Should I kill or spare Detlaff?

[immortal886360]

Should I kill or spare him in b&w?What choice should I take with the elder?

[Aqualung]

Ahh now that tis the question.

[MadMek]

I don't think he's truly evil, and I would normally just say spare him. He killed some people who did a bad thing while he was under massive duress. Geralt might well have done the same thing. BUT, he is just too powerful. He can destroy whole nations. Having someone with that kind of power that's that emotional and impulsive is way too dangerous. What if next time when he loses it Geralt and Regis aren't around? He's immortal, so odds are sooner or later something like this will happen again.

[pure contempt]

Well I ran through the game several times, I will list my decisions:
1) Saved both sisters
2) Saved one by letting detlaff kill the other
3) Let both sisters die

The one I felt best with was number 3, here is my reasoning:
Syanna is a sociopath who murders anyone to get what she wants and directly causes the night of the long fang by choosing to use a vampire to kill her enemies instead of just assassins.
Henriette is a sociopath who would rather her entire populace get slaughtered by vampires than lose her dear sister who by the way will still kill Henriette.
Detlaff was sympathetic until the night of the long fang, the fact he was willing to kill innocent civilians en mass, so having him die as well was justice.

The only character I felt bad for was Regis for his exile.
Additional facts:
Henriette wanted nothing more than to find the person who killed her knight friends right up until she found out her sister was responsible, at which point she was happy for a pawn (detlaff) to pay for her sisters crimes.
Henriette is an unlikable character in my opinion, it might be my general dislike of royalty but her attitude especially in the night of the long fang is irredeemable, She understood a single higher vampire could massacre her entire army but thought that higher vampire accompanied by a literal army of lesser vampires could be beaten.
Henriette has a lack of compassion, evidence: Regis and Geralt talking about why Syanna was going to have detlaff kill her under the fifth and final remaining virtue: compassion. Her people mourn her and call her a great ruler after she dies but it was clear she had zero compassion for any of them if it meant protecting her murderous manipulating psycho sister.
Henriette is stupid, even after you the player explicitly warn her Syanna will try and kill her she ignores you and the mountain of evidence that her sister is a killer and decides to hug her giving her the opportunity to murder her.
Detlaff is stupid, he is a vampire an elite hunter that can track the smell of blood for miles. Yet he lost syanna, became convinced she was kidnapped without evidence and happily murdered people thinking it would end happily.

Those are just some of the highlights that lead to my final decision of the "best" ending in my opinion being the "worst ending".

[𝙹𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛]

Originally posted by lokust:

She understood a single higher vampire could massacre her entire army but thought that higher vampire accompanied by a literal army of lesser vampires could be beaten.

Yeah, she also kept berating Geralt because apparently, he did "nothing", even though it was because of him they learnt that the Beast was a vampire and not a divine entity passing righteous judgements. She was also told that only a true higher vampire can kill another of its kind, and yet she demands that Geralt bring Dettlaff's head on a platter.

[MadMek]

Originally posted by Light Yagami:

Originally posted by lokust:

She understood a single higher vampire could massacre her entire army but thought that higher vampire accompanied by a literal army of lesser vampires could be beaten.

Yeah, she also kept berating Geralt because apparently, he did "nothing", even though it was because of him they learnt that the Beast was a vampire and not a divine entity passing righteous judgements. She was also told that only a true higher vampire can kill another of its kind, and yet she demands that Geralt bring Dettlaff's head on a platter.

Well, royalty are not exactly know for dealing with being told they can't have something well.

[pure contempt]

Originally posted by MadMek:

Originally posted by Light Yagami:

Yeah, she also kept berating Geralt because apparently, he did "nothing", even though it was because of him they learnt that the Beast was a vampire and not a divine entity passing righteous judgements. She was also told that only a true higher vampire can kill another of its kind, and yet she demands that Geralt bring Dettlaff's head on a platter.

