[ spoilers ] Blood and Wine Ending. WTF?!

[Lytha]

@Raven-beauty: I kind of doubt that anyone would label the "everyone dies" ending as "good" though.


I'm firmly in the "only Syanna dies is the 'good' ending; Regis is important!" camp, but I guess others might prefer the "fairytale ending, who cares that Regis is now an outcast" ending.

 

[GeneralJarate]

@Raven-beauty: I kind of doubt that anyone would label the "everyone dies" ending as "good" though.


I'm firmly in the "only Syanna dies is the 'good' ending; Regis is important!" camp, but I guess others might prefer the "fairytale ending, who cares that Regis is now an outcast" ending.

As much as I like Regis, I actually had no problem with him being labelled as an outcast in the end because it was partially his choice, and he's always been somewhat of a hermit anyway. When Geralt and friends first met him, he was a bootlegger in a cemetery in the middle of nowhere. In the end, I don't think it'll make that much of a difference for him really.

 

[Raven-beauty]

I kind of doubt that anyone would label the "everyone dies" ending as "good" though.

True but I am not saying 'everyone'

And as you put it there are now 'camps' who see that ending as good and the other as bad etc. That was also my point.
I like the ending were they almost all live camp except for dettlaff as 'good'. I agree with @GeneralJarate on the matter of Regis. Plus the theme in my opinion of blood and wine is more about forgiveness, as I stated somewhere else.

 

[Rawls]

When judging my preferred ending, I generally assess the choices that get you there rather than the result itself. The Syanna and Anna both alive ending is my preferred ending looking at the choices. While I agree that Syanna's actions are morally unjustifiable, her punishment is not a Witcher's call to make under the circumstances, not to mention he has a contract to think of regarding Detlaff.

When presented with the choice to go after the unseen route or the Syanna's room route with Regis, the Syanna route makes more sense from the stance that I thought getting her was a less risky option than going after a parlay with the Lord of all vampires. And Regis (whom I trusted) advocated we find Syanna. So it felt right to go that path.

Getting the magical do-dad ribbon thing seemed like the right thing to do (it is possible to dislike someone and still not be a jerk to them). Plus I never turn down a challenge to a round of Gwent.

By the time you get to the final scene with Detlaff you don't really have a choice but to help kill him.

Then once it's all over, giving Syanna a lecture about forgiveness seemed like the best thing to do, and telling her to ask Anna herself felt like something a Witcher would say. I told Damien and Anna about Syanna's plan, because they are paying my contract. During the ... trial I guess is the right term ... I said "she's clearly guilty, that's all that matters" (because it's true) and then "You were children then."

All of that leads to the Syanna and Anna alive ending, which is my preferred one. I could have forgot some steps in there, but that is the gist of it.

 

[wichat]

Oh, my! Am I the one who try to get "a haapy ending" making both sisters forgive each to other?

At least, in my first play, I've wanted an ending which doesn't breake the fairytale of Toussaint. Anyway, no any ending will get from me this blue feeling away, it's has been like saying goodbye to your very bestfriend who you will never see again (too much luckly if it were only for a long, long, time). Damn, CDPR, I will miss Geralt and his new aventures so badly. Any game coming will fill this bitter empty hole in my heart.

 

[Goodmongo]

While I agree that Syanna's actions are morally unjustifiable, her punishment is not a Witcher's call to make under the circumstances, not to mention he has a contract to think of regarding Detlaff.

Then once it's all over, giving Syanna a lecture about forgiveness seemed like the best thing to do, and telling her to ask Anna herself felt like something a Witcher would say. I told Damien and Anna about Syanna's plan, because they are paying my contract. During the ... trial I guess is the right term ... I said "she's clearly guilty, that's all that matters" (because it's true) and then "You were children then."

You contradict yourself here. If you as a witcher have have no right to determine her punishment then you should have refused to even partake in her "trial" or then shut up and not mentioned the childhood sentence. You by doing those two things are getting involved in determining her punishment. You are proclaiming that she should be forgiven. How is that any different?

Either you are involved or not involved but your justification is one sided to me.

 

[Rawls]

You contradict yourself here.

First, I'll quote my signature:

Many of our most serious conflicts are conflicts within ourselves. Those who suppose their judgements are always consistent are unreflective or dogmatic. - John Rawls

Second, I don't think it's inconsistent in that Geralt never says what her punishment should be IIRC. He stayed for the trial after having been asked to by the person who paid his contract. He says she was clearly guilty, which was the truth, but does not speak to punishment. Then when she tries to defend herself, he says that they were children then because it was true, yet it also doesn't speak to punishment. It's up to Anna to determine the appropriate punishment, and she ultimately is the one who does.

Being an advisor is different from being the person who actually makes the decision. It is one thing to stay and give your opinion when asked, it is another to actually give out the punishment. Geralt isn't passing the actual judgment, he is giving Anna advice that has been asked for. It may be splitting hairs, but I do think it is an important distinction.

