If you're interested in joining a community with fellow witcher fans check out the discord, also for updates follow my twitter (X), I hope you all enjoyed the video! Twitter (X): twitter.com/WitcherGeorgeB Discord: discord.com/invite/T8Hv9BbUJ6
@@gabnel1000 Not take his anger out on Toussaint. I mean, the baker and the smithy had nothing to do with it. Why punish them. It is wrong in multiple ways. That being said: I ALWAYS safe Detlaff because I do get it though :p
And for attempting to kill Syanna. Had he done it because she had him kill 4 people, sure, but he doesn’t seem to care about that. What he’s actually mad about is just about getting manipulated by an ex. This happens all of the time, anyone who gets this angry about being treated badly in a relationship is just a child.
It was her murder scheme that merited harsh judgement. Ghosting Detlaff is something that happens in relationships, and while it sucks, it is not actually something that merits, not even remotely, a violent response.
For me he was a complete idiot in the game, an one dimensional moron, getting manipulated and then lashing out like an fool, even his friend calls him a shit stain of a vampire, not even close to being a threat to Geralt who looks like a genius in comparison though still dangerous due to being made in the first place.
I stopped playing for time reasons and now ... I did what I didn't want to do. Spoiler. But I could not resist, I find him very interesting too. And I think I can't play the end if there is no way to save them all. War begets war and cruelty begets cruelty. I don't want that to ruin the game for me. Maybe somebody else can do that part so I can have the party.
I'm surprised nobody takes Regis into the consideration I think Geralt would do everything to not kill Dettlaff as he was Regis' friend and would instead try the peaceful option Also he was very aware that both him and Regis could just die in that fight
I mean, wars have been done for less. Dettlaff gave them an out, give him justice (which it was justice for ending Syanna) or war. It's not like he just flat out attacked. The duchess was selfish however and wanted held her sister's life worth the war, even though she deserved to be torn apart. I'm not saying he was right, but he wasn't wrong either. It's a perfect showing of The Witcher's morality nuance.
I agree with this. Everyone had a role in the death of the people. Anna kept her sister in there. I understand her not wanting to give her up after not being together but you have a duty to your people. Dettlaff ultimately did it so he’s still responsible as well.
That's an interesting take, I like the comparison with war and you are right. In the past and in the Witcher, wars have been fought over 'love' and seemingly meaningless things, but we feel that's okay because it's human stupidity. Perhaps Dettlaff was just existing in his setting acting like the kings queens and empires around him.
i kinda honestly think detlaff was worse than syanna i mean sure she did manipulate him to kill 4 people who were very horrible but just after that detlaff decided to commit genocide against humans who he believed to be thinking and innocent people( it is not like he was an apathetic vampire detlaff has shown in numerous occasions he cared about humans) so him slaughtering them because of his sadness is just that much horrible
@@RX29 Duchess was doing anything to hold the duchy together, which i respect. Being an upstart, Lets be honest, she was raised as an upstart, and has lots of responsibilities to put it simply. Syanna was killing very important people and her last target was Duchess herself, which will cause power vacuum and thus massacres bigger than whatever Dettlaff did will happen. What Dettlaff is doing is taking his rage on city because one bitch did a bad things! If anything, What Geralt and Regis should have done is "Hey Detty, How about you put yourself together and take her with yourself! Let her listen to her backstory and you will learn a lot more and do less harm."
8:00 She wasn’t exactly in a place where she could choose to go, which was Annarietta’s idiocy. Dettlaff likely thought Syanna had left the city to die rather than meet him.
Syanna was ostracized by the Beauclair nobility and then horribly abused by a few individuals, then in the course of her revenge made it Detlaff's problem and horribly abused him in the course of it. Detlaff was manipulated and horribly abused by Syanna, then in the couse of his revenge decided to make it Beauclair's problem and tried to slaughter evey man, woman and child living in it. They're both monsters deserving of the fate that awaited them, and the only reason i spared Syanna hers was because i had the power to do it.
In my playthrough, I never wavered from the sight of the carnage on the streets of Beauclair. Detlaff is an extremely powerful, unstable and dangerous individual. The strongest example of a monster. I as Geralt, am a monster slayer. Detlaff dies.
