Does anyone else feel like there was a clear-cut right and wrong decision at the end of Ch. 2?

[twistedbiscuit]

Does anyone else feel like there was a clear-cut right and wrong decision at the end of Ch. 2?

SPOILERS:








Talking about the decision of wether to kill Henselt or not. I feel disappointed with the moment, in that I think sparing Henselt is the obvious "right" choice. Witchers are supposed to stay out of political affairs. Geralt has never been a guy that acts out of emotion, making decisions out of rage. Lastly, this whole damn quest you've been on all game is about finding and killing a king-slayer. Why become a king-slayer yourself and aid Letho's agenda just like that?

I just don't see any way that the character of Geralt could choose to kill Henselt. Now I'm not trying to bash people that chose to kill him, I actually am eager to hear what the reasoning is for making such a decision.

Edit; I haven't finished Chapter 3 yet so I'd appreciate it if there were no spoilers from it in this thread.

 

[Garrison72]

Killing Henselt is an emotional response. Sparing him is the logical one. Personally, I don't think of what would Geralt or a Witcher do, I respond as I would in real life. That's my canon approach for both Witcher games.

 

[CrimzonTearz]

there is no right choice....but as Ves was my Geralt's lover the choice was rather simple

 

[CrimzonTearz]

Killing Henselt is an emotional response. Sparing him is the logical one. Personally, I don't think of what would Geralt or a Witcher do, I respond as I would in real life. That's my canon approach for both Witcher games.

yep, same here

 

[vivaxardas2015]

For most people it is out of revenge for hanging the blue stripes, and raping Ves. For me - for the glory of the Great Sun and the White Flame Dancing on the Barrows of His Foes, Letho's mission must be completed. Henselt's death is good for Nilfgaard.

There was another choice that was completely clear-cut right one - to save Anais. As we learn from Kimbolt, Anais managed to clear Geralt of all charges, because she testified who really killed her father. So she gave Geralt exactly what he wanted - to clear his name, stop hiding, stop fighting bounty-hunters, and be able to go on with his life. And now she was a prisoner of Dethmold. Well, I wouldn't pick Dethmold as a baby-sitter for my kids. />/>/> To leave the girl with him was way more villainy then to leave Triss in a Nilfgaardian camp. Triss was at least partially responsible for her predicament, and I was rightly pissed at her, while the girl was an innocent victim. Here I felt like I actually had a chance to right some wrongs done, and not just run through a labyrinth of lies and cruelty.

 

[wichat]

Yes, it's not a logical way in a witcher canon... if we interpret this "witcher canon" under our modern concept of moral. Playing Geralt you'd never forget you are living in a middle age time, where the worth of life and honour have not the same sense as they have nodaways. And Geralt always acts by his emotions... even if he's constantly denying it.

 

[twistedbiscuit]

Yes, it's not a logical way in a witcher canon... if we interpret this "witcher canon" under our modern concept of moral. Playing Geralt you'd never forget you are living in a middle age time, where the worth of life and honour have not the same sense as they have nodaways. And Geralt always acts by his emotions... even if he's constantly denying it.

Good point, but I feel like the game was even telling you what decision to make. At the end of the little cutscene before you make the decision, Geralt says something like "I had to make another difficult choice, but killing a commander of (something) is not the same as killing a king" and it shows him holding back Roche's hand.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

The game does not really force any choice on you. Any way you choose - you get a cut-scene without any moral approval or disapproval, but simply an acknowledgement of your reasoning behind your choice. Choices in a game are not random, you can give good reasons for each of them, and for me it's what matters most.

 

[Eri94_user70]

SPOILERS:








Talking about the decision of wether to kill Henselt or not. I feel disappointed with the moment, in that I think sparing Henselt is the obvious "right" choice. Witchers are supposed to stay out of political affairs. Geralt has never been a guy that acts out of emotion, making decisions out of rage. Lastly, this whole damn quest you've been on all game is about finding and killing a king-slayer. Why become a king-slayer yourself and aid Letho's agenda just like that?

I just don't see any way that the character of Geralt could choose to kill Henselt. Now I'm not trying to bash people that chose to kill him, I actually am eager to hear what the reasoning is for making such a decision.

