Yeah, he invaded Aedirn and then met with Nilfgaardian forces in an attempt to divide the whole country between them. During Cintra's Peace Conference (or whatever it was called, tbh, I feel like I coined this phrase just for the sake of this discussion) Aedirn re-gained the lost territories, except for the small one that was in fact Dol Blathanna, the Elven state. Henselt's betrayal occurred in the second book, IIRC.

Kitako, that's the biggest obstacle. I hope Stennis will stay dead. As for now, Saskia is the best suited for guerrilla warfare. I wouldn't underestimate the value of this form of warfare, especially if she was aided by experienced Iorveth.

But if you saved Adda in the first game Henselt says that he will not bow to a monster- which means that he will not recognize her as Queen of Temeria, which in turn means that, in his eyes, Temeria is still leaderless and ripe for the picking.

And if you didn't save Adda he refuses to recognize Anais as the heir to the Temerian throne, saying it's because she's a bastard. Either way he seems ready to attack Temeria - and he does mention once or twice the 'expansion of his empire'. Also, he was ready to turn Aedirn into a principality- Triss mentions that when talking with Philippa or Dethmold.

To Germanicarus,
All the bad traits you 'interpreted' about Radovid (authoritarian, selfishness, paranoia and cruelty) can also be applied perfectly to the majority of Sorceress' Lodge. Actually it can applied to all the kings, queens and leaders of the Witcher 2's world (except only Saskia and her father who belong to a supposedly ''nobler'' race). Henselt may be considered to be one of the 'worst' not because he has all those 'qualities' like every other, just because he has them at an excessive level.

About the rest, whom you choose to like depends entirely on your "gut instinct" (the genteel equivalent of "a dick or a vagina you have")! That is precisely what makes the Witcher 2 so irresistible.

By the way, Ves lied (again, my gut instinct:))

Why you put apostrophe in "interpreted" word? Am I not allowed to state my critical opinion about a fictional character?

First of all, generalizing all characters as either cruel or psychically unstable is... well, extremely stupid to begin with. I suggest you to express your opinions differently and do a research. I understand you have not read the books, so you have no idea what canon characters are, the same with grasping their game's versions. By the way, the majority of Lodge wasn't even shown in the games, so how can you be sure that all of them are like you described them to be? Is really Foltest a monstrous king, Philippa's affected by paranoia (sic!), or Iorveth concerned only with himself (SIC!)? Come up with something better and more reasonable, please.

I won't even comment on the whole "gut instinct" theory or bs that Ves lied.

I find it strange that nobody considered here that Dethmold played Henselt. Sure, Ves tells us what Henselt did to her and Gerald questions how did Dethmold let her go. Maybe Dethmold let her go exactly so to have the Witcher and/or Roche kill Henselt as a revenge and create a power vacuum for him to fill in.

Once in possession of Foltest's daughter and his old king out of the way he would be in an excellent bargaining situation would he be not? Given that it is exactly what I believe in taking place.

I let Roche kill Henselt with full understanding that we were now becoming Assassins of Kings ourselves even though through the whole two chapters we were hunting them down. My Gerald knew at the time (quoting here my state of mind) that Dethmold quite possibly played us and created this situation by letting Henselt do things to Ves and then making sure she got away... and I still chose to let Roche butcher Henselt.

In addition it sounds to me like some of you call Henselt a rapist after the revelations by Ves. Are you telling me you did not see him being one from the word go? Are you telling me you did not see his dialog options directed towards Saskia at the beginning of Chapter 2? Give it some thought and put it in a perspective before assuming the writers did it at the end of the said chapter for a sole purpose of turning him into a bad guy. Bad guys often sit on thrones and good guys suffer (or did you miss Game of Thrones all together?)

For me Roche side felt more real and more political, which is exactly what I was hoping to be playing. I also believe that Gerald owed a lot to Roche, after all he did help him out of the dungeon and gave him the benefit of the doubt (and he did not have to). Roche was a safer bet on ensuring that Gerald's name gets cleared. Working with Iorveth was pretty much supporting the side that supported assassination of Foltest.

Sure enough you could argue that Foltest was not exactly saint himself but in my opinion he was a decent enough king and my Gerald felt some degree of loyalty to him. After all Foltest did right by Gerald and Triss and if you cannot replay loyalty and support with loyalty and support then you cannot trust anyone else but yourself in the world.

Last but not least assuming that Ves lied is a strange conclusion, perhaps rather that dispute your point of view I suggest you pose this particular predicament to a female friend of yours and watch in amazement her reaction both to your accusations and to the fact that somehow woman has to endure everything just because it's the right thing to do (right thing according to your state of mind). Furthermore consider your reaction to the same situation if a role of Ves and Triss were reversed…

Try not to judge characters in a dark fantasy story by modern and much more ethical standards, it simply does not work...

This is of course not to say that Iorveth path is bad, in its own right it is quite outstanding, given a different set of circumstances and a different state of mind I might have enjoyed it more. All in all the way that the Chapter 2 is approached turns Witcher 2 into two different stories.