Not to mention comparing what Syanna did to what he did. Yes, he gave Anna Henrietta a choice, give her to me or I'll kill innocents. What kind of deal is that? He was asking her to turn over Syanna to him, her own sister, none of us could do it. We can speak ill of our own blood, but as soon as somebody else tries something, then there's hell to pay. Anna Henrietta was acting as any sibling would. Then consider what the situations entailed, Syanna was punishing those who had hurt her, starved her, then left her in a region away from any civilization to die of frost, hunger, or beasts; and one (Palmerin) who did just as bad by not speaking up for her when he knew what his companions did was wrong. Syanna went overboard, but her reasons are understandable. Detlaff killed innocents because he was angry and didn't show sympathy that we know he has. He did the same thing as Anna Henrietta in reverse, he knows her feelings through his experiences with La Croix and in the past, Detlaff is the real monster because he understands but says "no, I don't want to be civil and reasonable about it!"
I would let both of them live if I could, but there's no way I'm killing Dettlaff, he did everything he could for Syanna and he was due his revenge. If I remember correctly it's not Syanna who refused to face Dettlaff actually, it was Annarietta who refused to let her. Also consider the fact that you don't kill Dettlaff, Regis does and he will be shunned by all vampires after that for one and you are basically making Regis kill his blood brother. It's incredibly unfair to Regis overall.
Yeah, though Detlaff decides to attack you himself when Syanna is saved, so it was just me fighting for my life. Kind oft his fault. If I could have chosen, I would let him go. It's unfair from Detlaff that he forces Regis to decide between his and Geralts life.
He was definitely wrong when he took out his anger on the innocent people of Toussaint. That's why my Canon ending is killing detlaff and having the sister's both die😅 It's a bittersweet ending perfect for the witcher world.
Hey George, enjoying the theme of the video, I would like to clarify one detail about the immortality of Higher vampires. I see many people incorrectly interpreting the meaning of the phrase: "only one Higher Vampire can kill another". in the quest named "La cage au fou ", If the player decides to drink and chat with Regis, there are lines of secondary dialogue where he says: "If a member of another race kill one of us, we can be reborn with a living higher vampire's help. However, if one of our strikes the deadly blow, death is permanent." On another line geralt asks: "But were you dead?"(referring to the event in which Regis was melted by Vilgefortz) Regis responds: "As humans understand -YES." then says: "if not to Dettlaff, i migh have drowned in a ETERNITY OF ICE TERROR". In other words, Yes, they can be killed in the human understanding of death, if they suffer too much damage, and are unable to come back to life without help from another vampire. Now with help they can come back to life, and if one vampire kills another, death is permanent and irreversible. I see some comments saying that Regis would regenerate alone, from the damage of Vilgefortz, after many centuries, but Regis himself claims that he would have drowned for eternity in freezing terror without the help of Dettlaf (in the case of partial damage such as dismemberment or decapitation , he would regenerate on his own, now being completely melted by magic, only with help). That's why regis owes his life to dettlaf, he has an eternal debt, not just a temporary one. OBS. Last year, cdpr released an unprecedented story on the gwent journey about the regis shortly after its rebirth, before the BOW expansion. In this story, this idea is reinforced that in high-level magical damage, vampires need help with blood to recover, including a witcher who uses magical items capable of containing the regeneration of higher vampires. I recommend reading the story. (obs2: I took all the dialogue from the game, if anyone doubts my explanation, just check the source)
In my mind, Dettlaff was becoming a monster. Yes, he did save a village a long time ago, but only when he was personally affected. And we see that motivation swings both ways. When he is personally affected, he has no issue putting an entire city to the sword. To be clear, both are wrong, but only one has the power to be a walking nuke.