Edit; I haven't finished Chapter 3 yet so I'd appreciate it if there were no spoilers from it in this thread. />/>

Because you do not become a kingslayer. You do not kill Henselt. You simply allow Roche to. You might seemingly aid Letho's agenda by doing this, but that is not the case. Henselt is a pig. By killing him, you prevent that pig from ruling all of Aedirn. His hatred against nonhumans is so big, that it is mentioned, both repeatedly and extensively, inside the game, quite a few times. And most importantly, both for us and for "Geralt", there is no right choice. There never was, under the lore's setting. The lesser evil is our only right, sorry, rightful, choice. And not all of us conceive the same things as the lesser evil. Geralt acts out of emotion. Remember the events in Rivia... He couldn't stand the persecution of the nonhumans and went off to scare the persecutors; scare them not by shouting "BOO", but by turning them into mincemeat. About rage is another matter though. You have to be correct, he mustn't have been known to act upon that emotion...

The reasoning... Plough the executions, as Henselt said, it was his "duty" to prevent enemy spies from wreaking havoc in his and his country's affairs, even if only their chief was into the plot. But raping Ves? What would Geralt do if Triss was raped? Let it fly? Remember in the prologue, the crinfrid reavers talking to Geralt about the past, and of their failed effort to rape Yennefer, that momentarily slipped from their tongues? Thank god he has amnesia, the poor stooges would die horribly otherwise... Should they had succeeded in doing that, would Geralt not have slaughtered them just fine even back then?

Anyone can beg to differ. But he also was conspiring with Nilfgaard. He called Shillard. He wanted to negotiate with the Nilfgaardians. He "stole" Annais. He was planning to hand her over to the Black Ones... He was planning to steal Flotsam from Temeria. Calling the invaders and the conspirators whose only mission was to wreak havoc in the entire north to actively participate in their political affairs and aspirations, make him the worst possible scum and the lowliest of traitors. Death was a blessing, a gift, for a stupid pig he was.

I could never find it to my heart to let that man live. I would never forgive my gamer's consciousness... Plus his life is one its ending i owed to poor old Foltest. Trying to plunder and shred to pieces a dead man's kingdom... And to surrender his only remaining child (if you killed striga in 1) to the enemies of the entire north...

 

[twistedbiscuit]

Because you do not become a kingslayer. You do not kill Henselt. You simply allow Roche to. You might seemingly aid Letho's agenda by doing this, but that is not the case. Henselt is a pig. By killing him, you prevent that pig from ruling all of Aedirn. His hatred against nonhumans is so big, that it is mentioned, both repeatedly and extensively, inside the game, quite a few times. And most importantly, both for us and for "Geralt", there is no right choice. There never was, under the lore's setting. The lesser evil is our only right, sorry, rightful, choice. And not all of us conceive the same things as the lesser evil. Geralt acts out of emotion. Remember the events in Rivia... He couldn't stand the persecution of the nonhumans and went off to scare the persecutors; scare them not by shouting "BOO", but by turning them into mincemeat. About rage is another matter though. You have to be correct, he mustn't have been known to act upon that emotion...

The reasoning... Plough the executions, as Henselt said, it was his "duty" to prevent enemy spies from wreaking havoc in his and his country's affairs, even if only their chief was into the plot. But raping Ves? What would Geralt do if Triss was raped? Let it fly? Remember in the prologue, the crinfrid reavers talking to Geralt about the past, and of their failed effort to rape Yennefer, that momentarily slipped from their tongues? Thank god he has amnesia, the poor stooges would die horribly otherwise... Should they had succeeded in doing that, would Geralt not have slaughtered them just fine even back then?

Anyone can beg to differ. But he also was conspiring with Nilfgaard. He called Shillard. He wanted to negotiate with the Nilfgaardians. He "stole" Annais. He was planning to hand her over to the Black Ones... He was planning to steal Flotsam from Temeria. Calling the invaders and the conspirators whose only mission was to wreak havoc in the entire north to actively participate in their political affairs and aspirations, make him the worst possible scum and the lowliest of traitors. Death was a blessing, a gift, for a stupid pig he was.

