It's rather simple. I agree with his motives. Geralt is a witcher and so is Letho. Letho didn't do it for the Empire, didn't do it for Emhyr, he did it for the witchers and that's how I find it justifiable. Whereas the Northen monarchs don't give a spit for the witchers besides using them Emhyr at least offered Letho something worth fighting for.
My thoughts are spread on the topic, sometimes I kill him and sometimes I don't. Throughout the game I got to like him more and more and when (if the choices are right) he saves Triss in the end I actually feel like he is Geralts friend. But apart from that I can't just overlook the murders he have comitted and all the other lives that will be lost due to his actions (even though he acted on orders from Nilfgaard). To face the reality, he is a cold blooded killer and even though he seems to have been a friend in the past, I can't overlook the facts.
I agree with basically everything Blothulfur and Chewin3 said. Letting Letho go was the obious choice for me. I really hope he will have some part in TW3, but only if it makes sense storywise, and not simply b/c he has to be there.
That is a valid point, but I see it as overly selfish to endanger the lives of so many citizens living in the northern kingdoms just to save a tiny race of monster slayers.CostinMoroianu said:
I'd also add that I couldn't really stand judgement on the man, just as I refused to judge Berengar, his deeds are his own and I had allready been cleared of any part in the kingslayings. It was my Geralt's fault that Foltest fell, I knew that assassins were after him and yet I failed him at the key moment, Letho doing the killing is neither here nor there. My white wolf sought atonement by placing Anais on the Temerian throne, survivors guilt demanded this of him, and then he went on his way with that debt paid.
Not my place to judge him or aid the northern kingdoms, i'm a witcher neutral as all hell.
Not my place to judge him or aid the northern kingdoms, i'm a witcher neutral as all hell.
Hotnels said:
And even then, Letho never had the slightest intention of ever trying to get Geralt accused of his death. He states this when you fight him in the elven baths.
Letho: Why do you hound me?
Geralt: They think I killed Foltest!
Letho: It's your own fault for playing soldier boy.
Letho: Why do you hound me?
Geralt: They think I killed Foltest!
Letho: It's your own fault for playing soldier boy.
Actually I would say that he did it for Emperor. He is clearly admiring emperor "he is much greater than your Northern Kings" and he said like main reason why he killed kings was "because Emperor asked me and you can't refuse Emperor" he added later (because Geralt kept asking) that Emyhr promised him reopening school of viper in exchange.CostinMoroianu said:
Witchers live off from people's trust, as limited as it is, and when witchers start to meddle with politics, things will go ruin. The School of Viper isn't a school of witchers any more; it's a school of Nilfgaardian assassins, whether Letho realizes it or not. If the word spreads that witchers are now politically motivated killers for hire, the whole system of neutral monster slayers falls to the ground. No wonder that the in-universe history books from the world's future describe witchers as killers who work for kings, rather than professional monster slayers.
It's not just a school of assassins. Witchers will always be needed against monsters and if they have to work for the Empire to survive...well I don't see anything wrong with that and why should I when otherwise the witchers die off for good?Lightice said:
And Geralt in the games isn't better. Regardless of how you play him you still assassinate Jacques for coin at Foltest's biding, you still end up helping Foltest and you either support Roche's cause, even if you save Triss in the end, or Saskia's. In the end the Witcher's neutrality is a dumb and worthless concept to me and I don't care for it one tiny bit.
I changed the topic title too, guys - hope you don't mind (it really was pretty high on the "spoiler" scale)
Geralt and his interlocutors actually have grave doubts about that. In his conversations with Siegfried, Zoltan, and Bras of Ban Ard, he comes to doubt there is a future in slaying monsters and comes to realize that real and dangerous evil is now embodied in men and their institutions.CostinMoroianu said:
I see your point, but I prefer to think of it as a luxury they can no longer afford, whether or not they ever could. Maybe a witcher can bring down a Manticore single-handed, but he can't bring down Salamandra that way. He needs to ally with and serve persons and institutions instrumental to his cause, even if to him they are only a means to an end. Letho did so, to great effect. Geralt is just a learner, and Letho gave him a schooling over "playing soldier-boy".
To me Geralt being Foltest's bodyguard is perfectly logical, not only would he be intrigued by a fellow witcher dabbling in statecraft, but he would know what a danger such an assassin can be. That's not even bringing Foltest, one of the most powerful and charismatic individuals in the north, into the reckoning. He will of course use the witcher, and ride rough shod over any raised objection. The white wolfs life is in the balance so long as he is stood on Temerian soil, and witcher neutrality will be swept aside with the morning wash.
I can't see any logical way of not having the game start out with the white wolf bound to Foltest, the attack of a witcher assassin overrides any of Geralts plans. Maybe if he had been sent on the hunt to track them down, but Foltest has more important matters of realm and state to pursue.
I can't see any logical way of not having the game start out with the white wolf bound to Foltest, the attack of a witcher assassin overrides any of Geralts plans. Maybe if he had been sent on the hunt to track them down, but Foltest has more important matters of realm and state to pursue.
Except that monsters are dying out, and normal humans are getting better and better at dealing with them without help. And I would not prefer having the witcher secrets in Emhyr's hands. The guy is already powerful enough.CostinMoroianu said:
You go after Jacques to eliminate the person who tried to steal the witcher secrets and use them for political ends. You stay with Foltest because the assassin who tried to kill him was a witcher, someone who tries to mix witcherdom with politics. Both of these actions are explicitly taken for the the exactly opposite aims than what Letho is doing -- to protect the witchers' secrets and keep them apart from politics. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before someone breaks out the Greater Brothers once again.