Dettlaff may have been classified as a monster, but I don’t think he truly was one in the sense that he was evil. In his hideout, he fixed children’s toys while waiting for awful letters to be sent containing names of people he held no ill will against but was forced to kill anyways in horrendous ways because of constant threats. He spent months terrified for Rhena/Syanna’s safety because of the blackmail notes after spending quite some time worrying for her safety and searching for her after her disappearance. He was constantly on edge and no doubt felt a lack of control that he may have not experienced since arriving in this sphere, considering the gap in power between himself and most other existences, with the exception of other Higher Vampires. He likely had never feared death until he feared for hers, and despite that, he was still kind to the residents of Beauclaire when he could be. He was friends with De la Croix and at least friendly with the bootblack. He was horrified and grief-stricken making the choice between his friend’s life and his lover’s. He lived in a state of stress and fear for months, killed a friend and dismembered him horrifically, just to find out the person he feared for and wanted to protect more than anyone else was the one who’d created that fear in the first place, that the love he believed they shared was one-sided. The betrayal broke him so badly that he had to leave, but she’d already escaped him once, so he came up with a reason for her not to run. He hoped she’d meet him to save the citizens, prove that even if everything else was a lie, that she still wouldn’t sacrifice countless innocents for herself. He didn’t know she was unable to meet the deadline, only that she came late and with Geralt and Regis in tow. He likely believed at that point that there wasn’t a single redeeming quality in her, especially because Regis has explained Dettlaff has an extremely strong pack instinct. She had originally been the heir to the duchy, he likely assumed that if she’d never seen him as pack, she’d at least see the people she’d grown up intending to rule as such. To my mind, he was put under extreme duress and still agreed to trust Geralt and try to find a way to free Rhena without murdering any more knights, he showed kindness to people that others of his race considered no more noteworthy than mosquitoes, and he gave her an opportunity to talk. Who knows what would’ve happened if Anna Henrietta hadn’t locked her in the Land of Fables and she’d been allowed to meet him on time. I never kill Wham-A-Wham in Skellige because he killed people who entered his home uninvited and started destroying it, and if there was a way to spare Niellan in Velen from his death or cure him entirely of his lycanthropy, I would, regardless of if he killed his sister-in-law. Honestly, my Geralt at least has killed many a soldier just doing their job over the course of the 3 games, and I love Lambert even if he doesn’t always choose the most morally correct path. I can’t condem Dettlaff just because he isn’t as common or dumb as a rock troll or because he’s an entry in a bestiary rather than the person carrying one.
Not every monster has fangs and claws, in my experience of playing Witcher 3 I spent more time trying to save monster from humans. And some of the worst acts and most horrible of deeds were done my humans, to me the one that sticks in my mind most was the werewolf and the sister, and in this video we have a very similar story so if one of the two must die ied pick the human as she knows what she is doing is wrong and immoral, not only is she committing murder but she is blackmailing, manipulating and using betraying someone to get her own way, she is acting far more monstrous than the vampire.
thats true, Detlaff might be a "monster" and "unstable" in human terms but we know from his backstory that he can calm down and he doesn't just randomly attack without a reason. and if we judging Detlaff as a "potential future threat" then what about Regis? yes he is nice for now but he murdered 100s of people in his younger days..whats stopping him from doing it again? anyway Syanna is far bigger threat. she is scheming and just because she had a hug from her sister and didnt kill her (if Geralt babysits her out of his character) whats stopping her from gaining allies later on and brining civil war on Toussaint against her sister later on? shes just as much of a threat if not more.
Yep. No matter my playthrough I just can't bring myself to kill Rock Trolls. Like yeah they'll eat people but I think that's only if they can't find something else to eat
Agree, in my first playthrought i felt so weird (but in a good way) that the witcher really make me more sympathetic towards monster and non human, it's not the dev intention, but yet my morals keep siding with them most of the time. I remember there is a contract for killing a cave troll cause the human claim the troll are bad and killing the villangers, i think it's the Wham a Wham troll.. The troll said that the villagers keep harassing and throwing a rock to him like basically hurting him, so that's why he kill those villagers that come to his cave.
I think Dettlaff reacted exactly in character personally. He overreacted. I feel like he held onto the vain hope that she deep down did love him (thus the invite ultimatum). And when he could deny the truth no longer (that she'd just kinda used and abused him), he had that explosive lashing out that was perfectly in keeping with his character. I also personally feel (I guess in my headcanon) that Geralt would both work towards getting the best ending between the sisters because she probably reminded him of Renfri and how he couldn't save her, and kill Dettlaff because the Witcher code demanded it. He was a monster that killed, its reasons don't ultimately matter to a Witcher. Anyways, thanks for letting me share my thoughts and thank you for yours! I love your videos WitcherGeorge!!
the witcher code is made up, though. just something Geralt would say to justify his not taking certain contracts, or make his lowly profession-caste feel legit agree about this being in character for Dettlaff
My reasoning was simple, it was my first time playing the game and I just saw what dettlaff did after he found out he got betrayed. After that I didn’t really care about dettlaff anymore and thought only about killing him because dettlaff knows his power and knows what he can do, who knows what he can do in the future if he gets angered like that again. The man is unstable asf
I tried letting Dettlaff go once, It doesn’t feel right to me. Don’t know why, yes I am happy my good friend Regis is not an anathema, but he will need to constantly babysit Dettlaff so he won’t go berserk again in the future. I think people really over exaggerating by saying Regis will be hunted down by lesser vampires (which Regis can take care of easily), no He just simply be an outcast, and it’s not like Vampires will ever go back to their world anyway. Give it a time, all vampires will eventually understand why Regis decided to kill Dettlaff (to keep the peace between humans and higher vampires) “Witchers are created to kill monsters” I stand by that, so I always go with endings where I have to fight him. And tbh, I like the ending where both syanna and dettlaff die 😈
Honestly, had Detlaf just killed Syanna without endangering the city and without expecting her at the vampire temple, he'd have been redeemed, but after his little stunt, more than just Syanna's 4 victims died, making him worse than Syanna to me. They were both assholes true, but at least Syanna can be saved and somewhat redeemed due to her PTSD, whereas Detlaf killing half the city was uncalled for.
