Letho: Biggest Bro or Biggest Bro? *spoilers (duh)

[KingHochmeister]

Blothulfur, even if we disagree you get a +1 for this quote:

"The world's a more interesting place with the magnificent bastard in it." />/>/>/>/>

But no, I go more with dcs_Jon, he's too dangerous a bastard to let loose. What if the Emperor of Nilfgaard says: "One more job...and then you have your Viper school." And that job is Geralt? His friends?

Maybe .... But I doubt that Emhyr will go after Geralt ... Even though he

Spoiler

has Yennefer in his "custody".

He respected him in the books and I will leave it at that to avoid spoilers from the last book />/>/>/>

 

[GuyNwah]

I see ample reason not to trust Letho, but enough to kill him? That makes my Geralt very unsure of himself. Self-defense doesn't extend to killing someone who might be a threat in the future; when your choice is to fight or to walk away, self-defense is always on the side of walking away.

The only justification I see for killing Letho is by playing Geralt as a patriot of Temeria or the North. Now "canon Geralt" is no patriot, but he can be played as one, especially on Roche's path, so it's not out of the question. The Empire with witchers from a rebuilt Viper school is a formidable threat, and Geralt may see the danger and take action to hinder any attempt the Empire might make.

Now the Emperor might well be interested in Geralt and Yennefer as the only known survivors of the Wild Hunt, or as bait to entice Ciri to return. But that's a story not yet opened.

 

[KingHochmeister]

I see ample reason not to trust Letho, but enough to kill him? That makes my Geralt very unsure of himself. Self-defense doesn't extend to killing someone who might be a threat in the future; when your choice is to fight or to walk away, self-defense is always on the side of walking away.

The only justification I see for killing Letho is by playing Geralt as a patriot of Temeria or the North. Now "canon Geralt" is no patriot, but he can be played as one, especially on Roche's path, so it's not out of the question. The Empire with witchers from a rebuilt Viper school is a formidable threat, and Geralt may see the danger and take action to hinder any attempt the Empire might make.

Now the Emperor might well be interested in Geralt and Yennefer as the only known survivors of the Wild Hunt, or as bait to entice Ciri to return. But that's a story not yet opened.

Well ... I wouldn't mind if CDPR makes Emhyr interested in Ciri again, but still ... At the end of the books
(DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT ANY SPOILERS FROM THE LAST BOOK)

Spoiler

he made a choice to let her go, it wouldn't make sense to make him go after Ciri again except (as you said)if he wants to deal with the Wild Hunt himself with Ciri and Yennefer and Geralt's aid.

Still ... I have faith in CDPR's story team, they did an amazing job so far and they won't disappoint us in Witcher 3 />/>/>

 

[sfinx]

I forgot one thing, Letho acted against sorceresses, so he had to die
His acts on the North were really far behind some acceptable border. I can't imagine much worse crimes than bringing knowingly and intentionally chaos, civil wars and death to half of the world. Even if I disagree, someone can say, Lodge behaved wrongly, but it's still far away from acts of this mad guy.

I have to thank KnightofPhoenix for another point of view, it's really interesting because also for me is Letho very selfish. On one side, he cared for Yennefer, but on the other, he didn't care at all about impact of his act on Geralt. That is strange.
Geralt was imprisoned and could've been killed and Letho didn't care at all (as far as I know).

Letho kidnaps Triss but promises that no harm will come to her if he can help it, saves her at Loc Muinne to demonstrate this.

What about his failure during taking care about her, when they were separated, when Triss was compressed and when she was held in Nilf. prison (maybe tortured, I am not sure)?

 

[vivaxardas2015]

First of all, "fool in love" is referring to his romantic nature that many Scoia'tael shared and died for (fight for independence was a main focus of polish Romantic Era). "Fool" part means his dissilusionment with it, but it still was present deep inside. When Triss told him how hight the stake was and how Scoia'tael were part of it, it pushed him into his final attempt to make a difference. That's why he said "sometimes we must".

About that Loredo thing, don't forget that Cedric was an experienced hunter and exScoia'tael, which means that he knew how to avoid being noticed or tied with death of one guy in Flotsam. The fact that he left wounded without anybody seeing him means that he choosed the moment were there was nobody or almost nobody outside to do this. Also I don't think that Loredo would start pogrom for such a small reason, when he actually tried to hide his racism before Geralt, so he could use him to capture Iorweth. Only when he lost his final chance to capture Iorweth and Scoia'tael kills many Flotsam guards in selfdefence, then he goes overboard.

