I thought I would add my two cents on some of these topics. In regard to if Stennis is guilty or not I present the following facts. First off we know that Olcan was involved in the plot. That is undisputed. We also know that Stennis ans Olcan were talking together and the conversation was circumstantial evidence about setting up the deed to poison Saskia. So what is pretty clear is that Stennis knew Olcan was going to kill Saskia. There is no direct evidence that says Olcan told Stennis about the plot but Stennis sure didn't ask questions of why Olcan wanted everyone removed to give access. Now here are a couple of points that people miss.
First off Olcan was dead so someone else had to actually poison the cup or at least place it for Saskia. They had to make sure no one washed it if it was poisoned before they went to see Henselt. It makes zero sense that the cup was placed at this table before they left to meet Henselt. So the deed was done by someone other than Olcan. Now defenders say that Stennis said nice things about Saskia. But in the US a persons last actions or words are more important. So him refusing to save Saskia is very damming. At this point he felt he no longer needed Saskia to defeat Henselt. If he did need her he would have saved her for this reason alone.
The game also gives us direct evidence of a motive. The journal says:
"After Demavend's demise, pretenders to the crown sprang up like mushrooms. Apart from the one powerful noble family, first fiddle in this volatile orchestra belonged jointly to Stennis, Demavend's son, and Saskia, a rebel leading a peasant insurrection."
So Saskia was direct competition for the crown against Stennis. That is powerful motive to have her killed. So to sum up Stennis had motive, disposition, frame of mind, and there was strong circumstantial evidence he knew of the plot. So even if he didn't place the poison or the cup he is at least guilt of conspiracy to commit murder.
Now another other major issue I have is people saying Geralt would not get involved with politics or want to help Iorvath. Geralt clearly showed he would side with non-humans. He fought with dwarves at Brenna. Got killed at Vizima defending non-humans and killing humans in the process. He has two close friends in Zoltan and Dandelion that were helping the non-humans. Then when you first meet Iorvath he receives some background and explanations on his motive. Iorvath wants a free land. He isn't a bigot but instead more of a freedom fighter. Yes he gets caught up fighting the special forces but for the most part his goal of a land for elves is the driving force behind his actions.
Would Geralt give him the sword? That can go either way. But Iorvath was under the protection of Geralt so it makes sense. I can't recall if Geralt see's Roache before this decision. If he doesn't that fully supports giving the sword. As for which side to then pick there are arguments for both sides. But Zoltan and Dandelion are going to Vergen so I think that along with Iorvath agreeing to help get Letho means Geralt goes this route. As for saving the women or killing Laredo that is an easy call. He saves the women. He can kill Laredo anytime. The more pressing problem is dealt with first. And just like at Vizima he will get involved to save innocnets.
Now the final point of contention is if Geralt kills Letho or not. One thing is clear. Geralt hates Nilfgaard. Letho was a pawn for them. Geralt also gave his word which if you recall was the reason he was fighting for Folstest at the start. And Letho got the better of Geralt twice before. That is plenty of motive and reason to kill him. If he doesn't kill Letho he can't clear his name. At best he will be viewed as in league with other witchers that kill kings. He has no choice but to keep his word to Roache and kill Letho.
I totally agree with you on all your points but one (Especially that Iorveth's path and Geralt's past and backstory would make him choose the non human path, because of Zoltan, Yarpen, Toruviel (in W1)..all characters that he met before and he wouldn't betray by playing on the political side and be on the side of humans that despise him because he's a mutant).
^ Regarding Letho..we can outweigh the pros and cons: Yes..Letho was working for the Emperor and killed two kings because he was persuaded by him to do so, BUT only at the promise that Emhyr will rebuild the school of witchers (which is understandable, because he considered Serrit and Auckes friends they all were from the same school and they all died except them).
With that said..Geralt doesn't gain anything from killing Letho. He doesn't clear his name because depending on what you choose before Letho (especially since you are on Iorveth side) there is either a major witch hunt ongoing or there is Henselt and Radovid splitting Temeria between themselves..they couldn't give two shits who killed Foltest.
Now another point in showing that Geralt wouldn't kill Letho:
- He didn't kill him back in the ruins where he could.
- He helped Geralt find the Wil Hunt after he saved him from the Slyzard to look for Yennefer.
- He took care of Yennefer (who is the love of his life) TWO times while he was away with the Wild Hunt.
- He gives him information where he could find Yennefer.
- (Witcher code FORBIDS killing of other witchers..this is more book canon than anything but it's still important).
These HEAVILY outweigh what Letho did in my first point and this is why Geralt wouldn't have anything to gain by killing Letho.