Unasked opinion, But I think the curse of the black sun is Bollocks. Gerald thinks so too, last wish he laughs and spits at the idea, and I agree If you treat some one as if they are a bad person from the day they are born, what do you expect?
Yeah, i went with the same ending like you. Like Geralt said "I understand the actions she took but i do not condone them", i feel the same way. I also think Dettlaf,even tho not human, choose to go on with the bad things and his death was a consequence of those actions... but i do also understand his point of view as well.
What an amazing video. I really enjoyed your storytelling and comments about this part of blood and wine. Keep this great witcher content up! Cheers! 🍻⚔️
Anger was justified, though the action was out of line. I give him slack as he's not human and lacks nuance, his big love manipulated him and goaded him into killing folk. Seyannas treatment was awful though just because of a prophecy. All in all he's otherwise an honourable man (in terms of his word), you bring him the girl and he kills her and moves on.
7:36 I think he was giving himself time to cool off so he wouldn’t make a mistake because of his emotions. I don't think he planned to besiege a city with vampires or even kill her. Before they were lovers, she was pack and I think he wanted to understand why she betrayed him so willingly. He might’ve killed her in the end anyways, but I don't think he was planning to do so when he gave the ultimatum, I think he just wanted to keep her from disappearing on him again while he calmed down
Great video! I guess it’s whose side of ethics you choose to side with. As humans most of us understand from Toussants pov. Obviously murder is wrong in coke blood but I think anyone that has been used by a partner in life def understands why he’s so upset especially since he doesn’t possess a humans morals or POV. Really enjoyed this video. Hope you have more planned.
My canon ending for B&W is to let Dettlaff live and I'll explain why. This will be a long post, so bear with me. ***Contains book and game spoilers below*** I've played this game 9 times through and for most of those endings, I killed Dettlaff and got the different endings where Syanna lived, but there was always an uncomfortable feeling that had always settled in my gut after this and was not truly content with these endings. It took me a long time to figure it out. I've played the DLC over and over choosing different options to get different endings but letting Syanna live each time - and I just couldn't truly be content with any of the endings. Until I discovered the reason behind the feelings of discontent. This shows the masterful writing of CPDR. Most players cannot see beyond Syanna's and Dettlaff's emotionally driven acts of violence and betrayals. I get it. It's convincing. Kudos to the writing team. However, there is a beautiful deeper layer that underlies this entire storyline that most players can't notice because of the obvious questionably moral deeds of Dettlaff and Syanna. That layer sits quietly underneath waiting for the true observer to notice it and be influenced by its lowkey wisdom. When I discovered this layer and really paid attention to it, I knew how this story needed to end. And yes, it's the unpopular decision. I've read through the entire book series 2x and played all the games multiple times. Yes, I am an obsessed fan of the Witcher. :) The layer that goes unnoticed in this storyline is the depth of Geralt's and Regis's friendship. If players have read the books, there might be a better chance that they would notice this quiet layer that runs like waters flowing deep beneath the surface and may clue into it. Geralt and Regis have a beautiful and loyal friendship that is unlike any other friendship Geralt has ever had. Regis and Geralt formed an unlikely bond. It was unlikely a monster slayer would bond with a monster - however, these two did and this was developed in the book series. It's because Geralt looked up to Regis, to his wisdom, his trusted character, his higher form of living. They were both freaks, outcasts, considered monsters, and have greater physical powers than anyone else. They related to one another. It's quite a beautiful concept. Regis also sacrificed himself to help Geralt defeat Vilgafortz in the books. This bond is woven throughout B&W. At one point, Regis explains to Geralt that only another higher vampire can truly kill another vampire or he will just regenerate. But there is a serious consequence if a higher vampire murders another of its kind. That price is to