I could never find it to my heart to let that man live. I would never forgive my gamer's consciousness... Plus his life is one its ending i owed to poor old Foltest. Trying to plunder and shred to pieces a dead man's kingdom... And to surrender his only remaining child (if you killed striga in 1) to the enemies of the entire north...

Great post. I guess we all just think differently as gamers, and thats what makes it so fun. /> I'll be playing this game again anyway, and I'll probably kill him that time. Do you still get this choice on Iorveth's path? (I'm on Roche's). Also, I hear that this choice ends up having no consequences/ effect later on, is this true?

 

[username_2635215]

Many people always talk about how the neutral way would be "canon", especially in The Witcher 1. I don't think this is true.
Yes, witchers are supposed to be neutral, but what do we learn from the books? Geralt never (!) actually manages to behave neutrally, even if he intends to. There are many times when he's driven by emotions, so I think each and every decision you can do in The Witcher 1 and 2 can be "canon" and can be a realistic choice depending on how Geralt acted throughout the game.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Because you do not become a kingslayer. You do not kill Henselt. You simply allow Roche to. You might seemingly aid Letho's agenda by doing this, but that is not the case. Henselt is a pig. By killing him, you prevent that pig from ruling all of Aedirn. His hatred against nonhumans is so big, that it is mentioned, both repeatedly and extensively, inside the game, quite a few times. And most importantly, both for us and for "Geralt", there is no right choice. There never was, under the lore's setting. The lesser evil is our only right, sorry, rightful, choice. And not all of us conceive the same things as the lesser evil. Geralt acts out of emotion. Remember the events in Rivia... He couldn't stand the persecution of the nonhumans and went off to scare the persecutors; scare them not by shouting "BOO", but by turning them into mincemeat. About rage is another matter though. You have to be correct, he mustn't have been known to act upon that emotion...

The reasoning... Plough the executions, as Henselt said, it was his "duty" to prevent enemy spies from wreaking havoc in his and his country's affairs, even if only their chief was into the plot. But raping Ves? What would Geralt do if Triss was raped? Let it fly? Remember in the prologue, the crinfrid reavers talking to Geralt about the past, and of their failed effort to rape Yennefer, that momentarily slipped from their tongues? Thank god he has amnesia, the poor stooges would die horribly otherwise... Should they had succeeded in doing that, would Geralt not have slaughtered them just fine even back then?

Anyone can beg to differ. But he also was conspiring with Nilfgaard. He called Shillard. He wanted to negotiate with the Nilfgaardians. He "stole" Annais. He was planning to hand her over to the Black Ones... He was planning to steal Flotsam from Temeria. Calling the invaders and the conspirators whose only mission was to wreak havoc in the entire north to actively participate in their political affairs and aspirations, make him the worst possible scum and the lowliest of traitors. Death was a blessing, a gift, for a stupid pig he was.

I could never find it to my heart to let that man live. I would never forgive my gamer's consciousness... Plus his life is one its ending i owed to poor old Foltest. Trying to plunder and shred to pieces a dead man's kingdom... And to surrender his only remaining child (if you killed striga in 1) to the enemies of the entire north...

Well, if to think about it, there is no such political entity as the North, and thus Henselt did not betray anyone to Nilfgaard. Temeria's well-being was not his concern, quite the opposite, given that Foltest was behind the plot against Henselt. Henselt did everything he could for the good of Kaedwen exclusively, the rest was not his concern, as well as it was not concern of Foltest, Demovend, or Radovid. Foltest persecuted non-humans just the same, as well as Demovend. From this perspective I see no difference between northern kings. Plus, all of them were idiots because they allowed Nilfgaardian mission even to cross Yaruga. The best policy for the good of the entire North against Shilard would be to give "shoot on sight" order, if he is seen north of the border. But all of them believed that they could control the outcome of their dealings, and all of them were wrong.

Henselt did not steal Anais. Nilfgaardians got her from Maravel, and handed to Henselt for an invitation to the summit. "Nilfgaard's most precious gift" as Dethmold called it. This was the only thing Shilard wanted from Henselt, the rest was just for show, and after he got invitation and Triss, nilfgaardians departed to Loc Muine, and gave the order to eliminate Henselt.

