Common Sense... BaW endings

[Jeanne1]

I thought we had already concluded that there was no rape involved in the story of the knights and Syanna?

She spent the last few years with outlaws. Bandits. We learn in the notes of the hanses and from common sense that bandits have a rather perverse sense of "justice". If one of the knights had raped her, then the "justified revenge" would have involved sexual violence, probably some sort of mutilation. Since that did not happen, even though Syanna has a tool to dish out any revenge she could dream of, there was no rape in the past.

I think it's at least strongly hinted that these knights raped her. She mentions abuses (and she references being beaten separately from "abuses"), a torn dress and outlaws who are better than knights because...they didn't rape her. I am not sure what the bandits have to do with it, she never wanted literally an eye for an eye - that wasn't her approach.


Anyway, letting an emotionally unstable Vampire who murdered hundreds of innocent people go scott free would be certainly OOC for my Geralt. I'm not saying that Syanna is a saint or anything (I like her...probably more than I should^^), but she can be reasoned with and after she hugs it out with Annarietta she is no threat to anyone. Syanna is willing to change, tries to fix the mess she has created and didn't harm anyone saved those who had wronged her (and my sympathy for these four knights is rather limited). Sure, Regis now has to watch his back...but as he said, he's certain he'll be fine staying in a place like Nilfgaard. All in all I feel everyone got what they deserved.

 

[Hazevamp]

Personally I didn't think the theme of BaW was hope or forgiveness at all. Instead it seemed to me to be corruption, false virtue and things being other than what they seem. You have a picturesque fairytale facade masking a cabal of literal bloodsuckers; you have beautiful sun drenched vineyards home to deliberate archespore infestation and vicious in-fighting between vineyard owners; errant knights fixated on suicidal courtship rituals rather than keeping the wilds safe for defenceless peasants; supposedly noble families actually steeped in a history of resentment, plotting and murder... all against a backdrop of a disney-esque castle which is essentially a monument to an elven genocide. I felt like the whole place was ripe for a massive dose of reality catching up with it, ready to be brought back to earth with a bump.

I agree, I think this theme is far more fitting than the theme of forgiveness. Even the fairytale world Geralt and Syanna travel to is all about a fantasy world that is filled with corruption and isn't what it seems to be. You have shadow creatures trying to kill you, people committing suicide, selfish Goldy Locks stealing and the lists goes on. I do think it's befitting for Anna to die, it's much more believable that it would take much more than a hug and a 2 minute talk to air out their grievances. But I like leaving Anna alive to hopefully learn from this ordeal, that it was her own selfishness and arrogance that got her sister killed and Beauclair attacked, but somehow I doubt she will.

I have to admit that I felt much more sympathy for Dettlaff during my first play through than I did for Syanna. I'd much rather have had more interaction with him than with her but...oh well. Neither is a total innocent. Both deserve some form of punishment. What really ruined B&W for me is that there is no way to punish Dettlaff without Regis suffering for it which is just WRONG!

I agree, I think both Dettlaff and Syanna deserved punishment but not death. Syanna should have been locked up in prison and I agree that Dettlaff should have gotten so wounded it would take years to regenerate. But finding out that another higher Vampire had to do it made me really reluctant to kill Dettlaff. Actually it reached a point where I felt like my role as a Witcher there was pointless. Which is why I was determined to end the conflict by talking it through. I wouldn't even be fulfilling the contract by killing Dettlaff, I would be allowing Regis to do the job for me. However, I'm okay with letting him walk as he (unlike Anna and Syanna) at least seems capable of compassion, empathy, and selflessness. Only time will tell if he ever display those traits again, but I do have hope that with Regis's aid he would.

 

[Goodmongo]

Anyway, letting an emotionally unstable Vampire who murdered hundreds of innocent people go scott free would be certainly OOC for my Geralt. I'm not saying that Syanna is a saint or anything (I like her...probably more than I should^^), but she can be reasoned with and after she hugs it out with Annarietta she is no threat to anyone. Syanna is willing to change, tries to fix the mess she has created and didn't harm anyone saved those who had wronged her (and my sympathy for these four knights is rather limited). Sure, Regis now has to watch his back...but as he said, he's certain he'll be fine staying in a place like Nilfgaard. All in all I feel everyone got what they deserved.