About blaming Triss for Cedric death and not a man who stabed him and left to die, there is... logic in this (Sarcasm Mode Off).

"Fool in love" is romantic nature of scoia'tael??? OK... Just a small clarification of vocabulary used - being romantic and being in love are not the same thing. You can be a romantic without being in love, and being in love without being romantic.

People noticed Cedric, that was what they told Geralt - a wounded Cedric stumbling through the alley to the gates. Also it was not Cedric who was choosing something - triss told him to go and he did.

Loredo did not loose any final chance to catch Iorveth. Why that time would be any different from Loredo's perspective than any other times he failed to do it?

Why to blame Triss? Well, let's say your buddies ask you to participate in breaking into someone's house where you kill a bodyguard in the process. While there you were shot to death either by police, or some other party. Whom your parents would blame - police or someone else shooting you during commission of a crime, or your buddies? I am pretty sure the ones who involved you were the ones to blame.

Also Cedric already killed one guy, and he probably tried to defend Triss against Letho. The situation was simple - either he kills Letho, or Letho kills him. Triss was the one who put Cedric, a very old and neutral elf, into this shit, so she is the one to blame. Does not matter Letho was much stronger, it was still self-defense. Cedric was murdering people for Triss, and he paid a price for doing it by encountering a more stronger opponent.

About Geralt:

Well, it seems some people see him as a white knight and as a patriot, the one who is going around as an avenger, correcting wrongs and punishing the guilty. Well, canonical Geralt is not, he is neither Spiderman nor Batman. He killed some peasants in Vizima inn (they insulted him, but it does not merit a death warrant, isn't it) just to show Velerad that he is a serious guy. Even Velerad remarked that Geralt didn't need to kill them, and could dealt with them by other means, for example, the way he dealt right after this murder with Vizima guards - he used a sign on them. So Letho is not that different, or, more precisely, exactly the same - he kills people when it suits him.

I can understand if Geralt kills Letho for personal reasons - because Letho made Geralt's life complicated, made him to fail in his job as a royal bodyguard. But that is it. Why would players kill Letho - gosh, some may kill him simply because he gave them such a hard time in the first fight on Dark playthrough, I don't know.

 

[Garrison72]

I can understand if Geralt kills Letho by personal reasons - because Letho made Geralt's life complicated, made him to fail in his job as a royal bodyguard. But that is it. Why would players kill Letho - gosh, some may kill him simply because he gave them such a hard time in the first timeon Dark playthrough, I don't know.

Are you drunk my good man? Letho put Triss' life in danger, that alone is enough for me to gut him. He didn't just make Geralt's life complicated, he basically put a bounty on his head. He weakened the north prior to an invasion and precipitated a pogrom on mages. Flotsam can turn into a war zone because of his scheming. It's easy to come up with reasons to kill him, harder to justify saving him. It's a testament to CDPR that so many admire him, but I still see what he is: a selfish manipulator.

 

[Blothulfur]

What about his failure during taking care about her, when they were separated, when Triss was compressed and when she was held in Nilf. prison (maybe tortured, I am not sure)?

How was he to know that Cynthia would compress Triss in the heart of Lodge held territory? That was far beyond what he could concieve of, he was probably unaware of that particular Nilfgaardian agent as she seemed to be Shilard's dog. When he found out about Triss in Loc Muinne he did something about it, thus demonstrating his selflessness yet again, going against his masters. Her fellow sorceresses did nothing, except try to kill her along with everybody else at Loc Muinne.

Then again the Lodge weakened the north with their scheming, foisted a civil war on Aedirn, commited regicide, tried to kill Geralt and knowingly and intentionally brought chaos paving the way for a weakened border and easy victory when Nilfgaard attacked. So their failure to act to protect one of their own is hardly out of character. And all of their mad scheming was easily brought to nothing by one genius Viper.

All hail Letho.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Are you drunk my good man?

Fuck off, all right? Did I ever insult you?

Letho put Triss' life in danger, that alone is enough for me to gut him. He didn't just make Geralt's life complicated, he basically put a bounty on his head. He weakened the north prior to an invasion and precipitated a pogrom on mages. Flotsam can turn into a war zone because of his scheming. It's easy to come up with reasons to kill him, harder to justify saving him. It's a testament to CDPR that so many admire him, but I still see what he is: a selfish manipulator.

Triss herself put her life in danger. Nobody made her to break into Sile's room to use megascope, and nobody made her participate in the Lodge. Letho used her only to teleport, and let her go. In the end, after Triss was caught (it wasn't Letho's fault by the way) he saved her (if Geralt chooses to do something else). In this case he saved her life.

