Putting spoiler tags on anyway, as other viewers may not want to see it 
...and the fact that he comes across as a total dick-head.
We never get a definite answer.
I don't know if you spoke to everyone possible, but there's evidence that the priest Olcan actually carried out the poisoning, by placing the poison in a copy of Saskia's chalice and leaving it in the kitchen before he went off to the summit and got himself killed. There's evidence that Stennis knew about it, and either supported it or, at the very least, did nothing to stop it. There's also evidence from Stennis' conversation with Geralt that he wants Saskia dead (i.e. his refusal to do anything to help cure her). But there's no absolute proof that Stennis was involved.
Geralt's musing after making his decision changes depending on the decision you made, so it just reflects his own beliefs (as determined by you).
I think he's guilty, but that's also partially influenced by his first conversation with Geralt,
I don't know if you spoke to everyone possible, but there's evidence that the priest Olcan actually carried out the poisoning, by placing the poison in a copy of Saskia's chalice and leaving it in the kitchen before he went off to the summit and got himself killed. There's evidence that Stennis knew about it, and either supported it or, at the very least, did nothing to stop it. There's also evidence from Stennis' conversation with Geralt that he wants Saskia dead (i.e. his refusal to do anything to help cure her). But there's no absolute proof that Stennis was involved.
Geralt's musing after making his decision changes depending on the decision you made, so it just reflects his own beliefs (as determined by you).
I think he's guilty, but that's also partially influenced by his first conversation with Geralt,
Stennis is at least an accessory or a conspirator, and possibly a direct actor in the poisoning. But he has kept his hands clean to where he can't be convicted by any traditional standard of proof. Olcan was certainly a direct actor, and Geralt proves this, but he is beyond judgment. The possibility that Philippa put them up to it and is lying about the nature of the poison is intriguing but without support.
Stennis is clearly guilty of being a fool, because the only thing standing between him and Dethmold's noose is Saskia and her hayfoot-strawfoot army. His nobles would sell him out as fast as they could sign their names if Henselt were buying.
Stennis is clearly guilty of being a fool, because the only thing standing between him and Dethmold's noose is Saskia and her hayfoot-strawfoot army. His nobles would sell him out as fast as they could sign their names if Henselt were buying.
The thing you have to ask after any assassination is 'Who Benifits'.
If not stennis then someone else - keep in mind that someone in Stennis's camp could consider improving his lord's lot as a worth goal in and of itself.
Anyway we never get a clear cut answer but personally I say let the basterd hang. As a ruler he will be a disaster - as bad or if not worse than his father and Id say would give new meaning to the term tyrant.
If not stennis then someone else - keep in mind that someone in Stennis's camp could consider improving his lord's lot as a worth goal in and of itself.
Anyway we never get a clear cut answer but personally I say let the basterd hang. As a ruler he will be a disaster - as bad or if not worse than his father and Id say would give new meaning to the term tyrant.
It's big poppa Henselt what done it. That's why he went berserk on the priest, covering his tracks.
Ilovethewitcher said:
I think he most certainly was guilty because thinking that he is the prince after all so he has access to all areas he might not have planted the poison him self but he most certainly was part of the plot to get rid of Saskia.
I think he saw Saskia as a potential threat to his rule who would wanna follow a coward arrogant,petty, small minded ruler like that? It was pretty clear that peasants were going to rally behind Saskia now this is just my guess of course for the reason why he did what he did.
Ps! He did try to bribe the Witcher to be on his side after all, so is this the way innocent man behaves?
Elves4me2 said:
I don't see that in itself as evidence of guilt, even though I do think he's guilty. His world-view is almost certainly that honesty and justice are products on offer to the highest bidder.
We know Olcan committed the poisoning itself, and we don't really get a good view of Stennis during Act II while playing as Geralt.
However when playing as Stennis during the beginning we hear him and Olcan arguing, with Olcan saying Saskia is a demoness and Stennis telling him to shove off. Is that really behavior you would expect from someone who just commissioned someone to commit a murder? Don't think so.
At best there is circumstantial evidence to suggest he is guilty, when I say best I mean best in terms of trying to prove he is actually guilty.
However when playing as Stennis during the beginning we hear him and Olcan arguing, with Olcan saying Saskia is a demoness and Stennis telling him to shove off. Is that really behavior you would expect from someone who just commissioned someone to commit a murder? Don't think so.
At best there is circumstantial evidence to suggest he is guilty, when I say best I mean best in terms of trying to prove he is actually guilty.
We get the two private Stennis/Geralt conversations, the first is possible just after the initial Council Meeting, the second when Stennis has been accused. I think that if you miss any one of these opportunities, some of the content "carries through" to the next conversation.
We hear that
- he thinks that monarchs only speak nicely to "lesser folk" in order to get them to do things without the monarch needing to provide anything in return.
- he won't lift a finger to save Saskia's life, and considers that she's to blame for the predicament that they're in (the impending war with Kaedwen)
- he thinks he can buy a decision in his favour.
I don't place much credence in that initial conversation with Olcan.
We hear that
- he thinks that monarchs only speak nicely to "lesser folk" in order to get them to do things without the monarch needing to provide anything in return.
- he won't lift a finger to save Saskia's life, and considers that she's to blame for the predicament that they're in (the impending war with Kaedwen)
- he thinks he can buy a decision in his favour.
I don't place much credence in that initial conversation with Olcan.
While Stennis is a complete prick and simply needs to die for my favorite game ending, i'm not really convinced that he's guilty.
M4xw0lf said:
Yeah that he is most certainly a prick i kill him ( yes yes shame on me
) i just don't think he makes a very good ruler i rather have Saskia as a queen than Stennis as a king he is weak he had no real life experience and he most certainly would of brought his subjects misery and painIlovethewitcher said:
Yes, those mean devs at CDProjekt simply throw this moral dilemma at us, without a simple, obviously right solution to it - after long years of bioware RPGs people just don't know what to do and what to think of this
And i have to say, i like it much better this way. It really makes you think about this decision and fits into the "shades of grey rather than black an white" -concept of the witcher universe.
Ilovethewitcher said:
Hard to say. Looking solely at the Iorveth path options, I think Saskia's probably the more-important defender for Aedirn. But Stennis alive is probably better than Aedirn in turmoil.
Ilovethewitcher said:
No, Stennis is a fool. He couldn't defend a pillow warehouse against rats. And his nobles are even more useless. They're just waiting to sell him out at a good price.
The only thing Stennis has going for him is knowing that Saskia and her hayfoot-strawfoot army are the best he has. If he keeps the people placated and lets Saskia fight, he will do all right.