Fisrt off you can't kill Detlaff. So the best you can hope for is to remove him for a period of time and then what? Piss him off more? He made a promise that he would leave and go far away from man. He's not a blood drinker. He is a hothead but he warned you to turn her over. So unlike some he drew a red line in the sand and then stood by it. What good is a threat is not acted upon?

Syanna and then Anna were the root cause of all the deaths. You claim she can be reasoned with but where is the proof? She's more of a hothead than Detlaff. And as further proof she still intends to kill her sister. What happens the very next time she gets pissed off at her sister?

Sorry but there is no proof she's reformed or can be trusted. She even thought she could control Detlaff and charm her way out of the problem.

No killing Detlaff doesn't solve anything. Syanna is still a threat to anyone that ticks her off and Detlaff just may come back. After all you have no guarantee that Regis would permanently kill him. So after he respawns he is coming after your ass.

See the difference in the three possible fights with Detlaff is the chief head honco vampire agrees that Detlaff should die in one of them. If you got the ribbon Detlaff attacks you and Regis so you are DEFENDING and not the attacker. But in the other one you have a choice. If you fight it's because YOU and you alone decide to fight it out. I just don't see Geralt taking that choice.

BTW to fight Detlaff is like saying the other monsters you encountered that you had a choice to avoid combat with should all have been fought. The trolls, dopplers, succubus and even the group in Skellige all have to be killed based on your choice.

 

[Jeanne1]

Regis says that he'll stop Dettlaff if neccessary, and I think that's the case after he went batshit crazy and attacked the entire city. Once the vampires started attacking the city, you can see Regis has come to the realization that Detlaff has gone too far.

The proof is obviously that Geralt can talk Syanna out of killing Annarietta, help her realize that she was mistaken. She also doesn't hestitate meeting Dettlaff despite the fact she would probably be killed only because she didn't want to let innocents die. That alone makes her more trustworthy than Dettlaff who simply doesn't care, at least in my opinion. There's also no evidence that Syanna would try to kill Anna again; it's certainly not implied by the ending.

And I don't buy the argument of justifying Dettlaff's actions because he's a higher vampire and thereby doesn't 'know' any better. From my point of view Detlaff had to be put down sooner or later, he is an ticking time bomb that someone would trigger eventually again and next time there is probably nobody in the area to stop him. The monsters in Skellige? They are no threat. Selma? Succubi by their nature aren't violent. The city guard lured her into a trap and forced her to defend herself. The doppler is even more harmless. And they are all willing to talk ofc.


In the end I just gave Syanna a chance to redeem herself and she took it. Dettlaff on the other hand simply attacked and I killed him. Best ending I could wish for.

 

[Lytha]

Well. The endings of BaW are clearly written well enough to divide the players strongly.

This is actually lovely storytelling. Not black and white simplicity, but more shades.


Anyway. In my opinion, Syanna is:

- sadistic from an early age (tortured the Wonderland kid with the beans in the past)
- suffering from a well developed antisocial personallity disorder
- has a lovely streak of narcissism
- uses and manipulates others to achieve her goals
- has a totally warped perception of "justice" and is bent on revenge
- I also have my doubts about the truth of her little stories about the time when she got exiled, in fact. People like her are not known to always be truthful.
- and nope, there was most definitely no rape. None of the murdered knights received a Reginald treatment, which would be the most obvious choice of revenge for a sexual abuse. Under the given circumstances, that definitely closes the rape case.

She is also the person who pulled the trigger in the situation. Detlaff would not have killed anyone if Syanna hadn't pulled him into the mess with her little plot. The night of long fangs would not have happened if Annrietta hadn't been so stupid and hadn't ignored the ultimatum.


Anyway, choice between "a person like that dies" and "a person who actually sacrificed his life for me in the past and who I appreciate more than anyone else, will become a hunted outcast from his own, extremely long-lived species" is quite clear for me. For me, only Regis' fate matters.

Annrietta's grief will pass.
Detlaff will return to not having contact with humans anymore again, as before.
Regis does not come under any threat and can live however and wherever he wishes.
Geralt is fine in the long run.
Dandelion finally gets to do something useful.
And the vengeful criminal psychopath dies.

Seems fine. Definitely the best choice in my playthroughs. Even though it means missing out on a Gwent match.

