King Henselt [SPOILER]

[dragonbird]

P.S. Why the hell should the OP change the thread titles. It's in the STORY section.

Because it's in the title, and the main section (not the Act 2 section) and there are plenty of people coming in here who haven't played the game right through yet, but are looking for help on something in the earlier chapters. Or something on Iorveth path. And it shows up on the front page if you're viewing "recent posts".

 

[DelighfulMcCoy]

Second that. You can use spoilers all you want inside the topic, but never in the thread title, since it jumps at you on the front page.

Can't be too hard to find a title that speaks to those, who want to discuss the issue...

...I let Henselt live the first time, because it was the sensible thing to do, with two dead kings already upsetting the balance of the kingdoms. But I also had to do a separate playthrough only for having the satisfaction of having the bastard killed.

 

[jsnlng]

Spoiler

I actually quite liked Henselt as a character, very multi-dimensional.

On one hand, he's a good ruler, with Kaedwen being cited as a great flourishing country by several sources in game. He's a father to his soldiers, as shown by their loyalty to him. He loves war, but chooses to do so directly, as Ves puts it, "It's not his style to do covert operations." And in general he disregards preconceived notions of people and views them strictly on how skilled or intelligent they are, for example, Geralt. Next up, he personally allows the Temerian Special Forces to camp outside of his army despite the fact that he had no need to do so.

On the other hand, he's an amoral individual that will do anything to attain his ambition and is in general a sadistic bastard who cares nothing for the consequences of his actions. He is childish as noted by Dandelion when the nobles forced him to give them some of his conquered land. He has a streak of bloodthirst as he permits his own soldiers to kill each other in combat for his entertainment. He raped Ves and thinks so highly of himself that he can't actually see that he's in danger as shown when Vernon threatens to kill him while he is defenseless.

In the end I told Roche to spare Henselt for several reasons.

1.) Henselt is a strong king who despite his asshole streak is still good at military strategies, and consequently I thought in the Witcher 3 I may benefit from him somehow, or at least the Northern Kingdoms should be able o stand strong.
2.) I was going to assume that once Henselt died, Radovid would be forced to fight with the Northern Forces after forcibly taking control over it, causing a shithole of an economy. So I mainly decided to spare Henselt in Roche's paths.

 

[DelighfulMcCoy]

Um... that was a fail with the topic title...
...could you please omit "Henselt", "Roche" and "kill"?
But points for effort, I guess...

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

First time yes, seconde time no.
It's really a difficult decision since he really is a thoroughly repulsive character, but also is needed to protect the north from nilfgaard. I'd like a third option: to give him a really good beating and leave him there lying in the dirt.

 

[secondchildren]

A word to all posters:

plz eclose your words with spoiler tags, to avoid this nasty thing for those who haven't still played the game.

 

[GuyNwah]

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.

Past heroism does not contradict present treason; see Benedict Arnold.

Spoiler

We don't get conclusive evidence until later, when a detachment of Nilfgaardians shows up and sabotages the Loc Muinne summit, at Henselt's invitation.

And Roche does hit himself hard over killing Henselt, during the walk to Loc Muinne. But not over the consequences for Kaedwen.

 

[Paddymaxson.877]

I've done Roche's path twice and let Roche kill him both times....in eveyr other RPG I'm very benevolent, if I can spare someone I usually do, even if they're assholes...In the Witcher 2 I just murder the shit out of them....I'm kind of confused as to why I do this . I'm considering another playthrough taking Iorveth's path, but really, anyone who would side with the Scoia'tel isn't going to be merciful to humans either....odd (I really Roleplay in single player RPGs, I give my character morals and codes, siding with the squirrels would mean being prepared to kill humans for the supposed "greater good" so I'd be murdering the shit out of anyone who got in my way to be honest.

 

[CostinRaz]

Past heroism does not contradict present treason; see Benedict Arnold.

Spoiler

We don't get conclusive evidence until later, when a detachment of Nilfgaardians shows up and sabotages the Loc Muinne summit, at Henselt's invitation.

And Roche does hit himself hard over killing Henselt, during the walk to Loc Muinne. But not over the consequences for Kaedwen.

Treason to bloody who? The north isn't a united nation that Henselt owes loyalty to. He only owes Kaedwen loyalty and I do not see him acting against his own nation's interesets.

SO Henselt invited the Nilfgardians to Loc Muice, you really believe he knew what they were going to do? Remember those letters by Shillard.

 

[GuyNwah]

Treason to bloody who? The north isn't a united nation that Henselt owes loyalty to. He only owes Kaedwen loyalty and I do not see him acting against his own nation's interesets.

SO Henselt invited the Nilfgardians to Loc Muice, you really believe he knew what they were going to do? Remember those letters by Shillard.