So Henselt was played like all the others. In essence, what Shilard did is simply gave northern monarchs what they wanted, but because all wanted each other's demise, it turned out pretty bad for the region as a whole. That was "a fucking poetry" of nilfgaardian diplomacy.

Henselt was a pig, who raped Ves. But for the rest, he was exactly like any northern king.

 

[sfinx]

Many people always talk about how the neutral way would be "canon", especially in The Witcher 1. I don't think this is true.
Yes, witchers are supposed to be neutral, but what do we learn from the books? Geralt never (!) actually manages to behave neutrally, even if he intends to. There are many times when he's driven by emotions, so I think each and every decision you can do in The Witcher 1 and 2 can be "canon" and can be a realistic choice depending on how Geralt acted throughout the game.

True! Triss, Essi and others were right about him, maybe he is the last which is still not sure about his emotions I think he has emotions and in game I like slimgrin's style.

And who really saw witcher's canon?

 

[FoggyFishburne]

TwistedBuscuit. Huh. You don't happen to be related to TotalBiscuit?

OT: Killing Henselt IS the correct thing, the right thing, the morally thing to do. Fuck Henselt. And fuck Kaedwen as well. Henselt is vicious, to the point and confident. He's just a badass whose ambition stretches far, although not limitless like Radovid who, if given the opportunity, would probably take over the world. Regardless, Henselt is an unethical bastard and making sure he's dead might not be good for Kaedwen, or the Northern Kingdoms in general for that matter, in the short run but I definitely think it would be for the best in long run.

We're told by Geralt when we spare Henselt that Kaedwen would prosper by the ruthless rule of their tyrannical king. Is living in fear and poverty really a valid substitute for anarchy and freedom? Obviously, this is up to you. But I can't in my good consciousness let such a vile of a man live. I'm not a utilitarian, in fact, Henselt proves my point perfectly as to why I hate utilitarianism so much. The fact that you can sacrifice the happiness of some so that the majority can prosper is wrong. Henselt should die because the Kingdoms will do better without him. His bloodline has degenerated into a corrupted mix of poison and hatred. That kind of negativity just doesn't suit the role of "King". Radovid can annex Kaedwen for all I care. Anyone is a better ruler than Henselt.

Obviously, the whole revenge aspect is a compelling reason as well. Even if I'm not a big fan of the Blue Stripes, seeing them die really hit hard. I prefer Iorveth over Roche, without a doubt, but he's a good man nonetheless and seeing him lose his family hurt. Then there's Ves... That alone was enough motivation for me to kill Henselt. Nations and ethics be damned. I'm not interested in preserving the future of one man when that said man ruined the future of others.

Besides, I don't give a shit about the Northern Kingdoms. I really don't. Most of the citizens are stupid, inbred, racist plebs. Fuck 'em. What I do give a shit about however is the new realm that welcomes all races - ruled by a dragon in disguise of a fair maiden. Saskia's Upper Aedirn is a nation worth fighting for. It really is. It's the reason why I let Stennis live, that coward piece of shit of a "prince". I didn't want to taint the sense of justice the new state would have. I didn't want to set a "mob rules" precedent. They're good people and it's a nation that can prosper only if they all set aside their fucking differences and work together, Vergen could florish to become a moderately awesome state. All that accumulated knowledge from different perspectives the races bring to the table coupled with the wealth of Vergen enables the people to reach success and independent sovereignty.

Once again RED proves how awesome they are. Here we are, discussing what the right thing would be to do when there is no right thing to do I'm not right, neither is anyone else. All we can to is explain our motivations and hope others can empathize. I don't really "roleplay" in the traditional "supposed to" sense. When I play roleplaying games, I like to put myself in that world and then ask myself "what would I do if I was put in this environment. So, that's what I would've done if I had a chance to slay a king. It's interesting to read peoples perspectives though. Both people who play as themselves, from a lore-specific Geralt and to a book-wise Geralt. It's good stuff. Adds a lot of depth to the discussions. Kudos RED!