 

[Triss.Hasengold]

Not on all the possible paths, if you go to the fairytale land and do not give the ribbon to Syanna, then the fight with Dettlaff is optional, but Syanna dies.

I gave her the ribbon, but in my ending everyone survived. I am currently trying to find out what to do to see some of the other endings to make Regis survive and the ultradominant and intrigant sisters die.
A vampire should rule Toussaint to create a new and mysterious vampire society.
I imagine Regis and his wife, Morticia from Addams Familiy, on the trone. Yes this would be truly awesome.

By the way, Syanna wasn`t raped, she was flogged till uncounsciousness. Because of that she used Detlaff to kill the knights and her sister for revenge. And she is maybe a psychopath because she made drawings of beheaded of people and stuff in the early childhood, but maybe she is not a psychopath and maybe she is only fascinated by morbid stuff and has drawn what she has seen in public capital punishment scenes (without any sadistic aspect) - what exactly she is depends on if she walked out into the woods to torture and kill some dogs or whatever in the age of 9. But there is too few information and too few dialogues and infos about pets disappearing in the neighbourhoods to make a accurate profile about her.
The diary of Henrietta and Syanna as children Geralt is reading before entering the fantasy fairytale world was not really long or detailed enough to get information for profiling.

Henrietta is the same dominant, loud, and strange in her behaviour like her sister, and focused on alcohol; I don`t really like her either. They are both very strange.
Syanna has no noticable narcisstic behaviour, but Henrietta has.
During the quests with her, I thought "this spoiled and dominant and completely convinced of herself rich-bitch should better work as some SM-domina, or learn how to speak in a nice manner with other people! If in this DLC some sex-scenes will appear with Henrietta and Geralt, I will deny Geralt sleeping with her and make him answering >sorry but I have to go< or something like that..."
The population of Toussaint don`t like her as a leader, because they are "ready to storm the prison to free Syanna", and Henrietta is an ultradominant and dislikable woman, for example she throws this guy into prison for stealing some wine: "Because of this extreme crime he will now loose all he owns and all his citicen rights, he has go to prison now, and haaarrrrrdest punishment for high treason against the crown by stealing wine awaits blah blah blah blah...."
The same "high treason threats" and prison punishment she also speaks out against Geralt, whenever he does not exactly what she wants him to do, or whenever Geralt makes an sarcastic answer.
The difference between Henrietta and Syanna is, that Syanna has no political influence and power and needs to use charm and persuasion if she wants someone to do what she wants.
And Henrietta says "either you do - or you go to prison!"

I am sure the guillotine was invented in Toussaint shortly after this guy had stolen this special wine, a guillotine especially for similiar "high treason crimes" like stealing wine or giving sarcastic answers, so Henrietta seems to be the beheading-fan and Syanna was just the artist, drawing what Henrietta is talking about all the time (prison, and beheading, and prison, and when I am adult and big and rich and powerful I throw them all into prison and put their heads on sticks like Vlad Dracul, and afterwards I build even bigger prisons for everyone with a different opinion or less alcohol level than myself........).

But Regis is nice, deep, philosophical and interesting.
A fact I don`t liked was that there were almost no dialogues at all between Geralt and Detlaff.
But maybe I need to see all four endings to know more

 

[Hazevamp]

See the difference in the three possible fights with Detlaff is the chief head honco vampire agrees that Detlaff should die in one of them. If you got the ribbon Detlaff attacks you and Regis so you are DEFENDING and not the attacker. But in the other one you have a choice. If you fight it's because YOU and you alone decide to fight it out. I just don't see Geralt taking that choice.

BTW to fight Detlaff is like saying the other monsters you encountered that you had a choice to avoid combat with should all have been fought. The trolls, dopplers, succubus and even the group in Skellige all have to be killed based on your choice.