Letho just killed a king. He did not make Geralt to accept a bodyguard job, and did not expect him even to be there. All these bounties and such were just consequences of Letho's actions. To blame him for Geralt's problems would be the same as to blame Geralt for blue stripes being executed and Ves raped because if Geralt crackes the conspiracy, the death of Blue stripes and Ves' rape are the consequences of his actions.

Again, Geralt does not give a damn about the North weakening. All problems were mostly brought by the Northerners themselves, the kings and the Lodge included. If you remember his last conversation with Sile about the war, he clearly tells about a new invasion and a situation in the North - it is not my problem. If you read the books they have this discussion. The witchers profit from war and chaos, because these are the times that monsters breed in masse, the witchers have a lot of work, and people actually think better about them because they need them. Times of peace and order are times of hardship for the witchers. It is an evil world, and Geralt is neither an avenging angel nor protector of people. Deal with it.

 

[sfinx]

How was he to know that Cynthia would compress Triss in the heart of Lodge held territory, that was far beyond what he could concieve of, he was probably unaware of that particular Nilfgaardian agent. When he found out about Triss in Loc Muinne he did something about it, thus demonstrating his selflessness yet again, going against his masters. Her fellow sorceresses did nothing.

I will have to play it again to learn how much other sorceresses could do and what they knew , but if I will stay at Letho's case, he put her in danger - maybe he could not predict that, but if I would play with gun in front of face of someone, I would also predict, I will be careful and everything will be fine, but when something would go wrong, it would be only my fault. This is the same. If he wouldn't kidnap her, she could be perfectly safe. He played with fire, she had to pay for it.

 

[Blothulfur]

Nobody's saying that Letho didn't take risks, manipulate and use foul methods. That was his job as a servant of the Imperial throne. However when he could he tried to help Geralt and his friends, he went out of his way to do so, rather than say condemning him to die along with everybody else to keep his secrets.

 

[GuyNwah]

I will have to play it again to learn how much other sorceresses could do and what they knew />/>/> , but if I will stay at Letho's case, he put her in danger - maybe he could not predict that, but if I would play with gun in front of face of someone, I would also predict, I will be careful and everything will be fine, but when something would go wrong, it would be only my fault. This is the same. If he wouldn't kidnap her, she could be perfectly safe. He played with fire, she had to pay for it.

Probably the strongest point is that Philippa denied knowing Triss was in the area when Triss was literally right under her nose. Triss had been on the Vergen side of the mist for some time already before she was captured and compressed. Philippa also told nothing of her leashed apprentice's actions. If I were uncharitable, I'd say Philippa regarded Triss's presence as inconvenient (or worse) and looked the other way while the Nilfgaardians disposed of her. Only when Philippa learned that Triss had been taken alive (thus could be made to talk) did she play at being upset.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Probably the strongest point is that Philippa denied knowing Triss was in the area when Triss was literally right under her nose. Triss had been on the Vergen side of the mist for some time already before she was captured and compressed. Philippa also told nothing of her leashed apprentice's actions. If I were uncharitable, I'd say Philippa regarded Triss's presence as inconvenient (or worse) and connived at letting the Nilfgaardians dispose of her.

It was hilarious how Philippa lied to Geralt while staring at a statuette on her night table. It was right there, even Geralt felt magic from it! Philipa is awesome and ballsy as hell, toying with the famous witcher like this.

Letho did not put Triss in danger. Triss and Philippa talked like allies, not enemies. Triss ran to Vergen to meet Philipa. Philipa did not have time or patience to deal with Triss, thus the statuette. Not Letho's fault.

 

[sfinx]

Guy, Vivax, thank you both for informations

Vivax, Bloth: I am not saying he did it by himself or he did it purposely, but I can't agree with Vivax, because it was his fault. Everything started with her kidnapping and everything is partly result of that. I know it wasn't Lethos plan to reduce her in small statue, but it was also his fault that happened.

Nobody's saying that Letho didn't take risks, manipulate and use foul methods. That was his job as a servant of the Imperial throne.

That is important point. And I don't like this job, especially if his acts put me and my friends in danger, ruin kingdoms etc.

 

[agrippadarippa]

As a Letho fan, I think it's a good exercise to provide an even more negative perspective.

Letho sparing Geralt could have also been calculated to distract the North who believe that Geralt is guilty. Killing Geralt would risk absolving him. Keeping him alive could draw attention to the white wolf and away from the viper.

