#1 reason to kill Letho

[Captmorgan72]

#1 reason to kill Letho

He admittingly has turned his back to the Witcher's path. The Emperor has promised to rebuild the school of the Viper for him. No doubt, the Emperor plans to create an army of Witcher warriors with Letho as their general. King Henselt made a comment that if he had several more people like Geralt he could conquer more lands. Letho has no noble plan in mind for rebuilding his Viper school. He has no interest in the Witcher life anymore. He is more than happy to become a killer of human, elf or dwarf, whatever the Emperor wants. For this reason alone, Letho must die.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

As opposed to killing for money for people who will hate you, treat you like crap and ultimately massacre you to the point of extinction.

Yea, how dare Letho turn from a path that failed so utterly.

 

[dragonbird]

I've moved this into a more-appropriate section of the forum.

 

[Demut]

Yea, how dare Letho turn from a path that failed so utterly.

So then you renounce the concept of Witchers altogether?

 

[wichat]

So then you renounce the concept of Witchers altogether?

YOU can think so but not Geralt, after all, he try to remain neutral even among Wtichers.. A lot of those extremally personal decision will be interpreted in the Witcher 3 under Geralt's canon in order to not lose the original story-line.

 

[Demut]

Errr ... what? Wichat, I asked KnightofPhoenix whether he deems the concept of Witchers superfluous because that’s what his comment seems to imply.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think the traditional path of the Witchers has failed. Witchers in and of themselves are still very useful, if they reform.

 

[Demut]

How has it failed, exactly? The ostracizing of Witchers was pretty much always present ever since their creation and their receding usefulness is merely owed to the decline of monster populations and the progress of mankind as a whole. I wouldn’t so much say that it has failed rather than that it has succeeded and thus started to “do away” with itself. Why do you beg to differ?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Because they were massacred to the verge of extinction by the same people they were supposed to protect. IF an organization can't even prevent that, it failed.

And if an organization fails to adapt to a changing world and remain useful when it could be, it failed.

 

[Demut]

I don’t follow. It only failed if it did not meet its goals. But the witchers fulfilled their role so now there is no need for them anymore. Why should they try to stick around then? Why do you believe that unless they exist forever they are were unsuccessful at what they were trying to do? The pogroms that you referred to happened relatively recently in the lore and are but another sign for their natural demise.
Likewise, would you say that an organization dedicated to combating poverty also failed if it is abolished once a utopian society without inequality has been established? It’s the same underlying principle.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

No, it's not. The reason why the Witchers are collapsing is not because they rid the world of monsters. It's because other organizations are doing it better than them (like the Order). Hence their failure.

And every organization has as a goal to persist until its goal has been met (which it has not). If an organization can't protect its members from violence, it by definition failed.

Witchers were not retiring, they were being massacred.

 

[Demut]

I disagree. According to the books monsters are far less of a danger to mankind than they used to be simply because humans grew in numbers and progressed enough to battle them on their own. The Order (which does not even occur in Sapkowski’s works and I cannot recall any similar ones in them either) has nothing to do with this.

If an organization can't protect its members from violence, it by definition failed.

Says who?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I disagree. According to the books monsters are far less of a danger to mankind than they used to be simply because humans grew in numbers and acquired technology to battle them. The Order (which does not occur in Sapkowski’s works and I cannot recall any similar ones in them either) has nothing to do with this.

It was the ORder of the White Rose. And everything you said proves my point. The monsters got reduced because humanity got more powerful, not because of the Witchers. So they didn't meet their objectives rather their objectives were met.

And since they have too much potential to just die but failed to adapt, then they simply failed.

Says who?

Common sense.
If you live in paramilitary order (or any order for that matter) that can't protect you, it failed as an organization.

 

[Demut]

Well, as I said, they only got massacred when they were already few in numbers which, in turn, was only the case because the had fulfilled their role, that is, to protect humanity from monsters until it was strong enough to do so itself. They were not supposed to rid them entirely. It’s actually you who proves my point.

But to quote the game:

“Witchers came into being when the first settlers were colonizing the untamed lands of present-day Temeria. The elite caste of warrior-monks was to defend Humans from the monsters which inhabited the wild. [...] Nowadays, when monsters have become something of a rarity, the demand for the witchers' services has declined significantly. Only a few representatives of the caste still travel the world, and no more monster slayers are being made.”

They did not fail to attain their goal but actually achieved that and as a result of that became obsolete. Humanity’s dominance is proof of that. Had humanity still to hide from monsters only then their mission would have been a failure.

 

[chlong7]

I'd call it obsolescence rather than failure. If the Wolf School wants to fade away rather than compromise on principles, it can choose to do so. Magic is also struggling with a changing order of things. Letho, for better or worse, is trying to adapt to what he recognizes as the general order of the times. I have no problem with that, and it's not my reason for killing him.

I kill him for killing Cedric. I'm not a fan of skewering drunken old elves.

 

[Demut]

Eh, that isn’t a very compelling reason in my opinion. After all, we don’t know how exactly the fight went down, do we? Perhaps it was Cedric how made the first move and attacked Letho who then simply defended himself. I mean it’s not like he seems to be someone who enjoys killing others or does so merely for the heck of it. Remember Triss?

 

[wichat]

Eh, that isn’t a very compelling reason in my opinion. After all, we don’t know how exactly the fight went down, do we? Perhaps it was Cedric how made the first move and attacked Letho who then simply defended himself. I mean it’s not like he seems to be someone who enjoys killing others or does so merely for the heck of it. Remember Triss?

ouch! A drunk no-violence ex-scoia'tael facing directly a pursued kingslayer witcher? possible but unlikely...

 

[chlong7]

Eh, that isn’t a very compelling reason in my opinion.

Maybe not for you, but I'm not playing your game.

Nah, seriously, though: I just can't get on board with the view that Letho is a "bro" of some sort. Yes, as far as we can tell from what he says, he and Geralt were allies at one time. Fine, but there are consequences to every choice, and I don't think Letho should walk away any more easily than Geralt or Triss or Cedric. The whole game involves one contest or another with Letho and the situations he engineers, so when I play Geralt, I play out the end of that game. As far as I'm concerned, Letho doesn't get to call "time out" whenever he feels like it. Don't misunderstand: I'm glad CDPR gave us options, but I prefer one to the other.

 

[Demut]

Well, I killed him, too, in both my playthroughs so it’s not like “my game” differs from yours in that regard. I’m just saying that the killing of Cedric seems to be one of the weakest reasons for not letting Letho live.

 

[chlong7]

Well, I killed him, too, in both my playthroughs so it’s not like “my game” differs from yours in that regard. I’m just saying that the killing of Cedric seems to be one of the weakest reasons for not letting Letho live.

Fine, Demut, you don't like my reasons for playing my game. Ok. Now we've got that straightened out.