IMO, going the Unseen Elder route is perhaps the most selfish and dumbest decision Geralt could make. I can understand why he would make that choice (he wants to stop the attack as fast as possible), but it's a selfish and stupid one because Geralt makes this choice knowing for a fact that he himself could never kill Dettlaff. Which means that he does it on the possibility that he could use Regis to kill him. As much as I love the Regis/Geralt bromance, there has to come a point where Regis realizes he's in a one sided relationship here. He gets 'killed' by some mage helping Geralt out, he then gets injured trying to stop Dettlaff from killing Geralt, He drinks blood and risks addiction to find Dettlaff, and then he's left to kill Dettlaff for Geralt's sake. Geralt acting as pig headed as Anna and demanding the Elder approach is just insane to me. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to show that's he's just as much of a bro as Regis. He allows Regis to kill Dettlaff and bear the brunt and weight of his choice while he(geralt) lives happily ever after with his, lover, 5000 crowns, and a Vineyard. I didn't read the books, so maybe Geralt did something for Regis in the past to garner such unconditional loyalty, but idk. I felt that allowing Dettlaff to walk and go to jail was the least Geralt could do to show that he's a bro too. However, I can understand Regis killing Dettlaff during the ribbon choice because Geralt was not there to fight and was left to defend himself but the Elder route should have ended with Regis injuring Dettlaff and taking him and leaving.

As for the second sentence, I think it depends on the type of Witcher the player wants Geralt to be. You can choose to kill all those monsters if you wish or search for nonviolent means of solving the problem. But anyone who says "Geralt leaving Dettlaff alive is not a canon decision" is not being accurate here. Because Geralt does spare monsters who are dangerous to humans, such as the trolls trying to cook and eat a man in Skelliege. Even in Witcher 2, if you opt for the Roche path and therefore don't know who the dragon is, you can opt not to kill the Dragon, despite it attacking humans more than once. Geralt speaks about how it's a majestic creature and perhaps the last of its kind, and therefore won't kill it.

Anyway. In my opinion, Syanna is:

- sadistic from an early age (tortured the Wonderland kid with the beans in the past)
- suffering from a well developed antisocial personallity disorder
- has a lovely streak of narcissism
- uses and manipulates others to achieve her goals
- has a totally warped perception of "justice" and is bent on revenge
- I also have my doubts about the truth of her little stories about the time when she got exiled, in fact. People like her are not known to always be truthful.
- and nope, there was most definitely no rape. None of the murdered knights received a Reginald treatment, which would be the most obvious choice of revenge for a sexual abuse. Under the given circumstances, that definitely closes the rape case.

This is why, when I weigh which characters should die in my canon story, I have to choose Syanna. Besides, She was the Beast of Beauclair anyway and therefore her death fulfills the contract Anna was hell bent on Geralt fulfilling.

As for rape, I don't know if what you wrote proves she wasn't raped. At the very core, her problem was that these men were praised as Knights upholding the virtues and she wanted that mocked and exposed as a lie. Saying that because she didn't request a certain type of death or torture is proof it didn't happen is like saying that because she didn't request one of them to get beaten means she didn't get beaten. IMO, I think it's left open to interpretation.

 

[e6chan]

Regarding Regis, he doesn't really treat leaving Beauclair as a big deal. He says at the end that Beauclair is good but only in controlled doses.

 

[DaSmas]

Feelings about the endings aside I think Syanna living and detlaff dying makes the most sense for me.

Purely because I think Geralt would listne to Regis and NOT going after the elder.

 

[sv3672]

You claim she can be reasoned with but where is the proof?

There is no real proof either way, it is up to the player to decide. Some believe she can change, others do not, but in the end both are just opinions.

BTW to fight Detlaff is like saying the other monsters you encountered that you had a choice to avoid combat with should all have been fought. The trolls, dopplers, succubus and even the group in Skellige all have to be killed based on your choice.

At least in the case when the ribbon is given to Syanna, fighting Dettlaff is hardly Geralt's fault. He has no way to know what the effects of the ribbon will be, and Dettlaff attacks Geralt and Regis without giving any chance to explain themselves (that is, that they did not intentionally betray him). It is basically self defense in that situation.

 

[Vafailelaine]

As for rape, I don't know if what you wrote proves she wasn't raped. At the very core, her problem was that these men were praised as Knights upholding the virtues and she wanted that mocked and exposed as a lie. Saying that because she didn't request a certain type of death or torture is proof it didn't happen is like saying that because she didn't request one of them to get beaten means she didn't get beaten. IMO, I think it's left open to interpretation.

My interpretation is that there was no rape. Syanna tells to Geralt that she was beaten, and I'm sure she would not have missed the opportunity to accuse the knights even more by clearly saying that she was raped, if that would have happened.

