Letho's fate

[bratinov]

I would spare Letho if he cleared Gerald's name, since he owed him.
Gerald was tortured and would have been hanged because of him.
He's a killer through and through don't forget your promise to Roche.
If anything I would prefer capturing him for trial.
The assassinations of kings would cause political turmoil at best, civil wars and a new war with Nilfgaard at worst.

The only thing that made me sorry for him is that he didn't want to kill you.

Reinstating the Witchers is not a good thing. Most of the kids who are put trough the trials don't survive, and the trials themselves are torture. Being a Witcher is a horrible fate.
Witchers use the right of surprise to get their new members, the kids have no say in the matter.
Berrengar's story is not one of a happy man.

 

[timanklesaria]

I Let Letho live the first time I played and have most other times since.
I have only killed him once and that was mainly for the achievement and to be sure I could. I still think the fight with him is one of the hardest in the game. When he uses all his abilities, signs, bombs and swords you get a real appreciation of what it must be like to fight a Witcher.

Main reason I let Letho live was because of his motivation.
Letho undertook the assasinations because in exchange the Emperor offered to rebuild the school of the viper.
Now some people have said that this would be a bad thing. That it would mean more boys taken from their families , transformed and often killed in the process of creating Witchers.

In response to that please remember how dark the world of the Witcher is. Even in the empire which is portrayed as more civilised as the North, there would be plenty of orphans for which the potential of becoming a Witcher even with the risk of death may be a better potential life than growing up a beggar or worse.

But I personally did not read Letho's motivation in rebuilding the school of the Viper as being to create new Witchers.
Letho's ending comment is that he knows of at least two other Witchers of the Viper school still on the path and now he can send word to them that the school is being rebuilt, they can come home.

Although Witchers are often viewed with suspicion in the North they can still largely travel about freely. From Lethos comment in the Empire Witchers are outcasts unable to enter most cities, forever required to live at the edges of civilisation and without a School they lack even a permanent place to call home.

That was Letho's motivation. To give himself and his brothers back a place to call home, a place to call their own.

We dont see it so much in Geralt (but then Geralt is mean to be different from other Witchers) but most Witchers are meant to be quite different from humans. Not so much in appearance but in the way they think.
We see this if you read Aucke's notes about Geralt in Act 2. He marveled that while Geralt had a Witchers instincts he still seemed to also have human emotions. Something the other Witchers had difficulty with as I think it has been impiled that one aspect of the trial of the grasses was to burn the emotions out of Witchers.
What Auckes wanted to learn from Geralt was about life in General how he found that balance between acting like a normal person and being a Witcher.

This implies that most Witchers find it much more difficult to fit into human society than Geralt.
Given this their only real source of home and community are their schools where they can spend time over the winters with others of their kind.

People are willing to go to great lengths for their homes and family.
Under those circumstances Letho's motivations are completely understandable to me.

That was the main reason I let Lethos live. I felt that if Geralt was in a similar circumstance, if Kaer Moran was forced to be closed and Geralt had a chance to give Vesimir, Lambert and Eskel back their home then he would be willing to go to almost any lengths to do so as well.

 

[martiansinuranus]

I killed him. I didn't know him, I don't know Yennefer, he was not my friend. He was just some evil muscular dude with a cool accent who makes Geralt's life miserable.

Did all the stuff Geralt remembers throughout the game if you didn't import happen in Witcher 1?

 

[inquisitorlovac]

Fist playthrough, my Geralt killed him. Not out of revenge or hate or anything personal, but because my Geralt didn't trust the skurwysynu who was pulling his strings. The Emperor is not going to let a weapon that powerful just walk away. Letho is no more likely to be successful than Geralt has been in staying neutral and out of the affairs of kings.

This is a major reason to not let him live, if not the most important. I'll admit at first I almost felt bad for killing him but then if you let him go whose to say he won't start killing kings again? I mean what do you prove to him if you let him go? That Geralt is totally going to track you down and give you a good talking to if you mess with him enough? Considering he beat you in the first fight if you let him go then he will probably think that Geralt won't be a problem in his next schemes, which could easily be kiling more kings.

 

[SylvanWolf]

Reasons to kill Letho:
1) He caused a lot of trouble to Gerald. Without him, the things would have gone smoothly (well, maybe some problems while learning about his past).
2) If letho was Gerald's friend, he would have helped him to recover his memory or contact him before killing the king (he obviously had heard of Gerald)
3) After all, it's a game, and you miss a fun fight if you let him go.

I chose to kill him.