You're right; Henselt owes the other kingdoms nothing. But his conduct toward his own kingdom is treasonable, unless he is such a fool that he thinks he can make a deal with Nilfgaard without becoming a puppet.

 

[dragonbird]

By definition, the king can't commit treason against his own country, if that country is a feudal monarchy. He could walk up to Shilard and say "Kaedwen's yours for 5 orens" and it still wouldn't be treason.

As the saying goes "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Henselt talking to the Nilfgaardian ambassador isn't evidence of any intention to work with them. Radovid and Foltest were both talking to him too. It's what Heads of State do, if they have any sense. They do it in the hope that the ambassador will make a slip and actually tell the truth sometime, or to make sure that they're not talking to someone else instead.

If Geralt is thinking with his brain, he should stop Roche. Foltest's dead and Temeria is in turmoil. Demavend is dead, as is Stennis. The death of yet another heirless king can't possibly be good for the North.

If he's thinking with his heart, then he will probably let Roche do what he want.

 

[CostinRaz]

Geralt get's no pleasure from killing others, no matter how despicable, remember that. He mentions it to Iorveth.

 

[dragonbird]

I've done Roche's path twice and let Roche kill him both times....in eveyr other RPG I'm very benevolent, if I can spare someone I usually do, even if they're assholes...In the Witcher 2 I just murder the shit out of them....I'm kind of confused as to why I do this . I'm considering another playthrough taking Iorveth's path, but really, anyone who would side with the Scoia'tel isn't going to be merciful to humans either....odd (I really Roleplay in single player RPGs, I give my character morals and codes, siding with the squirrels would mean being prepared to kill humans for the supposed "greater good" so I'd be murdering the shit out of anyone who got in my way to be honest.

You should try Iorveth path. Geralt is still Geralt.

 

[GuyNwah]

By definition, the king can't commit treason against his own country, if that country is a feudal monarchy. He could walk up to Shilard and say "Kaedwen's yours for 5 orens" and it still wouldn't be treason.

It's not without precedent.

Brunhilde of Austrasia was tried and convicted and punished in the manner customary for traitors, though this was after the nobles had defied her by proclaiming Sigebert king and Clotarie as regent.

Charles I was tried and convicted of waging war against his own country. Though in that case, there was a Parliament that asserted its authority against the king; the nobles of Kaedwen presumably have no such organization.

Anyway, the principle that it is the duty of citizens to overthrow a monarch who has become a tyrant or dealt falsely with his own country is of ancient origin and was respected, if not often exercised.

 

[dragonbird]

It's not without precedent.

Brunhilde of Austrasia was tried and convicted and punished in the manner customary for traitors, though this was after the nobles had defied her by proclaiming Sigebert king and Clotarie as regent.

Charles I was tried and convicted of waging war against his own country. Though in that case, there was a Parliament that asserted its authority against the king; the nobles of Kaedwen presumably have no such organization.

Anyway, the principle that it is the duty of citizens to overthrow a monarch who has become a tyrant or dealt falsely with his own country is of ancient origin and was respected, if not often exercised.

I'm not sure how accurate Wikipedia is on this, but it implies Brunhilde was officially regent, not queen regnant? Charles wasn't a feudal monarch, and was tried for treason as a deliberate message that Parliament didn't acknowledge divine right and the feudal system. The monarchies in Geralt's world are still feudal.

There was an implied contract in the feudal system - the nobility gave allegiance, the king was supposed to protect the land. There are plenty of cases where the nobility (or the people, or a rival faction) overthrew the king, and nothing wrong with that. But it was the rebels who were committing treason, however righteous their cause, not the king.

But we're sidetracking. If Henselt really was considering joining with the Nilfgaardians, he deserved everything he got, whatever we call his crime.

 

[kelticpete]

I thought I might be torn....not because he did not deserve to die. but after seeing the story play out...

some opinions:

1) hemselt was not defenseless, he tried to kill me. I killed his effing men, and I would have killed his ass myself if roche had not burst in.

2) not killing him does not make me a better person. if I can kill letho, I can kill henselt. there is no difference morally.

Tactically, there is a difference. henselt is a strong king, and so if you worry about mages and nilfgardians, more than justice, then sure, be the kind of person who lets rapists who also tried to murder you get away with it.

nilfgaard is like rome. and I am of celtic origin, so I will write it out in these terms.


a scottish king just raped my bang buddy/friend (not really a lover, is she?) he murdered men not involved with a plot, who were mere minions, knowing that it was a violation of another nation's armed forces. this is like executing green berets for something their commander who is CIA operative did. just violates the "rich guy/sovereign nation" rules of war.

now, I don't like rome, but I am witcher, so politics is not my bag.
do I kill the king and leave scotland weak? hell yes. let some peasant rebelliion beat the romans, or the nobles. romans or this dude, it all would suck.


aside:

I don't live in the monarchy of america, and if allowing a monarch to rule over it without a vote would make my country "safer" I would not care. liberty or death, baby.