 

[Jeanne1]

As I said before, she references being beaten separately from the abuses. Coupled with the torn dress she mentions and her comment about the outlaws it's pretty clear to me that she was raped.

 

[Goodmongo]

Regis says that he'll stop Dettlaff if neccessary, and I think that's the case after he went batshit crazy and attacked the entire city. Once the vampires started attacking the city, you can see Regis has come to the realization that Detlaff has gone too far.

Yet Regis does everything but beg Geralt to get Syanna and have her see Detlaff. So Regis is not saying Detlaff must die. Instead he's saying they must do as Detlaff wants and take Syanna to him.

The proof is obviously that Geralt can talk Syanna out of killing Annarietta, help her realize that she was mistaken. She also doesn't hestitate meeting Dettlaff despite the fact she would probably be killed only because she didn't want to let innocents die. That alone makes her more trustworthy than Dettlaff who simply doesn't care, at least in my opinion. There's also no evidence that Syanna would try to kill Anna again; it's certainly not implied by the ending.

Same can be said about Detlaff. After Syanna dies he says he'll leave and go far away from man. So this shows he didn't want to further the attack. In fact he only attacked because Anna refused to let Syanna go meet Detlaff in the first place. She is just as guilty by ignoring the threat.

And Syanna while she admitted she's nervous she also said multiple times that she can handle Detlaff. She's so full of herself thinking that she can outsmart and control Detlaff. Take that evidence and combine it to her whole plot and you have a serious mental disorder. And as I said what about the next occasion where Syanna feels shes slighted by someone? She's at the very least bipolar and may be schizophrenic. But she clearly has lots of mental issues.

And I don't buy the argument of justifying Dettlaff's actions because he's a higher vampire and thereby doesn't 'know' any better. From my point of view Detlaff had to be put down sooner or later, he is an ticking time bomb that someone would trigger eventually again and next time there is probably nobody in the area to stop him.

Not sure who claimed that but it wasn't me. I don't "justify" his actions. I'm saying he got revenge and then said he's done and will leave. No more threat. And this "put down" is interesting. Geralt can't kill a higher vampire. At best he can make them do away and heal. But Detlaff is unique in that he can regen super fast. So being put down by Geralt means a few days or weeks at most. Look at the fight. Look how fast Detlaff was getting "healed". Plus Regis told Geralt about this effect and Geralt seen it with the hand. Sorry but you make a very wrong assumption that Geralt can damage Detlaff long enough to matter.

And it's ironic that you say Detlaff is the ticking time bomb. Syanna fits that definition perfectly.

The monsters in Skellige? They are no threat. Selma? Succubi by their nature aren't violent. The city guard lured her into a trap and forced her to defend herself. The doppler is even more harmless. And they are all willing to talk ofc.

And how is that different from Detlaff? Detlaff was willing to talk and leave the presence of man. This is the largest contradiction for me. I can see if you kill all monsters then Detlaff is a monster and has to die. Understandable. But just like the Troll in the cave that killed the miners in Skellige you can let it live. In all three witcher games Geralt can treat them as monsters and kill them or he can reason with them and if they promise not to hurt men then he let's them live. Numerous times in the game Geralt explains that a withcer's real job is not just to protect humans but to also protect sentient monsters.

So if you are true to yourself and all monsters must die then Detlaff must be fought. But if you believe sentient monsters should live if they promise to leave or not hurt humans then you contrdict yourself if you fight Detlaff. Besides as I said Geralt must know that Detlaff would not be killed without Regis help. And so if Geralt still insists on fighting him after Syanna dies who can say Regis would actually help? That is one HUGE gamble.

Purely because I think Geralt would listne to Regis and NOT going after the elder.

You don't have to go to the elder to fight Detlaff. The ribbon determines if Detlaff attacks you leaving you no option but to fight him or if he kills Syanna and then you have the choice to fight or not.

 

[Jeanne1]

Yet Regis does everything but beg Geralt to get Syanna and have her see Detlaff. So Regis is not saying Detlaff must die. Instead he's saying they must do as Detlaff wants and take Syanna to him.

