Saskia, Stennis and the future of Aedirn.

[Cipher-Six]

Saskia, Stennis and the future of Aedirn.

---Spoilers---

Hi all, I just finished my third playthrough of TW2 and I am loving it. The only choice that I can't make up my mind about is what to do with Stennis. I am torn between letting him live so that his country will be more stable, and letting him be killed so that Saskia might one day rule over all of Aedirn. But Saskia doesn't seem to make any claim over lower Aedirn at the meeting in Loc Muinne. She only wants Upper Aedirn, which makes me think that lower Aedirn will be in chaos without a king. However, if Stennis is alive, he is the number one most likely person to oppose Saskia in the future. He will want to take back upper Aedirn and we already know he is ruthless and heartless dog who will kill Saskia if given the chance.

So really, I am trying to figure out what the best choices are for the future of Aedirn in TW2, so that I can import them into TW3. Above all else, I'd like to support Saskia, she is the virgin of Aedirn, and I see no reason why she should not rule over the entire nation of Aedirn.

 

[GuyNwah]

Saskia might well make a fine monarch for Aedirn, but I agree with you: it is not what she desires. She makes no claim to the entire state. I do not think she will remain in Upper Aedirn after a stable state is established. Like her father, she is still a dragon, and dragons move on before the people they have aided tire of them and send out hunting parties after them.

Stennis may be the thinnest of pillars to tie one's hopes to, but the North is a Hobbesian world, and even an unpromising king brings more peace, prosperity, and freedom than a civil war would. The aftermath of his father's assassination and the defeat of Kaedwen is his chance to be the man of the moment; and even if he is a fool who was duped by the priest into conniving at the attempt on Saskia's life, he is not totally incapable of rising to the occasion.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Yeah, even a bad (or probably young and inexperienced) king is better then no king at all. In the best case he will go along with Saskia, forgive (or just accept it) her and her people for taking over the Upper Aedirn (he sure as hell blames her for splitting and thus weakening once mighty kingdom), and will rule in whatever is left of Aerdirn, which is not much, and, as they said, Aedirn bereft of Upper Aedirn will became a principality dependent on Keadwin. Though in this case it won't be Kaedwen. In the worst case he may despise Saskia and Free Pontar so much, and, given the above statement, will simply surrender his lands to Emhyr for a promise to be his vassal king of a new Nilfgaardian protectorate. To be honest, I think that if he can't keep Aedirn as independent, he will sooner go with Nilfgaard.
But without him Aedirn will be in chaos, where local barons fight their old fights with their neighbors, nobody is working the fields, and eventually there will be famine, refugees, and all other things that such situation brings. So having Stennis as a king is still better, at least for the people, if not for the North, whatever his future actions will be.