 

[CostinRaz]

a scottish king just raped my bang buddy/friend (not really a lover, is she?) he murdered men not involved with a plot, who were mere minions, knowing that it was a violation of another nation's armed forces. this is like executing green berets for something their commander who is CIA operative did. just violates the "rich guy/sovereign nation" rules of war.

How exactly was Henselt supposed to know Roche's men were not involved?

What Henselt knows is the following.

1) There's a plot in the military.
2) Said plot is led by the Commander of the Blue Stripes.
3) Said plot is responsible for half of his army refusing to attack Vergen.
4) The Blue Stripes are in camp next to Henselt's army.

So how exactly would one reach a LOGICAL conclusion that Roche's men weren't involved in the plot that damaged Henselt's army WHILE the Special Forces were sitting next to Henselt's camp?

 

[kelticpete]

How exactly was Henselt supposed to know Roche's men were not involved?

What Henselt knows is the following.

1) There's a plot in the military.
2) Said plot is led by the Commander of the Blue Stripes.
3) Said plot is responsible for half of his army refusing to attack Vergen.
4) The Blue Stripes are in camp next to Henselt's army.

So how exactly would one reach a LOGICAL conclusion that Roche's men weren't involved in the plot that damaged Henselt's army WHILE the Special Forces were sitting next to Henselt's camp?

first, i think the mist was why they were not attacking, but yes, nobility were making noise about not wanting to fight. and convincing the rank and file.

is it possible he was that unsophisticated in his understanding of the role of special forces, diplomacy, spies, etc. maybe.
it is remotely possible he thought that but I doubt it.

because you misunderstand the role of the blue stripes.

wikia: The Blue Stripes are an elite Temerian Special Forces military unit headed by Vernon Roche. The unit consists of dauntless swashbucklers, interrogation specialists, noiseless scouts – all of them extremely loyal to their leader.


these are foreign soliders with no ties to your people, who by the way are all in a military camp kept seperate. the two groups are kept separate. these men are grunts, people seen as human scoiatel, no one trusts them. none of them are nobility. they are not "agents of the king" they are soldiers of temeria

the nobleman and common soldiers were becoming treasonous. henselt realized that there might be foreign influence, and they figured out it was Roche. which should not have been rocket science. Roche could travel around. he is agent of temeria, he has clout, nobleman will meet with him.

Ves and one or two other high ranking blue stripers MIGHT be in on it.
his resolution was cowardly, and violated the sovereignty of temeria. the blue stripes could not commit treason against henselt, any more than a russian can committ treason against america. he had no authority.


there were like 20 dead dudes. they were JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. henselt could not have executed them if foltest was still alive. it was an act of war. you can't invite another nations special troops to lunch and murder them without reprecussions. dethmold was going bonkers and he got the king to overreach.

it does not even fit henselt's alleged honor. if they were a camp of enemies suborning treason, then you walk out in the field, and declare war on their asses. they were not citizens of his kingdom, were actively serving another kingdom, this is a complete breakdown of detente.

could he do it? hell he did.
did he think they had any real role in the plot? he did not give a crap. he knew Roche was the baddie, and he knew killing his men was the worst thing he could do to roche. henselt is a bully, a tyrant, a rapist, smug, arrogant, fat, and stinky! I liked him at first but he proved what a hypocrite he was.

if he caught roche, roche does not count. you can kill roche. because you know roche is doing grey area spy versus spy stuff, just like you know you have your own version of roche doing the same against temeria. if he caught roche, then it was in his purview to execute him. not technically legal. temeria could complain.

it is possible to think that henselt thought they were involved. but I would bet 100 bucks the developers would say that henselt did not care if they were guilty, he just wanted to wipe out a temerian assest while getting payback on roche.

 

[ohsosweet]

Hahaha - I would so have let him kill him - what a complete ycuk! Anyone who doesn't is a bit sad in the head as far as I am concerned! I knew I chose the correct path (the scoetials) as soon as I read this. I began to play the Roche path but got completely put off by having to play the part of the slime ball Henshall in the match against the fabulous dragonslayer who(SPOILER) alas currently lies in bed awaiting a cure for poisoning. Loving this game!

 

[Adonai-]

I went into Vergen with the aim of killing Henselt, but ended up giving him to Roche. I actually feel like it was the weaker decision, essentially handing the responsibility away. Should have either done it myself or let him live.

The reason I didn't kill him myself was because I started thinking about the bigger picture - ignoring the divine right of king angle, suddenly without a governing focal point it's likely that there'd be turmoil or civil war, just ripe for Nilfgaard.

On the other hand, Henselt was a right bastard and I can't see Geralt just leaving it be... and I really didn't want to let him get away with it...

So I took the coward's route and let Roche do the dirty work.