I don't really see your point here. I did excactly what Regis wanted and looked for Syanna > I see no reason why I shouldn't give her the ribbon in the fairytale land > Syanna escaped > Detllaff attacked Geralt for no reason > we killed him > I ended up exposing the plot (just as Regis suggested) and got my happy ending. Excellent. But even if you decide to attack Dettlaff after Syanna is killed, Regis agrees with the decision because Dettlaff had lost himself and his ability to feel human emotions. Now if he were willing to talk after Syanna escaped and Regis would vouch for him...yes, I admit that would be a tougher decision (but only because of Regis). But that isn't the case. *shrugs*

Same can be said about Detlaff. After Syanna dies he says he'll leave and go far away from man. So this shows he didn't want to further the attack. In fact he only attacked because Anna refused to let Syanna go meet Detlaff in the first place. She is just as guilty by ignoring the threat.

And Syanna while she admitted she's nervous she also said multiple times that she can handle Detlaff. She's so full of herself thinking that she can outsmart and control Detlaff. Take that evidence and combine it to her whole plot and you have a serious mental disorder. And as I said what about the next occasion where Syanna feels shes slighted by someone? She's at the very least bipolar and may be schizophrenic. But she clearly has lots of mental issues.


Not sure who claimed that but it wasn't me. I don't "justify" his actions. I'm saying he got revenge and then said he's done and will leave. No more threat. And this "put down" is interesting. Geralt can't kill a higher vampire. At best he can make them do away and heal. But Detlaff is unique in that he can regen super fast. So being put down by Geralt means a few days or weeks at most. Look at the fight. Look how fast Detlaff was getting "healed". Plus Regis told Geralt about this effect and Geralt seen it with the hand. Sorry but you make a very wrong assumption that Geralt can damage Detlaff long enough to matter.

And it's ironic that you say Detlaff is the ticking time bomb. Syanna fits that definition perfectly.


And how is that different from Detlaff? Detlaff was willing to talk and leave the presence of man. This is the largest contradiction for me. I can see if you kill all monsters then Detlaff is a monster and has to die. Understandable. But just like the Troll in the cave that killed the miners in Skellige you can let it live. In all three witcher games Geralt can treat them as monsters and kill them or he can reason with them and if they promise not to hurt men then he let's them live. Numerous times in the game Geralt explains that a withcer's real job is not just to protect humans but to also protect sentient monsters.

The major difference is that Syanna tries to avoid harming anyone save her targets, while Dettlaff flies off the handle and attempts to butcher a whole city for the actions of one woman. Both had their motives, but of all the main characters in the story he is the only one who decided to murder innocents (hundreds of them) without showing any kind of remorse. Not to mention that you make it seem like his threat was completely reasonable and if only they'd heed him everything would be fine. You don't get to threaten an entire city with death and just expect everyone to be fine with that. What ruler would accept that? Dettlaff simply couldn´t care less for these humans. And remember the scene at the shoe polish place? He got a small shove and his claws were out instantly. That guy is simply insane, a powerful vampire with the power to kill anyone and everything he pleases. And I'm supposed to believe that he's suddenly able to adept like Regis/Orianna and/or just leave forever? No, he needed to die...every troll or succubus in the game is more trustworthy than this guy (and again, I had no choice anyway because he simply attacked).

And sure, there is no 100% guarantee that Syanna won't do something stupid again...but I certainly didn't get the impression that she has an evil nature or that she's a sociopath. Unlike Dettlaff, she doesn't overreact at every turn either. I think she is no threat to anyone, unless someone tries to torture/rape her again... and I think she can change with Anna's help (I know there's no proof either way, but that's the impression I got from the conversations with her).

Yes, Syanna hoped she could at least explain herself and admits the reason she's willing to go meet Dettlaff is to stop the destruction of Beauclair. But I think it's clear that she knew the risks...and Dettlaff came to the meeting with one purpose and that was to kill her. That's why I agree that foremost amongst Blood and Wine’s themes is forgiveness (and/or the lack thereof). Syanna never thought of forgiving anyone, but we can talk some sense into her and she forgives Anna (tickles solve everything!)... breaking the cycle of retribution and giving them both their happy ending. On the other hand, Detlaff's inability to forgive is his fatal character flaw. I think that's the most fitting end for all characters.

So if you are true to yourself and all monsters must die then Detlaff must be fought. But if you believe sentient monsters should live if they promise to leave or not hurt humans then you contrdict yourself if you fight Detlaff. Besides as I said Geralt must know that Detlaff would not be killed without Regis help. And so if Geralt still insists on fighting him after Syanna dies who can say Regis would actually help? That is one HUGE gamble.