 

[sv3672]

If you as a witcher have have no right to determine her punishment then you should have refused to even partake in her "trial" or then shut up and not mentioned the childhood sentence. You by doing those two things are getting involved in determining her punishment.

Actually, what you say at the ceremony does not matter, what determines the ending is if you can convince Syanna to forgive her sister (see this post).

 

[Goodmongo]

Second, I don't think it's inconsistent in that Geralt never says what her punishment should be IIRC. He stayed for the trial after having been asked to by the person who paid his contract.

Except Anna says that she cannot be impartial and that you must be there because you are impartial. I have to check the exact words but you are invited to determine her punishment. And if you refuse to go or partake in it you get a different ending from what I read.

Actually, what you say at the ceremony does not matter, what determines the ending is if you can convince Syanna to forgive her sister (see this post).

Now I may be wrong but I read that if you refuse Anna's request to stay that both die. I will check the link as I haven't done this myself and only read that this would happen.

 

[sv3672]

Now I may be wrong but I read that if you refuse Anna's request to stay that both die. I will check the link as I haven't done this myself and only read that this would happen.

Is it actually possible to refuse to take part in the ceremony ? I only recall some "need to do something else first" type of option before going there, but at the ceremony scene itself, the choices do not seem to matter.

 

[Rawls]

Except Anna says that she cannot be impartial and that you must be there because you are impartial. I have to check the exact words but you are invited to determine her punishment. And if you refuse to go or partake in it you get a different ending from what I read.

Anna: In a moment I shall speak to Syanna. Will you assist me? You returned my sister to me, yet you have also shown me her horrendous deeds. As head of state, I must judge her fairly. But she is my sister, thus my heart bleeds for her.

Geralt: If my presence will assist in any manner, of course I'll stay.

... Anna introduces Syanna ...

Syanna: The Witcher will take part in our talk?

I choose: The duchess requested I be present.

Anna: You have committed crimes, grave crimes. Yet you are my sister and my heart does not allow me to treat you like a common criminal. Thus I have asked Geralt to advise me, as one impartial. I shall now hear what he has to say.

...

So you are not determining her punishment. Really it's just a discussion to see if there is going to be a trial at all as best as I can tell.

EDIT:

You are proclaiming that she should be forgiven.

I don't believe my Geralt ever once advocated that Syanna be forgiven. Indeed, I chose "She's clearly guilty, that's all that matters" which is really the opposite of thinking she should be forgiven. However, Syanna then puts on her little defense to Anna and my Geralt responds with something like "you were children then" - essentially telling Syanna that this grudge she is holding is stupid. However Anna is moved by all this and forgives her sister. I can't find any of the youtube videos that show this combination, because most the of both Syanna and Anna alive videos have Geralt choosing the more forgiving option rather than "she's clearly guilty." But I know it can be done, beecause that was how it turned out for me.

 

[Goodmongo]

I referring to where Geralt has the option to say something close to this:

The crime was horrible. But she has cause to feel pain.

I've not yet seen what happens if you pick that option. Do both die? Do they reconcile? I know this option is only available if you talk to Syanna in her room.

 

[sv3672]

I referring to where Geralt has the option to say something close to this:

The crime was horrible. But she has cause to feel pain.

I've not yet seen what happens if you pick that option. Do both die? Do they reconcile? I know this option is only available if you talk to Syanna in her room.

This choice at the ceremony does not matter, if you are seeing it, then it has already been decided that you will get the "good" ending.

That is, if you are going to get the bad ending, then the choices are:

1. Syanna should be punished like any criminal.
2. The good of the duchy, that's what matters most.

And for the one were the sisters survive:

1. Syanna's crimes were horrible, but she had cause to feel pain.
2. Syanna's clearly guilty. That's all that matters.

In the latter case, both choices lead to this:

1. You were children then, both.
2. Claim to understand all those you detested? Had killed?

 

[wichat]

I thing I've chosen this option,answer 1. "The crime was horrible" But my Geralt was always looking for understand Syanna. And the ending isthe same. I guess that the previous conversation in the room makes the difference for one ending or another.

 

[sv3672]

I thing I've chosen this option,answer 1. "The crime was horrible" But my Geralt was always looking for understand Syanna. And the ending isthe same. I guess that the previous conversation in the room makes the difference for one ending or another.

Yes, as I already mentioned here, the choices in the conversation at the ceremony do not seem to matter. Similarly to how they do not in Avallac'h's tower when it comes to Ciri's bad ending.

 

[Goodmongo]

Thank you all for clearing that up. As I said it was based on things I've read and I've not actually tried it. I guess I got suckered just like with giving the acorn to the villagers and getting 6 back.

Having said that I still have to pick Regis over Syanna. My Geralt let many previous "monsters" live when they promised to leave and not kill again. Dopplers, trolls and succubi are some of those I did not kill. The thing is we know the future and what our actions will cause. When I played the game without reading anything I naturally played Gwent and got the ribbon. Had no clue what it was for. In fact I almost didn't even go see the flint girl as I got the 3 beans. So that left me with no choice it seems.