 

[HellKnightX88]

First playthrough (Roche path, chose to save Triss) I killed him. It was more about me wanting to experience the fight more than actually wanting to kill him. Afterwards I reloaded and let him go.

I have 4 finished playthroughs, 2 on Roche's path and 2 on Iorveth's path, in each of them picking different options. The only playthrough where I did kill him off for good was on Roche's path where, apart from him, I killed the dragon. Henselt, Philippa and a few others. Then gave Anaïs to Radovid. In my mind it was the story where it made the most sense to kill him (especially after taking the blame for Henselt's death in front of Radovid). In the other playthroughs I let him walk away.

I really like Letho's character as an antagonist. So I'm looking forward to seeing him again in TW3.

 

[frincog]

I killed him because I told Roche I would and since I went to go save Triss, well, at least I owed him that. Roche is a bro.

Not sure what happened to Ves.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

I've played the games so many different times in so many different ways that I'm pretty sure I've done everything at this point, but my real choice is to let him go. My feeling has always been that while framing Geralt for Foltest's murder certainly got Geralt into a ton of trouble, by the time you actually catch up to him, so much else has happened and/or come to light and the situation is so different that it really doesn't matter anymore. This is probably my favorite aspect of the game's story, actually - on the surface, a lot of it is about revenge, and once it's all said and done that revenge seems fruitless and hollow.

Well, that, and the fact that the game lets you just chug some vodka and then walk away from what's arguably been built up as the final boss fight throughout the entire story has to be the greatest RPG decision in recent memory. It's just completely awesome.

 

[Engagerade]

In Iorveths path i leave him alone.
I aswell kill him in Roche's path as i feel i owe him that.

 

[fuiseh]

Letho is dead.

It wasn't that I had a hatred or disdorn of any kind towards him... but more because i was dissatisfied with how our previous fight turned out. I struggled and died more than a few times by his hand, but eventually I prevailed, nailing him to half of his health. I was feeling good and- cutscene apparently canon Geralt loses. I mean come on.

After finishing all conversation options with him in the epilogue, I had zero desire to actually kill him. But I did, I had to. I needed to finish the fight​.

 

[Goodmongo]

I posted this in the other thread about him:

He needs to die for multiple reasons. First off you gave your word to Roche that you would kill him. Can you not be trusted to keep it? You have a reputation. Not killing him means people can't trust you to do what you say.

Next is the fact that without killing him you will be blamed for killing Foltest or at best supporting the killing of him. You will never clear your name and remember this was your primary motivation for wither 2. How can you ignore this.

Third reason is you hate Nilfgaard. Letho worked for them and the game implies he will do so once again. To let him live just causes Nilfgaard to be potentially stronger than they otherwise would be.

Fourth is that he got the better of you twice. Your pride and reputation has taken a big hit. Without that fight people will say that you were scared of him. They will wonder if you are any good since you tucked tail and ran from him.

This is not about owing Foltest or anyone else. It is about you. It is about Geralt. Without killing him your name is dirt. Your reputation is dirt. You can't be trusted and many will see you as a coward.

 

[adnoam]

How would killing Letho clear your name?

Roche already believes you didn't kill Foltest. Everyone else will not change their minds just because you can produce a random corpse that no one has seen before.

 

[Riven-Twain]

The real beauty of the game's writing is that you can defend either choice, depending on how you view it, and how it sits with your personal conscience. I like that.

 

[Goodmongo]

How would killing Letho clear your name?

Roche already believes you didn't kill Foltest. Everyone else will not change their minds just because you can produce a random corpse that no one has seen before.

You have a warrant out for your arrest. It will take the authorities to remove that. You made a promise to Roche to kill Letho. If you let him live what stops Roche from thinking it was all a witcher plot and you were at least involved? There is zero logic to support letting Letho live will clear your name. Killing Letho proves to Roche that you kept your word and were not part of the plot. Roche and the Blue Strips can get the warrant lifted.

By removing the warrant and bounty that tells the random people that you didn't do it. A random corpse means nothing and is a red herring argument. But not keeping your word to Roche means you made an enemy of him. He will do nothing to clear your name. The warrant and bounty remain. You are a kingslayer.

 

[dragonbird]

You have a warrant out for your arrest. It will take the authorities to remove that. You made a promise to Roche to kill Letho. If you let him live what stops Roche from thinking it was all a witcher plot and you were at least involved? There is zero logic to support letting Letho live will clear your name. Killing Letho proves to Roche that you kept your word and were not part of the plot. Roche and the Blue Strips can get the warrant lifted.