 

[jjavier]

My Geralt puts his understandings of ethics and its personal relations before politics. He doesn't try to be the savior of the northern kingdoms.


Henselt just tried to kill Geralt.
Geralt could kill him, but it doesn't.
If Roche doesn't appear in scene, my Geralt would walk away.
Geralt doesn't think royal blood is sacred.
He is not obligated to save him.

Why Geralt should stop Roche's hand?
Henselt was playing the game of war,
he force that game on others,
he has the advantage,
but he lost.
There is nothing wrong if someone makes him pay.

Has Geralt any right to stop Roche's hands?
I think he hasn't. Roche is entitle to revenge its people.

 

[dragonbird]

Once again RED proves how awesome they are. Here we are, discussing what the right thing would be to do when there is no right thing to do /> I'm not right, neither is anyone else. All we can to is explain our motivations and hope others can empathize.

This, definitely, and you gave a good example of it.
There's a LOT of places in the game where, as individuals, we can see a clear-cut, obvious decision. And then you go online and find that many players agree with you, a similar number thought it MUST be the total opposite, and another similar-sized group agonised over the decision because there was no obvious answer. And none of them are wrong.

 

[Eri94_user70]

But all of them believed that they could control the outcome of their dealings, and all of them were wrong.

Henselt was a pig, who raped Ves. But for the rest, he was exactly like any northern king.

On the contrary. Foltest find it irritating that he had to stomach the presence of the black ones. Even going so far as to ask Geralt's opinion of how Geralt thought that he (foltest) dealed with them in prologue.

MOD: Remainder of the post is deleted for breach of forum rules.

 

[Typo115]

Yes, it's not a logical way in a witcher canon... if we interpret this "witcher canon" under our modern concept of moral. Playing Geralt you'd never forget you are living in a middle age time, where the worth of life and honour have not the same sense as they have nodaways. And Geralt always acts by his emotions... even if he's constantly denying it.

I agree he does act on emotional urges all the time hello read the damn books. But yeah I do have to agree i play both of them as I would do in that time period.

 

[Typo115]

This is another reason why I like TW because the fans are so fierce about what they think is right, no other game has this kind of fan-base other company should take a cue or two from CD Projekt

 

[vivaxardas2015]

MOD: Quoted post has been removed for breaking forum rules

Sovereign nations have an option to prohibit entrance of any foreign national. Diplomatic mission cannot just drop in unannounced. Temeria did not have a permanent Nilfgaardian embassy, and I doubt that they have a diplomatic agreement with Nilfgaard. So in order for Shilard's mission to cross into Temeria he had to have a permission, if not even an invitation, from Foltest. Nothing would make Foltest tolerate nilfgaardians in his camp, and in his land, if he did not agree to it. Temeria was the strongest state in the North, and Foltest had an absolute power. Triss asked Foltest not to harass Shilard too much because hospitality prohibits harassment of invited guests, but Foltest simply could not resist.

Foltest wouldn't negotiate with Shilard, he had no need for this, but he was very arrogant, at a peak of his strength, and he was the northern monarch who benefited the most from the victory at Brenna. Arrogance in politics kills better then the swords. To invite Shilard by any reason was to open a whole can of worms. Foltest invited Shilard willingly to demonstrate Temeria's strength, when he crashes the La Valette rebellion. Like to rub it in Shilard's face - screw Nilfgaard, Temeria is so damn strong. The same kind of arrogance made him drag Shilard under the ballista's fire to make fun of him, knowing full well that Shilard would be very uncomfortable. But this arrogance was exactly what Shilard counted on, and a bit later a white flame danced on the grave of Foltest as well. Obviously Letho and Shilard coordinated their actions perfectly. After the death of Foltest for Shilard real work began, and he managed to negotiate with Maravel a kidnapping and a transfer of royal children to Henselt, which in some versions of the events destroyed Temeria as an independent state. So yeah, Foltest should have used his brain better.

Henselt raped Ves, instead of hanging her. But I do not want to judge him harsher then any other person in a game. Other people commited worse crimes, but because they may look more likable, people actually side with them. We had this discussion about two weeks ago, and I do not want to repeat my arguments.