live a life of the fugitive for eternity. His own kind would never cease hunting him down with the intent to kill. Regis explains to Geralt that if he kills Dettlaff he would never be at peace, constantly on the run, living the life of a fugitive from his own powerful kind forever. I cannot believe that Geralt would take this information nonchalantly and only trudge forward with "I have a contract to fulfill." I also think that Geralt would trust Regis enough to watch over Dettlaff. I also believe Dettlaff learned from this experience and would keep his promise to never be a threat again to Toussaint (or even anywhere else). And as Regis sacrificed himself in the books, it's fitting and satisfying that Geralt would sacrifice his contract completion in order to save his best friend's life. Even if that meant he'd be tossed in prison. I cannot believe that Geralt would knowingly sentence Regis to that fate if he followed through with the contract and kill Dettlaff knowing what that outcome meant for Regis. Best friends think about each other first. They sacrifice if need be and I feel this is the ultimate "leveling up" of Geralt on his emotional journey that started with Ciri entering his life and ending with valuing the life of his good friend over completing a contract. I feel that Geralt believes that Dettlaff would live by his word and trust Regis enough to ensure he would never do such a thing again. For me, this is the only ending that agrees with me. Letting Dettlaff live so that Regis can live a peaceful life wherever he choses. This IMHO is the masterful writing of the book author and CDPR. I love this so much. If you've read this far. Thank you. :)
" Regis explains to Geralt that if he kills Dettlaff he would never be at peace, constantly on the run, living the life of a fugitive from his own powerful kind forever." Regis *only* explains this to Geralt after Dettlaff is already dead and the bruxae attack him, *not at any point before* . Therefore, Geralt can not possibly know of this, and would not factor it in.
@@SockAccount111 No, he explained it to Geralt in the cemetery where Regis was living. This was towards the beginning of the quest, before the fight with Dettlaff. Geralt knew going in. They sat outside on the gravestones and shared a bottle of vodka between them having this conversation.
@@celticbabs3105 Nope, he doesn't. You are mistaking it with their last conversation in mere-lachaiselongue, in their first conversation during la cage au fou Regis does not talk at all about the possibility of exile, were he to strike Dettlaff down, you are mistaking the two convos.
@@SockAccount111 Well, damn. I could have sworn he told Geralt about the consequences before the big fight. I watch a playthrough to make sure. Regis purposefully omitted that information -unless he mentioned it in another convo. Maybe all my many playthroughs mashed everything together and I assumed Geralt knew he could potentially sentence his good friend to a very difficult life. I'm on my 10th paythrough now but haven't reached B&W yet. I will pay very close attention and see if that alters my choices for this playthrough. But still, I personally like Regis not being a fugitive for the rest of his life. :)
Always happy to see you upload new videos, keep it up 👍 without your playthroughs I never would've started Witcher 3 and therefore might've never found my way into the world of the witcher, which nowadays I love nearly as much as Tolkiens Middleearth 🤩 you've still got the best content when it comes to explaining the world of the Witcher 🙌
My preferred option would have been to fight and defeat Detlaff, maybe take his head, but not have Regis kill him. Instead, Regis takes away his remains and regenerates him...just like Detlaff did for him. Syanna had an abusive childhood, but plenty of formerly abused children don't turn psychos as adults. She is evil and needs to die. Anna Henrietta is harsh, as can be demonstrated throughout the story, but when she finds out her sister is involved--she also shows herself to be a selfish brat. Not too much lost there either. Detlaff was manipulated and (in human terms) went far overboard. Rather typical in mythology, though--gods, spirits, fairies etc. go waaay too far in punishment. Don't punish just the selfish prince by turning him into a beast, instead punish the entire castle by turning all the innocent servants into silverware too. Don't curse the unfaithful guy, curse his entire family for generations. Teaching Detlaff a lesson might have been a good idea...but I don't like how far we had to go.
