.On my first Roche path playthrough I let him kill Henselt for the same reasons. On my second playthrough I let Henselt live, to see the difference, and almost immediately regretted it.
It proved to me how good a game The Witcher 2 is, because even after several playthroughs, it could still evoke strong emotions and opinions.
I think that my default choice would be to let Roche kill Henselt.
It proved to me how good a game The Witcher 2 is, because even after several playthroughs, it could still evoke strong emotions and opinions.
I think that my default choice would be to let Roche kill Henselt.
i don't like henselt, but with foltest and demavend dead who would fight the black ones, i think the north needs another king besides radovid.
I was afraid there might be severe negative consequences if I let Roche kill Henselt, but I let him do it anyway. Henselt was just too big of a nasty, abusive, self-satisfied bully to allow him to live. His raping Ves and trying to kill Geralt were the justifications, but the real reason was because he was just that much of a slime.
No. There are no sound pragmatic reasons for killing him, and the only ones I can find are for vengeance. I will not plunge Kaedwen into civil war just because Ves got raped.
As for the Blue Stripes, I would have done the exact same thing to them as Henselt did, hell I wouldn't have spared Ves either ( to me it seems she saved herself by offering sex to Henselt ).
Besides hearing Geralt say: "You had a choice: Kill the defenseless Henselt or battle yourself. You choose the tougher opponent and won."
As for the Blue Stripes, I would have done the exact same thing to them as Henselt did, hell I wouldn't have spared Ves either ( to me it seems she saved herself by offering sex to Henselt ).
Besides hearing Geralt say: "You had a choice: Kill the defenseless Henselt or battle yourself. You choose the tougher opponent and won."
I my first playthrough i let him be killed.this play through i didnt let him also on this one i decided to help roche for the first time in LOC.And i must say I knew it and damn that had to hurt. lol
I killed him.
OP: Any chance of you changing the title for this thread? It's a MASSIVE spoiler.
OP: Any chance of you changing the title for this thread? It's a MASSIVE spoiler.
Certainly one of the more difficult decisions in the game. I don't think either choice is clearly the winner. I killed him on my first roche play through but I don't know what I'll do in the second until I come to it again.
Also the OP title needs to be changed. It's just sitting there for anyone that comes to the forums to see.
Also the OP title needs to be changed. It's just sitting there for anyone that comes to the forums to see.
To be honest, i can see Henselt's point of view. What would you have done if you found an enemy spying on your lands? Would you not execute them? He did what he had to do.
King's rape and pillage all the time. I wasn't going to kill him for that. If there was anything i would kill him for, it's his active oppression against non-humans, but even that isn't worth plunging Kaedwan into civil war.
King's rape and pillage all the time. I wasn't going to kill him for that. If there was anything i would kill him for, it's his active oppression against non-humans, but even that isn't worth plunging Kaedwan into civil war.
I've played it both ways; and having done so, I won't play letting Roche kill Henselt again.
Henselt himself is beyond pardon. His crimes have been enumerated and don't require repetition. If anyone deserves to die, he does. There are three reasons I can think of why he should not, but only one of those is telling.
There is the argument that it is always wrong to murder a king. I don't buy it. Its support is in the anachronistic concept of the divine right of kings. Quite the contrary: the duty of the people to oust a tyrant by all necessary force has been current IRL at least since Cicero (De Officiis, which is also the source of the very relevant notion of "lesser evil").
There is the argument that it is undesirable, in general and especially at present, to remove a strong war leader and plunge yet a third Northern Kingdom into anarchy. That would have carried more weight if Henselt were not already in bed with Nilfgaard. Far from ousting a strong and valuable leader, killing Henselt is the punishment due a traitor, the same punishment he exacted from Sabrina.
Divine right and global politics are lost on Geralt anyway. Geralt's loyalty is to his friends, even including Roche, and he knows Roche is a hothead who would do something he would end up regretting. He's been through this with Roche time and again. He knows Roche should not kill Henselt, because Roche will be hurt by his own guilty knowledge (maybe even to the point of losing confidence in his own ability to command). So he does what he's done for his friend before, talking Roche out of a rash and self-destructive act.
"But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must somehow manage to get through
More dirty work than ever I do."
[Gilbert and Sullivan, The Pirate King's Song]
Henselt himself is beyond pardon. His crimes have been enumerated and don't require repetition. If anyone deserves to die, he does. There are three reasons I can think of why he should not, but only one of those is telling.
There is the argument that it is always wrong to murder a king. I don't buy it. Its support is in the anachronistic concept of the divine right of kings. Quite the contrary: the duty of the people to oust a tyrant by all necessary force has been current IRL at least since Cicero (De Officiis, which is also the source of the very relevant notion of "lesser evil").
There is the argument that it is undesirable, in general and especially at present, to remove a strong war leader and plunge yet a third Northern Kingdom into anarchy. That would have carried more weight if Henselt were not already in bed with Nilfgaard. Far from ousting a strong and valuable leader, killing Henselt is the punishment due a traitor, the same punishment he exacted from Sabrina.
Divine right and global politics are lost on Geralt anyway. Geralt's loyalty is to his friends, even including Roche, and he knows Roche is a hothead who would do something he would end up regretting. He's been through this with Roche time and again. He knows Roche should not kill Henselt, because Roche will be hurt by his own guilty knowledge (maybe even to the point of losing confidence in his own ability to command). So he does what he's done for his friend before, talking Roche out of a rash and self-destructive act.
"But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must somehow manage to get through
More dirty work than ever I do."
[Gilbert and Sullivan, The Pirate King's Song]
He made a deal with Nilfgaard during the war, but his troops still fought and died at Brenna, remember that. He is willing to negotiate with the Black Ones, so what? I very much doubt he would not fight them in the coming war. If all the Northren Kingdoms fall during the invasion save Kaedwen then Kaedwen becomes a puppet for Emhyr, Henselt damn well knows it.
Though you are right about everything else. It's not in Roche's interest for Kaedwen to fall into civil war...well he might see it differently but I bet that by the end of the game he would facepalm hard if he had killed Henselt.
P.S. Why the hell should the OP change the thread titles. It's in the STORY section.
henselt sucked. he was the most odious of the northern monarchs. i'm pretty sure there's a general popular with the army that can take his place.
