Geez, everybody complains about spoilers. There are so many choices and such and so many ways the game can go, I don't see where it matters. I haven't quite finished the first playthrough yet I have freed Triss and am about to crash a meeting or something, so pretty near the the end I guess ). I have seen all kinds of spoilers, but yet have made my own decisions and thus far have played a pretty twisted game.

Lynch Stennis, Philippa is the poisoner.
Imprison Stennis (later king), he is the poisoner.

Devs mind-ploughing the player. xD

What i gathered:

Philippa as the poisoner - she knew the poison wouldnt kill Saskia seeing shes a dragon and her plan for control was in the works (explained at Loc M dungeon by herself).

Stennis as the poisoner - Philippa see an opportunity to take control of Saskia knowing shes a dragon and the poison wont kill her that easy (gues works on my part).

During Prelude to War as Stennis you can say "you can have the dragonslayer". Hinting he aint to fund of her. Tho probably have no effect other then setting Stennis course as a no good person for the player.

Imo theres no real right path here, devs made it so you pick one its the other. Bastards. xD

Is Prince Penis Guilty? If you followed the right path(Talking to the servant who serves the drink, talking to the dwarves, investigating Olcan's and the current runemaster's house, to do the last you must first find out the fate of the former runemaster) during the quest then you'll know he is guilty or at least not guilty but knew that the Olcan will try to eliminate her and he didn't lift a finger, probably because he thaught Olcan isn't such an idiot to try to kill her prelude to war but after it.

Should we let him lynched even though a fair trial will not be fair even though if we could find some solid evidence and the only punishment he'll get is to bribe ahem... that is to pay a fine to the nobles and get spanked in the arse? Definitely not in my opinion for the good of northern kingdoms or at least their monarchs since we do not know if the Nilfgaardians treat the folk in the conquered areas good or bad.

Aedirn is the only barrier at the east between the North and Nilfgaard since Lyria isn't capable of defending itself whereas Aedirn successfully thwarted both the Nilfgaardian and the Kaedweni invasion at the same time, even though it had a "weak, volatile king who'd choke Aedirn under his rule if he hadn't got assassinated" and if you kill Prince Penis, total chaos will prevail(you can see in the "cartoon" it does if you kill him), some of the nobles, some of whom would eagerly sell themselves and country to the his majesty of the kingdom of the savage bastard pricks, will sell themselves to the White Flame Dancing on the Grave-Mounds of his Enemies, creating an entire opening at the east flank of the North, giving Nilfgaard the advantage of attacking Temeria, which is already in chaos and its surroundings from two different flanks, resulting in the Nilfgaard annexing almost all, maybe all the lands South of the Pontar River, resulting in a peace congress because remaining rulers of the north will be in no shape to hold the land south of Pontar without their Temerian and Aedirnian allies and with Nilfgaard holding the upper hand in the peace congress, they'll be given whole the lands they've annexed which includes important places with high and quality yield such as Mahakam and Upper Aedirn, which they will then use in their next advance up north, which will probably take less than five years unless no events, which are hard to happen in Nilfgaard, like rebellions, assasinations/death of important figures and such takes place in Nilfgaard.

Yeah, isn't it awesome?! :)

You are way off base. that book and poison was in refernece to the rose of rememberance in the CURE. As others have said she didn't even know Saskia was a dragon till after she was poisoned.

The biggest proof against Stennis is that he allowed the priest access. he knew the plan and whether or not he thought it up he supported it and allowed it to continue. He also refused to give any blood to help cure her.

And by all indications they meant to KILL Saskia. So who wants her dead? Philippia surely didn't. She wanted to control her not kill her. But the nobles and Stennis did want her dead.

[url=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6nOR-WlWVM[/url]

Stennis dead cutscene. Anyone has stennis alive cutscene?

For me it was very simple: never let the facts be in the way of a good lynching :)

Yeah, the fact that he refused to help her (and he way he said it) were big factors in my book, especially when he comes out trying to act all noble.
Thanks! don't have a recording of it but I was looking for this to compare a while ago as my first run I let him live. Too late now though, as I already played through again :) ... I posted a synopsis of the other above, although I know it's not really the same. Hope someone can upload for you soon.

he let it happen. and the person who did it is like his closest advisor :P so he is guilty by aiding and abeting :P last time I let him go cause I thought he would help by living and make another strong monarch against the empire. politics :P it is so dirty!

I'm more concerned about how the hell Geralt ends up in the position of deciding if he gets lynched or not.

i am not so sure if the OP wants that much spoilers ... *sign*

This is the best quest in game, probably one the best quest in all RPG I played so far. In the first walkthrough, I made decision purely on what I know at the point. I had to think a lot.

Huh? Where is the proof that he knew what Olcan was up to? Association does not equal complicity, nor does letting the guy into the room prove that he knew anything one way or the other. I don't recall ever finding any solid evidence that he was aware of the plot, just circumstantial evidence and conjecture like "well it's his advisor, so he must have known".

This isn't like proving that Gramps is a cannibal. I don't think there's any clear evidence to be found against anyone except Olcan. And doesn't he die anyways? So problem solved.

We don't know the legal code of Aedirn, but nowadays if Stennis was told of the plot but did nothing he's an accomplice.

However if he just hears Olcan say "I want to kill Saskia" but without any solid plan, that might get murkier...people get worked up and say "I'm going to kill that dude!" all the time and 99.9% of the time don't do anything.

Other than legally, morally he feels guilty to me. But lynching the king right before a battle just seems like a terrible idea :/

the witcher 2 goes out of its way to portray all of the rulers as flawed people.

-you have foltest, who fathered a daughter with his own sister

-you have stennis, who may have poisoned saskia

-you have henselt, who likes to rape and pillage even more than his men do

-you have radovid, who never forgets a grudge and has a giant chip on his shoulder

-you have saskia, who's lying to her own followers in the most ironic way possible

there is no white or black in the witcher universe. it's all about what makes the most sense from your own point of view.