The only thing I can do is kill Detlaff, even Regis says that Detlaff has gone to far. If Regis is appaled by Detlaff's actions, then he's done something seriously evil. Regis was even willing to undergo exile if he tried to harm Syanna bcause he believed his friend was wrong but hoped that he'd listen to reason if they just talked. Not to mention what is the base of the deal he gave Anna Henrietta, "give me your manipulative sister or I'll make you pay." What sibling would take that deal, none of us would. We can speak ill, torment, or threaten our own blood, but the moment somebody else does, then there's hell to pay. Anna Henrietta did what any sibling would do, protect the ones we love. Not to mention we have to consider the whole situation, Detlaff did the same exact thing as Anna Henrietta. He was willing to do anything to protect Syanna. He murdered 4 people, he cared for La Croix and was so overcome by grief, remorse, and anger that he mutilated his own arm. But he did it anyways because he loved her. Not to mention he can feel sympathy and empathy, he could understand what Anna Henrietta was feeling, but he didn't want to. Instead he tore apart the families of Beauclaire, seeing people that had no hand in the events being ripped to shreds without a single care. He also understands their law, but refused to appeal to Anna Henrietta, just talk to her and not harm Syanna. Speak with Syanna and then be present to speak against her in trial, but he wasn't willing to. Then we have Syanna's story. She believed she was getting moral justice against 3 knights that hurt her and starved her; then left her in a region that had zero civilization to die of frost, hunger, or beasts. Palmerien did just as bad, he knew what the others did was wrong but what did he do? Absolutely nothing, he wouldn't speak up for Syanna, he didn't advocate for them to give her clothing, food, and a weapon. He just let them hurt her, then send her off to almost certain death. Every one of the 4 deserved grave punishment, not death per say, but grave punishment. Then we have her belief that her sister should die, she asks Geralt, "If cared about me so, then why did she forget about me?" After Geralt explains, she feels remorse at what she did. Syanna imagined a spoiled brat, sneering as the knights dragged her away. A brat that was happy she was gone or who never loved her at all. Syanna did great wrong and should be punished, but why she did it was more understandable. Detlaff did greater wrong that appalled all those around him, even his best friend and essentially blood brother. He was the true monster as he could understand, he could understand it all. He could understand what Anna Henrietta's feelings and reactions, but he decided he didn't want to. He didn't want to try and be civil or reasonable, he didn't want to find a better way, he didn't want to understand Anna Henrietta. He wanted what he desired or he would open the gates of hell. That is a true monster, one who can understand, one that knows the same feelings, but decides they won't because its not what they want. The true monster was the one who knew it all, but decided he wouldn't be kind and compassionate, he would be a murderous and unfeeling beast.
For 8 years since it's release I have played this game again and again. Still this choice is the only one that to this day I am not sure what to do. What a game!
I think what happenned in toussaint was syanna's doing, dettlaff was being used from the moment syanna saw him and found out what he was and how he was, imo dettlaff just wants to be left alone he won't go on a killing spree unless he's driven to it so geralt letting him live is something i'd see geralt do, syanna's story is a story of a self fulfilling prophecy but if syanna had made another choice dettlaff wouldn't have killed anyone in toussaint and there wouldn't be a blood and wine expansion lol
lets not forget the dutchess is at a major fault too. she knew for 3 days there will be an attack and did absolute NOTHING. she didnt even warn her own people about it! on top of that the only thing that could have stopped the attack was hidden by the dutchess herself. so i blame both sisters for the shitshow that followed. If people care so much about how many people are murdered over one persons needs then why don't they attack Emyr? he murdered 1000s if innocent people and ruined the lives of 1000000s more just cause he wanted an empire. isnt that much worse? yet no-one calls him a monster that Geralt obliged to kill as a witcher.
So he killed innocent people (mostly),killed gerald's buddy and also a potentially good character,and ok he was manipulated and shit but why the fuck would you instead of going after the person that betrayed you,start an absolute massacre over bouclair and kill hundreds mabye even thousands of actually innocent people for no logical reason at all? I avoided idea of killing dettlaf the first time i played the DLC but his decision was just wrong in every way and i even felt like i HAD to kill him because like WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU START A DANSE MACABRE IN TOUSSAINT? Those people had done barely anything to you,you lived among them and yet you think its a good and logical choice to slaughter them over a dispute that they didin't even know anything about
Hardest decision ever, but I went back to look at cutscenes etc, to make sure I got the events right, and when Detlaff tell Syanna to meet him, he does seem to want to talk with her. He says she's to come and explain herself before three days. I always thought that her not showing up made him think she did never love him and made him decide she had to die. And she DID want to go, it was the Duchess that forbid it and locked her away. I always wondered if we could have saved all of them (and the people of Toussaint) if we'd been able to get Syanna and him to meet before the three days were up, and before he got so angry that he unleashed the horde. So in a way it's all of their fault. His, Syanna, the Duchess. All of them for different reasons: Detlaff because he wasn't human, didn't react as one, but was still hurt and betrayed and lashed out Syanna because she used Detlaff, all for revenge Henrietta because she selfishly tried to control her sister and make everyone bend to her whim no matter the risk I don't think there is a "right" answer, so far as morality is subjective. But that's what made that decision so hard, and the quest so good.
