN/JUDGED as one. If Dettlaff is a monster, Syanna is. If Syanna is a monster, Ana is. Who is the biggest monster? Highly philosophical.

 

[Hayashi.226]

I wouldn't say that Dettlaff was evil, in the sense we humans define good & evil. Perhaps "amoral" would be a better description. We know how higher vampires view humans, they have even farmed humans like cattle for their blood - the books in Tesham Mutna made that clear. So with this frame of reference, perhaps attacking Beauclair would be no different in his perspective than say, a farmer destroying a bee hive on his property to get rid of a nuisance. He would do so without compunction, and think nothing of it.
Having said that, and unlike Regis, Dettalff is a threat simply because he lets his emotions get the better of him, and slaughters many innocents to make good his threat - and perhaps that is why we view him as "evil". Being of such instability (as we view it) what's to say that he wouldn't go on a similar rampage in the future over a perceived slight? Therefore for the good of the world, Dettlaff has to die, or otherwise neutralised even though he is not "evil" per se.
Syanna too I would say is "evil" for being the manipulative woman that set all this in motion and deserves punishment. If not at the hands of Dettlaff, then, and preferably, in a trial where the Duchess has recused herself as obviously she is conflicted. Don't forget, if Geralt doesn't manage to appeal to her senses, she goes on to kill her own sister at the end (one of the endings). This to me is abhorrent.
Ana's only fault in this matter is that she has a soft spot for her sister. Apart from that it appears that she is a capable and much-loved ruler. From the game at least, I have not read about her in any of the books.
The ending where all is forgiven is weak. Who's not to say that sometime in the future Syanna would ultimately extract her revenge on her sister? And if she somehow managed to become the new Duchess (after all she views the Duchy as her right as she is the elder sister) would she be a suitable ruler for Toussaint? I think not.

 

[Guest 3823474]

Hayashi.226 I think it can be safely assumed that Syanna's sister's reconciliation dissolves her hatred and starts a process of healing. That was quite clear with their loving hug.
That Syanna killed Ana in the other ending makes sense because there Ana did not take responsibility for her banishing of her sister but wants to project that guilt away on her sister who suffered so much. It escalates the root of the problem.
On one hand you are right that Dettlaff shows a particular disregard for innocent lives, but it's arguable whether that's because they're humans, because, after all, he was madly in love with Syanna, a human. One could even argue that his resolved rage over having been forced to kill people based on a deception, exploiting his love, corrupted those feelings and he became the evil that took hold of him. Again, my stance is that the emotional agony inflicted on him unjustly must have been incomprehensible. You can turn almost anyone into a monster. And then one could argue about the details of the siege. How offensive were the lower vampires? Many guards probably died in attempts to fight them. How many civilians did actually die and in what way? This is all left in the dark, probably deliberately, for storytelling reasons and to keep decisions difficult for the player.

 

[bekessd]

I dont get the evil in detlaff at all. He found he was tricked and forced by the same person he was involved with and trying to save, into murdering some strangers which he bitterly remorsed as seen in flashback. Then his this bitterness turned to the city which to him appeared supporting sayanna and her doing by hiding her from him keeping him from seeking his reason or venting anger if none given. The story did not provide enough dark side of detlaff and made dark side of sayanna too blatant, so it was all imbalanced and looked forced from there, with everyone including geralt and regis suddenly seeing him as madman threat to fight against sitting over sayanna's poor judgement a bit stretched.

 

[snowplough913]

I think thats the case cuz of what happens next to you? Sent you to jail and to see the disappointment in Anna Henrietta, they never got the chance to sort things out. Cuz remeber the reason why she did all that to Dettlaff.

Either way I dont really think any of the ending is a good or bad ending. It's up to the player to decide that, if you see the relationship between Dettlaff and Sysanne as the major problem or if you wanna look deeper in and try to sort things out between Sysanne and Anna.

Dettlaff sure didn't deserve all that Sysanne did to him, but hes a murderer and invovles everyone that lives in Toussaint just to please his own feelings. As I somewhat talked about earlier, its about how big u think, you wanna stay in the box or think outside the box? Dettlaff relationship as major problem or the reason behind all that.

Hopefully I make sense, did atleast when I was writing all.