Letho wanted to leave Loc Muinne without risking dying at Geralt's hands. Remember that Letho's victory in Flotsam was a close one, as Geralt disarmed him. Saving Triss could have been an act of manipulation.

Good point. That's exactly the kind of calculation that I'd expect from Letho, but IMO that doesn't mean he was acting out of cold calculation exclusively. I prefer to think that it just made sense for him honor and function-wise to let Geralt go. As crazy smart and manipulative as Letho is you have to admit that the stars really do align for this magnificent bastard

My Playthrough and view:

Geralt saves Letho's life from the Slyzard, it's repaid by Letho later in the Elven bathhouse.
Letho and lads save Yennefer and risk death to themselves to help her, not repaid by Geralt as it can't be, the deeds of a friend.
Letho joins with Nilfgaard rather than have his head adorn some battlement, Geralt abides as Foltest's bodyguard for much the same reason if we're honest.
Geralt is blamed for Letho's actions, and the Viper clears him at Loc Muinne.
Letho kidnaps Triss but promises that no harm will come to her if he can help it, saves her at Loc Muinne to demonstrate this.
All the people the Viper's killed and used, the White Wolf's probably slain more like the two innocent bar thugs in the original short story.
My Geralt doesn't care about the Northern Kingdoms, he's not their guardian or some hero, he fights for his friends and when he is forced to, not for causes and crusades. Letho has chosen that way, but my Geralt won't.
Letho killed Foltest while under Geralt's care and in the eyes of his children, my Witcher puts Anais on the crown and does what he can to secure her realm, as payment for that failure.
We have a drink and part, that's that, the world's a more interesting place with the magnificent bastard in it.

We're about even as far as I see it, i'm in no position to judge him and what will his death accomplish? If the Northern Kingdoms had wanted to avoid the coming war with Nilfgaard then they should have done as Radovid has been doing. Consolidate, conspire and cooperate, not bicker and feud while the hungry lion paces outside their doors. They failed along with the Lodge to prepare for the greatest threat, none of that has anything to do with my Witcher.

Agree completely. With humans thinking they're freaks and nonhumans thinking they're humans, witchers will never belong and can only serve themselves and their close friends. This may not be completely true but I personally find a lot of the new fans to the series tend to build Geralt as some kind of crusader for Temeria, when in reality this dude is technically a Kaedweni and a knight of Lyria who is uncomfortably coerced by Foltest into working as his personal witcher. The only true difference between Geralt and Letho is the former's possession of an arguably healthier moral compass, but that is entirely dependent upon player actions.

In fact, if Geralt really wants to stick it to the Wild Hunt come TW3, Nilfgaard is who he should really be pulling for. But that's another topic hahah

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Here is a food for thought, a very simple and obvious question, so obvious that I am surprised people did not ask it. Letho let Triss go in the ravines. Yes, she was injured, had a running with a troll, but after that, when she was well enough, why did she chose to go to Vergen, to Philipa, and not to telepot back to Flotsam? She wouldn't want to teleport from Flotsam to Vergen because she did not have Veren coordinates. It was a risk Letho made her to take, but she survived.

BUT: She could have easily teleported back because she knew Flotsam's coordinates (she teleported back and forth between Flotsam and a wreck site, for example). Still, given this choice - returning to Geralt, or going to talk to Philipa, she chose, on her own, to go to Philipa. It was obvious that she wanted to talk to her to clear things up (it was the only reason she broke into Sile's appartment), and, given this opportunity, she decided to talk face to face. Philipa did not want any of it, and Triss became a desk decoration.

So, turning into a statuette and taken into Nilfgaardian custody was a consequence of her choice going to Philipa and Philipa's cute magic. How is it exactly Letho's fault if going to Vergen was Triss' choice, and she could have returned to Geralt right away???

As a Letho fan, I think it's a good exercise to provide an even more negative perspective.



Letho sparing Geralt could have also been calculated to distract the North who believe that Geralt is guilty. Killing Geralt would risk absolving him. Keeping him alive could draw attention to the white wolf and away from the viper.



Letho wanted to leave Loc Muinne without risking dying at Geralt's hands. Remember that Letho's victory in Flotsam was a close one, as Geralt disarmed him. Saving Triss could have been an act of manipulation.

First, it would be more beneficial for Letho to kill Geralt. Nobody except selected few knew about Letho's involvement, and Geralt's death in Flotsam would have stopped a hunt for a kingslayer. It is better for his mission to make people believe that the kingslayer is dead. The kings would grow less cautions, and easy to take down.