I haven't read any Witcher books but I think I have seen enough information from both the two witcher games to stick to my opinion. And this is a forum we argue about things presented in the game, not books (which is the inspiration of but not the projection to the game) . Let me take you point by point then:

-First, the majority of the Lodge did appear in the Witcher 2. Apart from Triss who seems to be decent enough to be ostracized from the group, there were five sorceresses who showed up during “The Eternal Battle” (I recognize Phillipa and Sile besides Sabrina Glevissig) and Assire var Anahid of Nilfgaard . The five sorceresses (as portrayed in “the Eternal Battle'' quest) participated in one of the more shocking massacre in the Northern kingdoms' history, throwing hellfire (supposedly forbidden magic) at the back of battling Kaedweni and Aedirnian forces, destroying both armies. They feared Henselt's power (paranoia), believed their own power must never be challenged (selfishness and authoritarian) and thus they committed wholesale slaughter (cruelty must be pretty light word here). And to the end of the game, the paranoid and cruel nature of the Lodge under the leadership of Philippa Eilhart is crystally clear: To found a new power (a Sorceresses' State) and kill everyone obstructing them (like when Sile ordering the 'kidnapped' dragon to destroy Loc Muinne and the delegations while she was about to teleport away).

-Secondly, I never said that Foltest is monstrous (though someone more conservative may say ploughing his sister is). I just said Foltest, Radovid and all other leaders of the witcher's world possessing the same 'standard qualities': Authoritarian, paranoia, selfishness and cruelty. They appear only monstrous to our modern world but are perfectly acceptable, even required to survive and lead in such a shitty world. Yes, Foltest may be like a father to his soldiers and is a supreme leader of men (I deeply respect that) but if a subordinate tries to displease his will, it is fully expected that the subordinate will be quartered, his wife ravished, his castle razed to the ground and his subjects butchered to a man. Everyone simply has to do what he must (just like Iorveth having to abandon the female elves on the burning house or he would die all the time).

Let me clarify the whole thing again. I stand with my previous post stating that all the non-dragon leaders in the Witcher 2's game world are inflicted with same aforementioned traits. The words are unflattering but contrary to what you think, they are not meant to condemn either. The sorceresses, Radovid, Foltest, Roche, Iorveth...etc, they are all fair games of their own schemes and endeavors. For them, only the strong survive, the weak perish deservedly. And for us, deprived of a hand-holding moral compass, we love or hate them by our 'gut instinct' (and our own inexplicable agenda ;)).

On a completely unrelated note, even Geralt with his superior gut said that Ves lied! I suppose I can trust him on this one (and let's blame the lack of compass, eh!)

I could, given 5 minutes of spare time, come up with 5 excuses why Ves would lie in order to defend herself or keep the situation under control.

I could also suggest to anyone with strange "gut feelings" that if Sile can mind control a dragon she can certainly mind control a human female to tell a high tale to a certain Witcher and his friend Soldier and push them onto a path of revenge which ultimatly serves the said sorceress the best...

Out of all obvious reasons before your eyes you still end up thinking the worst of someone (in this case Ves) simply because something does not add up to you? This is the whole helm of oppositive alignment argument from 10 years ago all over again... (look it up).

Help understand something that I didn’t grab neither in game neither reading this thread.

All the “Ves is a liar” argument... isn’t kind of moot point since Henselt happily confessed about the raping? Or I’m missing something?


Also, thanks to Ebon-Hawk for the insight, I really didn't think that Dethmold may be behind these events, is surely a good and interesting point. Sure that's a lucky streak of events happening in his favor (if you kill Henselt).

Henselt confession should be enough but for some it is not. I do not know why...
Honestly people think what they want to think... and while I try to remain neutral and keep all the options open I generally do not immidietly think badly of a character because it is convinient to do so (please see my previous post).

I LOVE IORVETH PATH.

I FEEL LIKE JOINING FORCE WITH A REVOLUTION , FIGHTING FOR A WORTH CAUSE. I COULDN'T HANDLE IT THAT I HAVE TO KILL.... AT THE END. DAMN, THE GAME ASKES ME TO MAKE DIFFICULT CHOICES.

I've actually been wondering if Triss got raped by the Nilfgaardians in Loc Muine. When you rescue her she say that they did 'things' to her while looking down.

And I remember a dialogue option for Henselt towards Saskia being 'I have other plans for you', and guessing what it would be, but I chose the other option and thought he was pretty cool. Henselt kind of reminded me of Robert Baratheon from ASoIaF.

If you take this path, does that mean that Roche and Iorveth will leave Loc Muine with you in the final cutscene??? Is this a third main ending then? Damn, now I think I need to replay it a third time...

I took this exact same path, and only Roche accompanied me; I gave the sword to Iorveth, went with Roche on the boat, saved Iorveth in Vergen, and in the end only Roche was present with me in Loc Muine.

I have not finished the game yet. But here is my logic for making the choices that I did so far. My goal is to clear my name then leave with Triss. This was sor of laid out in the prologue when I talked about stupid wars. I also asked Foltest to let Triss and I just let us go and live alone.

Now I'm in prison for killing him. I make a deal with Roche to find the Kingslayer to clear my name. At thsi time the evidence says he's working with Iorveth. So I have to find him. My investigation shows that the Kingslayer is using Iorveth and the elves. Yes they liked killing Foltest but were also used as a pawn.

So the first choice is giving Iorveth a sword or letting him be captured. I let him be captured at this time. After all I wasn't going to go against Roche but I do hate Loredo. I then talk to my compatriots and decide that I can prove to Iorveth that he was used. I do not really care about politics and this was a carryonve from my first game where I was neutral. But I decide to free him. I'm not fighting Roche but Loredo at this time.

So I start off chapter two on the Iorveth path. The fights of kings are not my concern. What I want to do is to clear my name, find Triss and get my memory back. After all I'm a witcher and not a politician.

Since I'm only about half way through chapter two this is the guidlenes that I've been following. So far I haven't made any big decisions for this chapter.
I read thee steam post and it doesn't make sense. I did nto give him the sword but picked to resuce him from the boat. I also saved the women in the tower. He said on the boat something to the effect that I picked the right path and that I proved myself to him. I remember this because my response was "I'm not so sure that I did pick the right path".