Letho's fate

[Goodmongo]

No he didn't. Coen did, and he died there. Geralt was in Nilfgaard at the time rescuing Ciri.
What support do you have for him hating them? He may not like Nilfgaard, but then again Geralt looks down on everything political.

Then there is a continuity issues because Shani in W1 tells Geralt that she was there with him at Brenna. And the dwarves on Iorveth's path before going to the mines talk about Geralt being with them at Brenna. So the games say Geralt was at Brenna.

I gave you numerous reasons why Geralt would hate Nilfgaard yet your response is he hates politics? You did not provide any proof or facts that say Geralt didn't hate Nilfgaard nor did you counter my facts.

Because the confession was just another part of the Nilfgaardian plot. They'd got rid of some kings, the final step was to make sure the Council of Mages wasn't formed. So the Nilfgaardians presented him at the Conference, claiming that he'd been "captured trying to assassinate Shilard" (pure BS), and he gives a confession that's only partially true - he killed the kings, he was employed by the Lodge, but he missed out the bit that his true employers were the Nilfgaardians.

Once the conference was over and he'd given his speech, he wouldn't have been a prisoner any more, so he's free to turn on the Nilfgaardians and rescue Triss, maybe because he has a thing about Sorceresses, or because he feels guilty about bringing her into it (he knows she wasn't part of the conspiracy), or as an attempt to appease Geralt, whichever explanation you think fits.

Huh? So they free a kingslayer? Yet they actually try to arrest Sile? This makes zero sense. He's under arrest, he confesses and they let him go free? Please help me here. Explain this.

 

[dragonbird]

Letho was never under arrest. He was working WITH Shilard, following the orders of the Nilfgaardians. Their interruption at the summit was play-acting, to make everyone there believe that the Sorceresses were behind all of the assassinations.

Everything Shilard said about Letho having tried to assassinate him, and being a prisoner, was a lie. Letho's own confession was part truth, part lie but the overall intention from both of them was to make sure that The Council of Mages wasn't formed, and to start a witch hunt.

If the dragon hadn't attacked, the Nilfgaardians would presumably have marched him back to their encampment, removed the shackles, and Shilard would have said "Thank you very much" and shipped him to Nilfgaard to get his reward. He decided to rescue Triss and stay around for a while instead, for unspecified reasons.

 

[CostinRaz]

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who obviously doesn't know the facts properly. Shani mentions Coen, not Geralt.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

I find it interesting how anyone can say this or that about Geralt and his convictions and motivations. You may believe what you want, and you're free to interpret, but stating that Geralt is or isn't anything, ending with a punctuation, is very interesting indeed. "Geralt does not murder," and yet he did, even when he didn't have to, to prove his point. "Geralt favours this or that side, or neither, as he's neutral."

Yet the books and games show that being neutral isn't easy, and neutral is also a choice. Oh, and yes, he is not always neutral is he? That is the beauty of Sapkowski's stories. Wouldn't a neutral Geralt have left Nivellen alone with his beloved? Not his business right? Wouldn't a neutral Geralt walked away from Calanthe's dinner table the minute he grasped the situation? And what about Blaviken? He could have just walked away. Surely I exaggerate but still.

Neutral is very difficult for me to discern. It all depends on the situation. I tend to equal it to indifference/apathy sometimes. Not that I know best, not at all. I only know what Geralt does in the two books I've read(though I intend to read the complete series before game launch), and his motivation behind his choices.

I also know what MY Geralt does in Witcher 1 and 2 and why. The devs are great for implementing player choicevictory and for offering so many different story choices and paths. Nevermind the why, the choices are there to be chosen, ergo no one is better than the other.

Stating what book-Geralt is or is not, what he thinks or not in games is moot, as it is the players own choice and motivations behind all these choices.

MY Geralt is no friend of Nilfgaard. MY Geralt recognise Emhyr var Emreis for the schemer he is. MY Geralt could not forgive Letho for the choices he made, and for being a pawn and an assassin. Letho actually believed there would be a Viper school? Isn't it fun how idealists taking things too far always seem to turn into something ugly?

MY Geralt couldn't forgive Letho as he so indifferently took innocent lives in order to execute his plan. MY Geralt duelled Letho as I couldn't let him walk away after all he'd done.

I mean what if anyone else dangles the prospect of a Viper school in front of Letho's nose? It was sad, yes, they were all friends of Geralt. Letho, Serrit and Auckes were in a bad place in Nilfgaard, surely, but they could have chosen differently.

So MY Geralt and Letho shared a drink, talked, and then a fight ensued. I did not enjoy it but I felt it had to be done. In no way am I saying this is what book-Geralt would do, but then again, who knows?

I don't believe that MY Geralt is anything like the Geralt Sapkowski created, but is book-Geralt always neutral? The devs made many different paths for OUR Geralts to go down, and our motivations behind these choices are our own.

 

[Goodmongo]

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who obviously doesn't know the facts properly. Shani mentions Coen, not Geralt.

I've replayed both paths and 6 different endings. You are correct and I was very wrong. Part of my error was that some of my games were done years ago before the EE version even came out. Many things were expanded upon.

That said there is still plenty in the game to support Geralt not liking Nilfgaard at all. His conversation in chapter 3 with Cynthia shows this very clearly.

I've also changed my position on Letho. Others are correct that his name has been cleared. So that only leaves personal vengeance as a motive to kill Letho. Replaying Roche's path also shows that his word to Roche is not needed as Roche himself knows the extent of the conspiracy. So while Roche wants Letho to pay for his crime, there are bigger fish to fry.