By removing the warrant and bounty that tells the random people that you didn't do it. A random corpse means nothing and is a red herring argument. But not keeping your word to Roche means you made an enemy of him. He will do nothing to clear your name. The warrant and bounty remain. You are a kingslayer.

This is only applicable for certain endings. In others, Roche may be an outlaw, with no power to do anything, or he may have already said that he's more concerned about the future, in which case he won't be upset about you not killing Letho. Anais (who witnessed the assassination) may clarify what happened, Letho may have already admitted before a huge crowd in Loc Muinne that he was responsible. Loc Muinne may be sealed in which case nobody would know if you'd killed him or not.

---------- Updated at 10:43 PM ----------

You will never clear your name and remember this was your primary motivation for wither 2. How can you ignore this.

You're given a choice on your motivation, and are asked at different times what that motivation is, and also whether or not you'll kill him. Your motivation can also be that you want him to help recover your memories, or that you just want to know why he did it.

Third reason is you hate Nilfgaard. Letho worked for them and the game implies he will do so once again. To let him live just causes Nilfgaard to be potentially stronger than they otherwise would be.

Geralt doesn't hate Nilfgaard.

 

[CostinRaz]

He needs to die for multiple reasons. First off you gave your word to Roche that you would kill him. Can you not be trusted to keep it?

You gave your word that you would find Letho, nothing less nothing more.

To quote Geralt exactly "I'd find the kingslayer".

Geralt doesn't hate Nilfgaard.

Nor would Geralt's reputation be affected because he didn't fight in a ruin without anyone to see it occur besides some very close people to him.

Triss/Roche/Iorveth do not care if you kill him at that that stage. Triss because Letho may have saved her life and Roche/Iorveth because they have far more important things to care about and to them what happens to Letho is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

As for Geralt clearing his name. That's cleaned regardless of what you do. If you save Triss she goes before the conference and pins the blame on the Lodge. If you don't then Letho is dragged in chains by the Nilfgaardians and confesses.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Remember, also, that, in a few of the play-throughs, Letho confesses publicly before the assembled Summit that he killed the kings.

 

[Goodmongo]

I have to replay some of these endings as my memory may be confusing some things. So my response on clearing your name will have to wait. I'm somewhat confused and trying to remember how letho can be captured and confess yet free to fight you later. This could be a big continuity issue but I have to check it out.

But I do have two comments. For the W3 game they say the game starts "After clearing your name....." So from this W3 comment it appears that clearing your name is important.

Now Geralt and Nilfgaard. In chapter 3 you can have a detaile dconversation with Cynthia. Se goes on how great and good Nilfgaard is and how they are freindy to nonhmans etc. Geralt instead of agreeing with her rebukes every last one of her statements. He even says she is brainwashed. This sure doesn't sound like someone that likes or even is neutral towards Nilfgaard now does it?

Geralt fought with the drarves at the Battle of Brenna against Nilfgaard. You don't take sides (witcher neutrality?) unless you have a strong motive to do so. All of the evidence says geralt does not like Nilfgaard and in fact hates it. Remember what he told Iorovath about being "ploughed" by Nilfgaard?

Couple this with the fact that Nilfgaard invaded the north twice and committed numerous war crimes and it becomes easy for Geralt to hate them. What support do you have that Geralt doesn't hate them?

And if we include the books then hatred of Nilfgaard by almost everyone in the north is very common.

 

[CostinRaz]

For the W3 game they say the game starts "After clearing your name....." So from this W3 comment it appears that clearing your name is important.

As I pointed out by the end of the conference your name is cleared regardless of what you do.

Geralt fought with the drarves at the Battle of Brenna against Nilfgaard.

No he didn't. Coen did, and he died there. Geralt was in Nilfgaard at the time rescuing Ciri.

What support do you have that Geralt doesn't hate them?

What support do you have for him hating them? He may not like Nilfgaard, but then again Geralt looks down on everything political.

 

[dragonbird]

I have to replay some of these endings as my memory may be confusing some things. So my response on clearing your name will have to wait. I'm somewhat confused and trying to remember how letho can be captured and confess yet free to fight you later. This could be a big continuity issue but I have to check it out.

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.

There's no continuity problem.

As far as clearing Geralt is concerned, if you rescue Philippa or Anais, Letho clears your name by confessing. This is backed up by Anais if she was rescued. If you rescue Triss, her own evidence backed up with Shilard's third letter show you had no involvement in the conspiracy.