Letho saved Triss because he could, and he had no reasons to wish her death. Also it may be Geralt who saved Triss. Still, Letho comes to this meeting to resolve this matter one way or the other.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

I see ample reason not to trust Letho, but enough to kill him? That makes my Geralt very unsure of himself. Self-defense doesn't extend to killing someone who might be a threat in the future; when your choice is to fight or to walk away, self-defense is always on the side of walking away.

The only justification I see for killing Letho is by playing Geralt as a patriot of Temeria or the North. Now "canon Geralt" is no patriot, but he can be played as one, especially on Roche's path, so it's not out of the question. The Empire with witchers from a rebuilt Viper school is a formidable threat, and Geralt may see the danger and take action to hinder any attempt the Empire might make.

Now the Emperor might well be interested in Geralt and Yennefer as the only known survivors of the Wild Hunt, or as bait to entice Ciri to return. But that's a story not yet opened.

But I did walk away...from another bastard that deserved death:

Spoiler

Henselt.

Well he did. But that is just the thing, you may play Geralt as your Geralt. It's great, and no one can say whether it's right or wrong, cause the multiple choices are there to be chosen from. My Geralt sides with whomever seems to be the victim of bullies. In 1 I made my choices and they all felt right. In 2 I went with choices that were difficult and felt best, and damn if I didn't learn the extent of 'the lesser evil' philosophy. They were damn hard but yeah, choosing from the two I rather choose Temeria over Nilfgaard, and friends over politics. My Geralt went all over the moral field trying to do the right thing, that is why I felt him to be so real and complicated. Why do we make the choices we make?

The absolute hardest part for me is to stay truly neutral like the ideal 'canon' witcher should, but even Geralt can't do that sometimes. Remember Blaviken? Did he walk away there or did he meddle? Me, I can't fathom it, but to be fair I may be mistaking neutrality for indifference. It is indifference I have a problem with.

You do have a point regarding self defense/walking away, so I stayed my hand many times and never became a

Spoiler

Kingslayer

when I had the option to become one. I wished there wouldn't be a choice but a fight to the death, but the devs know their stuff and see to it that there is a bit of 'cooldown and conversation' after the fights.

With Letho, yeah, I thought of the future, I import my saves you know, but I also thought of revenge. For Cedric, Foltest and who knows how many others.

I just hope

Spoiler

Henselt, Silé de Tansarville and Saesenthessis(who turned out to be Saskia!!!)

won't make my Geralt regret sparing them in Witcher 3.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

Oh, and by the way. After three playthroughs of Witcher 2 making the exact same choices, I have no idea why you are arguing. I never saw Philippa nor Cynthia in my playthroughs. Ergo I cannot discuss certain characters or their motivations at all, I never got to know of what they did or why. My point? We all have different playthroughs if not interpretations of what happens and why. But the choices are there to be made, so be grateful to the devs who made this great adventure happen.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Oh, and by the way. After three playthroughs of Witcher 2 making the exact same choices, I have no idea why you are arguing. I never saw Philippa nor Cynthia in my playthroughs. Ergo I cannot discuss certain characters or their motivations at all, I never got to know of what they did or why. My point? We all have different playthroughs if not interpretations of what happens and why. But the choices are there to be made, so be grateful to the devs who made this great adventure happen. />

You know, you should play Iorveth path at least once. The entire story would be simply incomprehensible without the knowledge of the events on Iorveth path. Personally, I do not like a lot of things on Iorveth path, while Roche's path is my personal choice masterpiece. But to know all the details about the characters, their schemes and motivation, Iorveth path is essential. Also there are a lot of great quests there, so it will be time well spent.

 

[HylianColibri]

And Iorveth's path has a LoTR easter egg, totally worth it

 

[pomor]

Also Geralt is not The Witcher Order internal affairs officer, and it is none of his business how other witchers behave and what contracts they accept. He may choose to kill Letho as a punishment for Foltest's assassination, but not for breaking some witcher laws of conduct that do not exist.

I have the feeling that Sapkowski was watching some playthrough, even if he denny.
Minor spoiler from Season of Storms:

Spoiler

Translation mine, and awkward English sentences are my fault

"It is the lie" said Geralt to Brehen "that Vesemir handed down a death sentence for you. Witchers don't fight witchers, don't cross swords with each other. But if what has happend in Iello will repeat itself ever again, if I ever hear a news about something like that... Then, I'll make an exception. I will find you, and kill you. Take this warning seriously."