I don't see the contradiction. I spare monster that don't cause harm to innocent people or killed in self-defense. How many innocents did the monster in Skellige kill? Or Salma (I always tend to believe her)? Dettlaff killed hundreds for no reason and attacked me.

 

[Hazevamp]

Feelings about the endings aside I think Syanna living and detlaff dying makes the most sense for me.

Purely because I think Geralt would listne to Regis and NOT going after the elder.

I agree but I see the ribbon route as making sense no matter what happens. I can see Geralt wanting to give Syanna her ribbon back and I can see Geralt deciding not to help her. I also think it makes sense for Geralt to want to kill Dettlaff if he kills Syanna. Though once again, it seems off, because he knows he can't kill him and has no confirmation before starting the fight that Regis would lend a hand.

I don't think Geralt would ignore Regis's warning about the Elder. It makes no sense at all that Geralt would opt to go see an Ancient and powerful Vampire he doesn't stand a chance in Hades of defeating just to summon another Higher Vampire he doesn't stand a chance in Hades of defeating.

My interpretation is that there was no rape. Syanna tells to Geralt that she was beaten, and I'm sure she would not have missed the opportunity to accuse the knights even more by clearly saying that she was raped, if that would have happened.

IMO, saying you've been beaten is a lot easier than saying you were raped. I think there are some lines that leaves it open that she could have been raped or at least sexually abused.

"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."

The abuse is mentioned as a separate event from the beating and starvation which leaves an open question:

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. She was most likely escorted in a carriage if she was wearing a dress. She could have torn her dress during her escape attempts, or it was torn from her either through the whipping, or the unnamed abuse.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that she was abused. I'm just saying it's not clearly stated whether she was or wasn't so both interpretations fit. Unless CDPR states she was or wasn't.

 

[Lytha]

and Dettlaff came to the meeting with one purpose and that was to kill her

No. He came to the meeting with a single purpose. And that was to understand if that evil bitch really had used him from the start. Which she did. Or at least everything in her facial expression during that moment of silence between the question and her demise spoke of this quite clearly enough.

And then, understandably though somewhat regrettably, he executed her.

 

[Goodmongo]

I don't see the contradiction. I spare monster that don't cause harm to innocent people or killed in self-defense. How many innocents did the monster in Skellige kill? Or Salma (I always tend to believe her)? Dettlaff killed hundreds for no reason and attacked me.

You keep acting like your ending is the only one. You keep saying Detlaff attacked you. Yes that is true IF you got the ribbon. It is the ONLY path where you are forced to defend yourself.

The question is IF you had the choice would you START a fight with Detlaff. There are two paths that give you this option. You can go to the elder with this intent or you can skip the ribbon thereby giving you the choice.

But based on your posts it's clear you would still fight Detlaff no matter what. While I'm not justifying Detlaff's action he had a reason so that comment is also inaccurate. He gave a clear and concise warning that both Geralt and Regis tried to convey to Anna. She ignored the warning. She helped make that situation. They warned her that Detlaff would follow through and she still wanted to protect her sister over the lives of her people. All she did was tell Geralt to find Detlaff and stop him.

Syanna used him to do her dirty work. There is no denying this fact. She toyed with him. And even at their encounter she still toys with him and thinks she can get away with it.

BTW the fact also remains that if you did heed him and brought Syanna to him he never would have attacked the city. So while I am not saying this is a proper course or the right way it is still a fact that if Syanna was brought to him he never would have attacked. AND IIRC he initially gave something like 3 days warning but didn't act for a week. I'm just trying to lay out all the facts, no matter what their moral implications might be.

Finally, to answer your question on what ruler would be fine with a threat to a city? The answer is hundreds throughout history did exactly just that. Often time they paid off the Vikings or other "barbarians" to go away. Ransom for kidnappings are done all the time. Many governments threaten other governments to turn over a supposed criminal or face some type of repercussion like embargoes or even war. So it happened all the time in history and that makes your point invalid.

 

[Jeanne1]

You keep acting like your ending is the only one. You keep saying Detlaff attacked you. Yes that is true IF you got the ribbon. It is the ONLY path where you are forced to defend yourself.

