Ending decision (spoilers)

[Julmor]

Did you kill or spare Letho?
Ive done both in different playthroughs, but Im still unsure which im gonna go with in witcher 3.
On one side Ive spared pretty much everyone else in witcher 2, so killing Letho seems somewhat...... petty. Considering that Ive sort of befriended Iorveth (who is alot worse than Leth), killing him seems kinda hypocritical.
On the other hand, Letho is known as a great manipulator. For all i know, he might harm more innocent people for the emperor in the future. Killing him also seems like a much better climax to the game (two former friends having to duel each other to the death). I also sort of feel like I owe it to Roche (especially in Iorveth playthrough) considering how I promised him that I would hunt down the kingslayer.

[FreshDaniel]

Kill him and be done with it. He deserves it and probably won't be up to any good in the future.

Personally, his death was always my goal and I followed through. Everything I did to get him would go to waste if I didn't kill him.
To be honest I don't see a single reason why you'd spare him, besides him taking care of Yennefer maybe.

[adnoam]

That's the beauty of it - everyone sees the game differently and has his/her own interpretation.

For example, I don't see a single reason to kill Letho at that point - he's explained himself, killing him won't clean Gerlat's name anyway, he has already accomplished his goal, he never went after Geralt specifically (Letho was surprised to find Geralt with Foltest) and he took care of Yennefer (and depending on your choice in chapter 3, he saved Triss).

[FreddyB123]

He saved both Yeneffer and Triss in my playthrough, he could've killed Triss but he didn't, so I spared him

[Julmor]

Ill prolly end up killing him in my main playthrough. Not out of vengeance (I never kill anyone solely to get "justice"), but rather because its likely that he will kill more people for the emperor in the future. Its basically just a pragmatic decision in my eyes. I can see where Letho is coming from, I just dont trust the guy.

[RottenMash]

I killed him. Letho went against the Witcher code of neutrality and actively changed the political landscape.

[DarkMasta]

This game has the toughest ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ choices ever. I am really torn in every choices specially this one. I sit looking at his face for 5 minutes before I let him go. And I am still not sure!

It's amazing how a character, that you only see glances of at the start of the story and doesn't talk much. Can become the most interesting and deep character in just a couple of minutes of talking with him at the ending of the game?!?! At least that's just how I feel.

Still not sure if I will replay the end and kill him or leave it like this.

[Prince-Nyan]

I spared him in my first play through. He did what he thought was right, he did not harm anybody who was important to Gerald and even saved Triss. I spare Wichers when these kill options happen (same as I did in W1, and Berengard redeemed himself) I expect in W3, he will return if spared in W2 and save someone then be gone the rest of the game.

@RottenMash
Gerrald also breaks this too by siding with the non-humans or Corrupt Humans. Also in his background, before the memory loss. He broke it himself. The choices are two sides of a coin, Obey and stand by the ancient Law or Choose your own path and choices.

[Julmor]

I still dont entirely agree with the whole "Geralt is no better than Letho" argument. Its true that Geralt isnt really "Neutral". He does however strive to be neutral, and mostly just takes sides when lives are at stake.
Letho on the other hand is a guy who have killed two kings, several innocent people (and thousands of people as a result of the chaos that ensured afterwards) just because the emperor promised to revive his witcher school.
To me, Geralt cant really be deemed a hypocrite because of this. Theres a difference between acting as a bodyguard for a king who just endured an assassination attempt, and being a hired assassin who is willing to kill anyone.
I do howeever agree that Letho and Geralt has alot in common with each other. Thats part of the reason why the decision is so hard imo.

[CatraGirl]

Originally posted by adnoam:

For example, I don't see a single reason to kill Letho at that point - he's explained himself, killing him won't clean Gerlat's name anyway, he has already accomplished his goal,

You know, except for the fact that he's played a major part in Nilfgaard's preparation for their next invasion, thereby costing thousands of people their lives. He's murdering scum and doing one or two good things along the way doesn't make up for that.