Can you do a vid on small quests and from where in the books they are inspired from (or from other tales other than Grimm) that would be really cool! 🥰
I'm pretty sure the reason she could not meet him the first time is because she was trapped in the land of a thousand fables by her sister and very much agree 11:17 that's how I look at it he is extremely unstable to be left alive if it's not one thing he'll get set off by another thing
I go for removing Dettlaf and preventing Syana from killing Anarietta by appealing to her reason that Anarietta was a child. As a story nothing sits right with me about anyone involved with the exception of Regis. He is the only one who thinks rationally about this situation and though involved and owing a massive debt to Dettlaf he doesn’t allow it to become the soul arbiter in his decision making. Regis is the glue that holds the story together for me. So I take my decision based on what is best for Beauclair. Anarietta dying is a bad outcome. Syana dying is a bad outcome. So Dettlaff has to die in my playthroughs.
I was always wondering - why Regis didn't lock him up in that cage in Tesha Mutna? The same cage that was used in the quest where regis had to drink blood. I mean, it would be "cruel" to keep him there but at least he would still be alive and Regis coul potentially take care of him. Re-socialise Detlaf to maybe one day let go of Syanna? Thoughts?
And can i just say how much i love the witcher 3 as a game. It is one of the few games ive played that really makes you choose based on your personal beliefs. I know that Geralt is a Witcher and has duties but i always play as if i was him and make the choices i personally believe in. Humans can be monsters, and thats proven in the real world. "Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference"
Random question for one and all, but I'm curious, do u think Gaunter could take down a higher vampire? Permanently. It's no secret Gaunter is immensely powerful but could he truly defeat a higher vampire? Because as far as I'm aware, the only known way to kill a higher vampire is if another Higher vampire strikes the killing blow. I'm curious to hear your thoughts
I imagine Gaunter could do whatever he wants. But I suppose the question I would ask is why? Why would he care what a higher vampire does, maybe if one crossed him he would but I am unsure. He could certainly influence events to cause another higher vampire to kill another, but i imagine he could do away with one should he want to.
Yeah, but sienna only wanted those that hurt her dead, not all the ppl that detlahf will eventually kill, and she was willing to go meet him and die if she had to. It was Anna who prevented her and the only one responsible for all the death. I believe if Anna had accompanied Seana and asked Detlhaf to spare her, he would of. They got along well at the Mandregal
Syanna is so smart and so within her right to demand justice or even just... more grimy self directed revenge for what happens to her. The problem is: she insults her own intelligence and plan by resorting to detlaff when she herself knows what it is to be on the end of his emotions. By not only using him as a tool, but also disregarding the years between them where the world didn't revolve around the space of her revenge plot, she essentially sets up her own downfall. Points the arrow right back at herself. It becomes inherently selfish. The kind of revenge that claims to be after only the bodies of the knights and duchee: but ends up being the kind of revenge that doesn't care who or what lives it ends or ruins so long as its done. The entire fate of every death or punishment is set in motion by syanas tunnel vision when she was smarter than that. It becomes so woeful that one of the lives ruined the most out of this farce is regis. For having to kill a friend who was getting better but also fellow vampire. Being marked forever for death by his kind. Consequences like that might inspire the next 'syana' and their extravagant revenge plot. And more harm is generated from a knock on effect. More harm in the fallout for being sloppy and selfish and not caring what collateral you caused so long as you got yours.
I can see why Detlaff was angry because she betrayed his trust and love, killing all those people was wrong but I felt I couldn't let Syanna die and killed Detlaff, I think killing him like you said was the better thing to do, he was to erratic with emotions and could've gone onto do more people
I ended Syanna and Dettlaff in my playthrough. Syanna despite her tragic childhood is a killer (some of those may be justifiable but she's a killer nonetheless) and Dettlaff is a timebomb you don't know when he's gonna explode. Plus you get dandelion freeing you so that's pretty cool. Endings according to me 4. Everybody dies 3. Dettlaff lives 2. The "happy ending" 1. Dettlaff and Syanna to belize
Here is another important thing to consider. The dutchess was the one who refused to take Sayana to Tesham Mutna so technically the vampire attack is her fault. If Dettlaff did not carry out the threat then sayana would never face justice and technically she never did if you kill Detlaff and allow the dutchess and sayana to reconcile. This means that all the terrible things people did on Sayana's behalf are wiped away and if you think about its there is not just the knights who died. There is also the singer at the mandragora and the cintrian. There is also the wine theft and numerous individuals who did terrible things at her command. All this and yet it gets swept away so the dutchess can be happy. What should have happened was for Geralt to have a long conversation with the dutchess, the captain of the guard, and regis about how to resolve this. Later geralt, regis, the dutchess, and the captain of the guard all going along with Sayana in a prison cage to tesham mutna. Dettlaff can then present his case as can geralt present the proof he has. Im sure geralt and the captain would suggest she be punished with a lifetime trapped in the tower so anna can still see her but she can not commit terrible acts any more. As for Dettlaff, he feels considerable guilt despite how much he hides it so he must agree as penance to serve the family of the dutchess as one of its most powerful knights until her family agrees he has served them for long enough. Having a vampire like Dettlaff as the ultimate weapon in case of terrible situations is perfect. It would also mean everyone lives and no one dies in the end. Sure it deprives the game of a boss fight but many times in the witcher series its not always needed to have a boss fight. It only comes to it if you force it to take that route.