I also had to finish the investigation into the 5th victim and it seemed natural to confront Syanna. So I sort of stumbled into the so called "good" ending by being a completionist and reading all books and doing all dialogue. But if I knew the future I would not save Syanna and risk Regis.

 

[Sunsibar]

Now I may be wrong but I read that if you refuse Anna's request to stay that both die. I will check the link as I haven't done this myself and only read that this would happen.

I stayed with Anna and both still died.

 

[Fest.]

The whole second half of the story disappointed me a lot, to be honest.

I just feel that the writing wasn't as good as the rest of the story. There are two things in particular that disappointed me (and triggered the final events): a) Annarietta's attitude regarding her sister and b) Dettlaff's massacre at Beauclair. Those two things were asspulls, in my opinion, aimed to drive the story towards a simpler ending.


a) Throughout the story, we see Annarietta as a courageous, severe and even intelligent ruler. At least, that's what she seemed to me. A duchess concerned about her people and her duchy, as she demonstrated while investigating alongside Geralt. Then, her sister appears and she suddenly becomes a childish, whimsical princess, unable to accept the truth and punish Syanna as she deserved, leading to a massacre in Beauclair... In my opinion, that's not coherent at all with what we had seen of her. I just can't imagine the Annarietta of the first half of the story acting like that.


b) I don't think the slaughter that Dettlaff triggered was coherent either, and Regis' explanation wasn't satisfying at all. Yes, maybe he was emotionally unstable, but we also know that he hated killing innocent people. Damn, he even cut his own hand in self-hatred and culpability after killing ONE guy while he was being blackmailed. Taking into account how he was portrayed along the story, I don't think he would massacre innocent people like that.

Leaving that aside, I chose the same ending as OP., and let Dettlaff go (even though I think Geralt would have killed him). I had a lot of trouble trying to decide Dettlaff's fate, because on one hand I think he deserves punishment for Beauclair's massacre, and on the other hand he was being blackmailed and above all I didn't want Regis to kill his friend (it was obvious since only a Higher Vampire can kill another Higher Vampire), and then have him hounded by his own species...


It annoys me too (a lot) that they decided to skip three days just like that. Yeah, let's wait until Dettlaff sends a legion of vampires to kill everyone! Maybe he was just kidding! Why should we try to stop him! *sigh* Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Garrison72]

The hole second half of the story disappointed me a lot, to be honest.

I just feel that the writing wasn't as good as the rest of the story. There are two things in particular that disappointed me (and triggered the final events): a) Annarietta's attitude regarding her sister and b) Dettlaff's massacre at Beauclair. Those two things were asspulls, in my opinion, aimed to drive the story towards a simpler ending.


a) Throughout the story, we see Annarietta as a courageous, severe and even intelligent ruler. At least, that's what she seemed to me. A duchess concerned about her people and her duchy, as she demonstrated while investigating alongside Geralt. Then, her sister appears and she suddenly becomes a childish, whimsical princess, unable to accept the truth and punish Syanna as she deserved, leading to a massacre in Beauclair... In my opinion, that's not coherent at all with what we had seen of her. I just can't imagine the Annarietta of the first half of the story acting like that.


b) I don't think the slaughter that Dettlaff triggered was coherent either, and Regis' explanation wasn't satisfying at all. Yes, maybe he was emotionally unstable, but we also know that he hated killing innocent people. Damn, he even cut his own hand in self-hatred and culpability after killing ONE guy while he was being blackmailed. Taking into account how he was portrayed along the story, I don't think he would massacre innocent people like that.

Leaving that aside, I chose the same ending as OP., and let Dettlaff go (even though I think Geralt would have killed him). I had a lot of trouble trying to decide Dettlaff's fate, because on one hand I think he deserves punishment for Beauclair's massacre, and on the other hand he was being blackmailed and above all I didn't want Regis to kill his friend (it was obvious since only a Higher Vampire can kill another Higher Vampire), and then have him hounded by his own species...


It annoys me too (a lot) that they decided to skip three days just like that. Yeah, let's wait until Dettlaff sends a legion of vampires to kill everyone! Maybe he was kidding! Why should we try to stop that! *sigh* Makes no sense whatsoever.

Dettlaff's motivations and the three days skip are the things that bothered me as well. Especially Dettlaff going on a rampage because he's emotional. It's just not a convincing reason. Anna turning into a gullible idiot around Syanna made no sense either, but you can kinda explain that one away because she clearly let her guard down around her own kin. She doesn't really know the adult Syanna.

 

[Goodmongo]

Detlaff did the mass killings because you gave an ultimatum. So the attack logically follows the ultimatum.

The real question is if Detlaff would have given that ultimatum? Would he attack the whole city or would he just go kill Anna or those in the palace?

I 100% buy into the concept that Detlaff would demand Syanna appear and that he would have given some type of threat. And I 100% buy into the concept that if his demand was not met he would carry out his threat. Powerful people and governments do that all the time so it fits.

The real question and issue for me is what would his threat really have been? The writers picked the whole city to enhance the story but I think it would have been something different. A royal person at random till Syanna came to see him or something like that.