Yea, it makes a lot more sense if Philippa was behind it, for sure.

Why do those evil, manipulative women have to be so hot?

Philippa didn't know Saskia was a dragon until after the poisoning. And there is no remote implication that the priest ever interacted with Philippa. No reason to think it at all.

The only reason to think Philippa was involved is that she owns a book on poisons and 'it seems like the sort of thing she would do.' But it also requires her to have interactions and knowledge that are completely unsupported.

Even if she didn't, still doesn't change the fact that Saskia was a powerful individual, an authority figure, in fact THE authority figure on behalf of the Aerdinians that needed to be influenced. Completely unsupported ? No. Unless CDPR comes out and officially says that journal entry is invalid or patches it out silently. Implied ? Sure. As in a lot of things in the game that Gerald didn't personally witness or investigated. You are free to believe what you want of course, that's the beauty of the game tbh and the fact that there even is such a thread proves that the devs have succeeded in creating controversy around the matter.

If she didn't, then it means that in poisoning Saskia, she intended Saskia to die. Not influence. Kill.

Which there's no support to believe she would have wanted.

Ok so i let the mob lynch Stennis, i have to say i lol'd.

I thought they where going to hang him (or behead him, this was the preferred way of killing nobility in medieval times) but no, all the peasants start clubbering him to death lololool.


Hmmm so philippa has something to do with it maybe? Think i'll keep a close watch on that sneaky bitch then :p

Sweet jumping jesus on a pogo stick, you damn people. Someone asks a question about a specific quest in chapter 2, and you go talking about shit like so-and-so being a dragon. WTF is wrong with you people? Do you just assume that everyone has finished the damn game because they're asking a question about something in the second chapter? Spoiler warnings in the subject should relate to the fucking topic, not the rest of the god damn game.

Thanks for nothing you bunch of half-brained spoiling fuck wits.

I decided he was guilty without ever finding any real evidence, just based his own words. The man never denied that he was guilty at any point, he basicly just refused to say whether or not he did it, and he also refused to help Saskia live by giving blood. So he doesn't deny that he's guilty, and he refuses to help cure her. The man's guilty. If he isn't, he sure did a great job making himself look guilty. In regard to Philippa, I seem to recall a conversation in Chapter 3 where Geralt can ask her what she would've done if Saskia hadn't been poisoned and she hadn't had this golden opportunity to put the spell on her, and she said something like she would've eventually figured something out. There was nothing about her having been the one to do it, no 'why did you do it', no 'this is why I did it', etc. and this was in chapter 3, well after Geralt would've found the stuff from chapter 2 if in fact there were something that implicated her. Maybe she was going to be the guilty one, then it got changed to Stennis, who knows. But during my playthrough he sure seemed guilty, and I never saw or heard anything to suggest otherwise, that's all I know.

i let him go but during the end of chapter cutscene it specifically states that he is guilty

And the same if you let him be lynched.

I convinced them to give him a trial the first time and it was the only decision I regretted based on the cutscene from act 3. If you let him be lynched the cutscene is more rewarding, a feeling of fighting for freedom and ideals - and both say specifically that he was guilty.

Also --- FURTHER SPOILERS





Phillipa denies involvement in the poisoning when you talk to her in Radovid's dungeons, only taking advantage of it. She may be lying but I don't belive she is given the nature of the rest of the conversation.

Im a cynical but egalitarian Witcher so i looked at the mission differently, It seems to me that CDR left it deliberately vague and only with circumstantial evidence regarding stennis guilt or innocence,
thus I based my decision on what i wanted as an outcome, I wanted stennis and his aristocratic parasites removed from the pontar valley.
let the clubbing commence, off with their heads!

There is another, demonstrably hostile and dangerous sorceress living in Philippa's house. We know what she did to Triss. It's at least possible that she used Philippa's resources to organize the poisoning on her own, which would be business as usual for Nilfgaard. Yes, Philippa is manipulative, and she can be ruthless, but she is the type to prefer controlling rather than killing someone like Saskia. Nilfgaard is rather more heavy-handed. Look at what the ambassador did to Assire.

Journal entries in TW series are usually written to reflect some of Geralt's opinion, not just the raw facts of the game. Consider Geralt's investigation of Salamandra in Act 2 of TW1. He can get things wrong. A journal entry in TW2 identifying Philippa as the poisoner is not a guarantee that she's really guilty. It's just Geralt's view under a given set of circumstances.

I declared Mr. Penis guilty, but i felt bad after the peasants butchered the shit outta him.

If you don't mind not finishing the quest, you can just leave him to rot in prison. That's what I did to him once. The peasants never got around to doing the investigation on their own it seems. Oh well. ;)

It says that 'a poisoner now sits upon the throne'. It says that in the chaos they were seeking a leader and Stennis was now the rightful king of Aedirn, 'beloved by his people' but it also paints him in a bad light, and that those peasants are now doomed to the life that was always before them. The 'beloved' bit is said with irony, as in he shouldn't be, or that it's really only the nobles who do so. The visuals are mostly him being crowned and looking like that snidely guy from the hana barbara cartoons.