[Prince-Nyan]

Originally posted by Thor:

Originally posted by adnoam:

For example, I don't see a single reason to kill Letho at that point - he's explained himself, killing him won't clean Gerlat's name anyway, he has already accomplished his goal,

You know, except for the fact that he's played a major part in Nilfgaard's preparation for their next invasion, thereby costing thousands of people their lives. He's murdering scum and doing one or two good things along the way doesn't make up for that.

Does this mean Gerlat should die? He killed heaps of townsfolk before he died the first time in Rivia. Just because you cannot see anothers point of view and only your own, dosnt mean Gerald is more justified than Letho.

[CatraGirl]

Originally posted by John-Nyan:

Originally posted by Thor:

You know, except for the fact that he's played a major part in Nilfgaard's preparation for their next invasion, thereby costing thousands of people their lives. He's murdering scum and doing one or two good things along the way doesn't make up for that.

Does this mean Gerlat should die? He killed heaps of townsfolk before he died the first time in Rivia. Just because you cannot see anothers point of view and only your own, dosnt mean Gerald is more justified than Letho.

That comparison is utter nonsense.
Geralt killed these people in defense of non-humans, he didn't set out to murder anyone. There's a huge difference between killing someone in battle or outright murdering someone. And that concept shouldn't be that hard to understand really. So nice straw-man there.

Also way to go, misspelling "Geralt" twice in a single post...

[adnoam]

Geralt killed plenty of (at least partially) innocent people - in the prologue during the attack he killed lots of La Vallete defenders who have done nothing wrong but follow their lord. True, Geralt didn't kill civilians, but how does killing dozens of soldiers in an internal struggle in Temeria fit with neutrality?

Note: I'm not saying that Geralt is on the same moral grounds as Letho - Letho is a murderer. However, Geralt doesn't set out to rid the world of murderers. He is not the local law enforcement. Letho did nothing against Geralt personally and has saved the lives of Geralt's lovers and friends. On a personal level, Letho is no enemy of Geralt (even if he is not fully an ally either).

Yes, Letho's actions helped Niflgaard and will cause many lives. So Geralt is now to be the sword of justice for the North? Avenge all those Northeners by killing Letho for it? Doesn't sit right with me regarding Gerlat's perspective and priorities.

[Julmor]

Adnoam: I agree on the justice angle. I never execute someone in RPGs out of justice or vengeance. I usually tend to spare Sile because of that (Her crimes has already been revealed to the world anyway, so shes gonna live as a fugitive). My main reason for killing Letho is because its likely that he will continue assassinating people for the emperor. He speaks of the emperor as if he was some sort of God. To me killing him is basically a way of taking away a dangerous weapon from Nilfgard.

Im still gonna use two different import saves in W3. So atleast I can see what turns out if hes alive/dead.

[CatraGirl]

Originally posted by Julmor:

Adnoam: I agree on the justice angle. I never execute someone in RPGs out of justice or vengeance. I usually tend to spare Sile because of that (Her crimes has already been revealed to the world anyway, so shes gonna live as a fugitive). My main reason for killing Letho is because its likely that he will continue assassinating people for the emperor. He speaks of the emperor as if he was some sort of God. To me killing him is basically a way of taking away a dangerous weapon from Nilfgard.

But Sile will do the same, she's even more dangerous. Also after the way she talked to Ciri in the books, the only regret I have is that I don't get to gut her personally... for Ciri!

@adnoam: I don't entirely disagree, but as I said above, there's a huge difference between killing someone in battle (and the La Valette soldiers count as that) and straight-out murder.

[Julmor]

Thor: Yeah I know shes dangerous. But atleast her reputation is ruined and no monarch in the north is gonna employ her. Besides even though shes an evil ♥♥♥♥♥, she would also likely oppose nilfgaard during the invasion (unlike Letho). Im not sure about the decision to spare her either tbh. Lol.