Which decisions did you make and why? (Spoilers, obviously)

[Shambles]

So, I'm replaying the Witcher 2 in preparation for the Witcher 3 and I'm wondering what decisions people made and why.

I chose to:

Let Aryan La Valette live.
What is the point in fighting him? He's not a bad person; he's a kid in a bad situation and is forced to defend his family's honour. He doesn't need to die for that.

Give Iorveth his sword.
The reason for NOT giving Iorveth his sword is to help Roche, but the way I see it is that they're as bad as each other. Each commits horrific acts in retaliation to atrocities committed by the other. In fact, you would've had the kingslayer had Roche not followed you and screwed everything up. Additionally, in giving Ioverth his sword, you maintain good relations with a potential ally. Also, why do anything to help Bernard Loredo; a known scumbag, extortionist, and, if you play a side quest a certain way, tries to have you killed over a bet.

Take Roche's path.
This is difficult since Iorveth is game for immediately heading to Aedirn, while Roche wants to kill Bernard for selling off Flotsam. However, due to Iorveth's politcal ideals, I feel as if Geralt's goal (finding the Kingslayer, there by finding Triss), is more in line with Roche's goal. Iorveth also wants to find the Kingslayer, but that goal takes back seat to his overall goal of a free Aedirn.

Let Henselt live.
Don't get me wrong - Henselt is an absolute (insert colourful adjectives then end with a noun rhyming with punt), but killing him is absolutely what the Kingslayers want. I feel as if that objectively the best decision is to let him live, even if it isn't the most morally satisfying.

Save Triss.
In the end, I feel as if the character of Geralt would do anything for his friends and any other mission is less of a priority. The matter of succession would mean little to Geralt when compared to Triss' plight.

Let Sile live.
There's really no point to killing Sile since she is now exposed and on the run. I was tempted to let her die since she deserves it to some degree, but then she promises information on Yennefer. Given Yennefer's importance, letting her live is worth it.

Save the dragon.
I felt like killing the dragon was the right thing to do in order to protect people, but then again, Witchers don't hunt dragons. Dragons are also a dying breed, so I felt as if we needed to give this one a pass, especially due to what we learn if you take Iorveth's path.

Kill Letho.
Honestly, I'm not sure about this one. I felt like killing Letho was a more satisfying finale and was more in keeping with Geralt's character. Killing him wouldn't help Geralt clear his name, but in the end, he kidnapped Triss and got you into this mess to begin with. I felt no sort of kinship with Letho, even though the game at the end reveals how he'd helped you rescue Yennefer from the Wild Hunt. The game just tells you he was your friend in the past, which, for me at least, failed to add any emotional weight to the decision. He's done nothing but screw you since the beginning and now we're supposed to consider letting him go since he's done you a solid in the past?

Let me know what you think. I'd love to read counter arguments and reasons behind the different choices other people made.

[B.A.R.N]

I agree with most of your posts except for the last two, if you didn't choose Iorveth's path you can not change the dragon back into Saskia (It IS possible if you help Eilhart or something instead of Triss) but on Roche's path, it's kinda pointless because you leave it to die, i doubt it would survive such a wound, and killing it would give him a swift death. Then, about Letho, i myself felt some kind of a sympathy towards him, and as i killed Berengar in the first game, i just couldn't kill another witcher knowing there are already so few of them out there.