Yes, I was solely talking about my ending and why ...
- I didn't shed a tear for Dettlaff
- was sympathetic towards Syanna when given the option to do so
- wanted a happy ending for Anna and her sister.
I always thought that was obvious

The question is IF you had the choice would you START a fight with Detlaff. There are two paths that give you this option. You can go to the elder with this intent or you can skip the ribbon thereby giving you the choice.

But based on your posts it's clear you would still fight Detlaff no matter what. While I'm not justifying Detlaff's action he had a reason so that comment is also inaccurate. He gave a clear and concise warning that both Geralt and Regis tried to convey to Anna. She ignored the warning. She helped make that situation. They warned her that Detlaff would follow through and she still wanted to protect her sister over the lives of her people. All she did was tell Geralt to find Detlaff and stop him.

Correct, I would still fight Dettlaff for the reasons I mentioned...unless Regis would make it absolutely clear that he won't help. In that case it would be suicide.

Syanna used him to do her dirty work. There is no denying this fact. She toyed with him. And even at their encounter she still toys with him and thinks she can get away with it.

I know...and that was not ok, definitely not. There were other and arguably better ways of getting these knights. But I understand her motivations and I don't think her crimes were somehow unforgivable - unlike Dettlaff's. Now had she succeeded in killing her sister and survived we’d be having a completely different discussion of course (I've seen people arguing that the ending with Syanna killing Anna is a perfect Witchery ending...but I think there is enough tragedy in the witcher world, I will not add to it through my decisions in this DLC )

BTW the fact also remains that if you did heed him and brought Syanna to him he never would have attacked the city. So while I am not saying this is a proper course or the right way it is still a fact that if Syanna was brought to him he never would have attacked. AND IIRC he initially gave something like 3 days warning but didn't act for a week. I'm just trying to lay out all the facts, no matter what their moral implications might be.

Finally, to answer your question on what ruler would be fine with a threat to a city? The answer is hundreds throughout history did exactly just that. Often time they paid off the Vikings or other "barbarians" to go away. Ransom for kidnappings are done all the time. Many governments threaten other governments to turn over a supposed criminal or face some type of repercussion like embargoes or even war. So it happened all the time in history and that makes your point invalid.

Fair enough, but I'd still argue that most governments are not exactly willing to submit themselves to blackmail and usually refuse to give in to the demands of terrorists/criminals (which is exactly what Dettlaff is). And at the end of the day Regis is wrong ("I vow that not a hair on Syanna's head shall come in harm") while Anarietta guessed correctly that Detlaff didn't want to just have a conversation with her. I can respect that she stands up for Syanna and didn't threw her sister away like that.


Anyway, I think this discussion is getting a bit circular...so I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[DaSmas]

I think it boils down to... Would Geralt get the ribbon or not.

 

[Lytha]

I think it boils down to "how important is Regis to the player" and maybe "how deeply did the player explore the dialogue options with Regis to understand what the results of the fairytale ending would mean to him".


I also got to say that any foreshadowing in the previous dialogues with Regis does hit the point home really strongly for me.

- points out the similarities between Detlaff and Geralt, suggesting that Geralt would do similar things to rescue Yen. Yeah, not unleash a horde of lesser vampires; but when I watch Geralt wipe out anything in a hanse base and just mass-murder every "enemy", I see the point indeed.
- points out that Detlaff does not seek contact with humans, so the "ticking time bomb" argument is not valid
- points out that the bond between Detlaff and Regis is stronger than friendship or family
- points out how horrible it must be to kill someone who's a friend - how much harder must it be to be forced to become a kinslayer, right?
- he submits to that Tesha Mutna cage experience because he wants to save Detlaff, not because he's super loyal to Geralt in this case
And I am sure there's more, but which I didn't come across in the current playthrough yet and haven't memorized yet.


I also find the argument "Regis will be fine" abhorrent. No, he won't be fine. He just killed his bloodbrother, became an anathema of his species and will be forced to live out of the sight of other vampires for a very long time. And he does not feel comfortable when living among humans at all. And he is also not the 100% introvert type who prefers to live totally alone without any social contacts neither.

And all this happens to the one person who's 100% innocent of the whole mess, plus one of Geralt's best friends.

The fact that he's not the type to complain, whine and assign blame, does not mean that he'll be "fine".