Well, royalty are not exactly know for dealing with being told they can't have something well.

Which is one of the reasons I am happy to watch them all die.

[𝙹𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛]

Originally posted by MadMek:

royalty are not exactly know for dealing with being told they can't have something well.

Royals and whiny little brats. That's why both make for crappy rulers most of the time.

[Jon The Necromancer]

I let him kill syanna and just leave.
He was deceived, syanna used him as a tool and she gets what she deserves tbh.

[ToTeMKallo [FIN]]

First of all there will be crucial spoilers here so read at your own risk. Hiding the whole text behind a spoiler feels odd so I just leave it without.

First I did agree with Dettlaff, he did have a point for his killings and I was willing to give him a chance to prove himself right. When I found Syanna she gave the impression of a selfish ♥♥♥♥♥ and I still sided with Dettlaff, he was rightfully angry. But then when he let the vampire horde attack the duchy murdering lots of innocent people I thought he was going too far. I know all this leads to Syanna, she was the cause Dettlaff was angry and the massacre was a mean to "persuade" Anna Henrietta to give him what he wanted. He went too far though, he could have found another way if he really tried.

After this I gave Syanna a chance to tell her side of the story and in fact I kinda agreed with her in a way. Though it was wrong what she had done and schemed, after all she had reason to kill the knights, the massacre caused by Dettlaff, it was coming after her betrayal came clear, she should have known that but I think it´s literally not Syanna`s fault, Dettlaff made the choice to massacre the innocent. So mostly he´s the one to blame for the chaos in the end.

Lastly I did uncover her plan´s icing on the cake, the attempt on the duchess but she didn´t do that for the lust of power, but only because she seeked revenge on everyone she thought had wronged her so in a twisted way that is understandable. But I managed to "make the right choices" and ended up with the happy ending. She being so pretty and the human vs vampire setting might have impacted my decisions a little.

I guess the game has lived up to it´s expectations when the ending feels satisfying. I´m aware of how the other endings would basically play out but I just don´t want to experience them personally. I´m happy CDPR gave us, the players, such a big impact in the story based on the decisions we make.

[暮斩]

1. If you take money and have professional ethics to kill, you may not take the task at the beginning.
2. If you don't kill, it's equivalent to standing in the monster camp.
3. People like dilav are explosive barrels that can explode at any time. He was deceived, but his personal resentment, and contact with people is to follow the "do as the Romans do". There is no reason to be deceived and to kill the city.
These are my personal opinions.

[every1hasnames]

I look at it like this.


Geralt was hired to kill the beast of bauclair. Upon encountering him and following the story. Gerlat learns that he had been killing as far Detlaf knew in the name of protecting/saving a loved one. Not an evil motivation. Upon further going through the story you and he learns that instead of killing in the name of protecting/saving his loved one he was only being manipulated by said loved one to kill those that harmed her in the past.


Why this was such a betrayal to Detlaff. Short version Detlaff has his own sense of morals. And murder/killing is against his morals generally speaking.So while he was willing to kill to protect his loved one. Upon finding out instead he was killing targets that his loved one Siana wanted killed.


When I found this out. I was dead set on not completing the contract. Meaning if at all possible. Meaning if it was an option in the game to not kill him. Thats what I would have picked.

Until he sends vampires to attack the city basically holding the city up for ransom only willing to stop it if siana is brought to him.


IN other words manipulating people. At that point he became no different then Siana. And worse because Siana just wanted the knights that abused her and her sister who she felt betrayed her death. NOt innocent people that had nothing to do with anything. Which is what detlaff did when sending vampires to attack the city. Killing/caused the death of people who literally had nothing to do with any of it.


The world of the witcher is grey. There is very few things black and white. However. At the end. For me at the very least all the grey went away when he sent vampires to attack a city full of people who had nothing to do with the situation.

I then changed my mind and and completed the contract. Killed Detlaff. I let Syanna live because she had a reason. And only targeted those that harmed her.