6:40 not so different from girls squealing over cute lil' piggies on the internet but when they put down their phones they'd happily eat a burger and some bacon slices.
Back when I first played Blood and Wine I killed Detlaff, but I did serve Syanna up to him, because I believed that while both had been wronged, both had chosen to harm more than just those who had hurt them. However, I didn't know about the magical properties of the ribbon, so Syanna was saved, and while she was executed after killing Anna, Detlaff died thinking I had deliberately tricked him and she was going to get away with her betrayal. Despite the necessity I felt bad killing them both. However, these days I believe the thing that stops most of us from indulging in our worst impulses is we're not powerful enough to do it with no consequences. In the same way a life of wealth, privilege, and legal protection causes the upper classes of humanity to abuse those poorer than them with glee, I believe that any human with as much raw physical and magical power of Detlaff could very easily react in similar ways to him. Additionally, it must be difficult for a creature like Detlaff to empathise with humans, in the same way many humans fail to empathise with animals. Our advanced intellect causes us to look the other way when they are harmed. For example the meat industry while necessary for humanity's survival is insanely disturbingly unnecessarily cruel to the animals it slaughters, and barely a single human on the planet bats an eye. So if Detlaff thinks the easiest way to get revenge on a few humans in a city is to wipe out the entire city, it's kind of understandable to see how little he cares for the innocents there. I'm not saying he's morally right, but I think he's a lot closer to human than a lot of us would like to believe. So honestly l don't know if I could kill him. And look at all the good Regis has done for Detlaff already. In time, Detlaff's vast knowledge, power and experience could be turned to a better purpose, perhaps to the point where he could save far more people than he's ever hurt. In that friendship, Regis is Paarthurnax and Detlaff is the rest of dragonkind. If Paarthurnax, or in this case Regis stands a chance at changing his species for the better, a species that is nigh immortal and will 100% outlast Witchers, then allowing him to convert Detlaff to his philosophies would double that effort to reducing vampires as a threat as a whole long after I, in this case Geralt, have died from old age.
I mean she’s proven she’s able to avoid Dettlaff’s tracking, and he didn’t seem to know what else she cared about other than screwing up her sister’s life. He didn’t want to act rashly and he was probably still hoping she could explain so he could forgive her, so he probably wouldn’t want Regis to keep her prisoner until he could calm down. He didn’t know she wanted Anarietta dead, but he knew she was the exiled heir to Toussaint who had been manipulating him to cause mayhem for her revenge. He couldn’t threaten her sister or any other single person, but I think he was trying to make her prove the lives of the subjects mattered to her and she was more than just a callous manipulator prepared to pay any cost for her revenge. Truthfully, I think Syanna wouldn’t have waited for the massacre to start before meeting him, and it’s on Anna Henrietta that she chose her criminal sister’s safety over the city she was sworn to protect. If there was an option to kill or at least depose Anna Henrietta, I probably would’ve taken that, just because at the end of the day, Dandelion’s friend or not, the lives of those who rely on her were shown to matter less than her sister, who she was absolutely not holding to the same standards of ‘justice’ that the rest of the duchy lived by. Those guys you fought with at the bootblack’s stand went to prison over a fistfight, but she orchestrates widespread panic by murdering knights and spreading rumours to trigger rebellion and she gets to sit in a beautiful bedroom with the guards mostly seeming to be there to protect her from people who were angry over her crimes (at least that’s how I saw it). In the “best ending”, it doesn’t seem like either sister actually receives any real backlash because the Duquessa forgives Syanna and the civilians still love their leader who knew about the threat of the massacre and insisted rather stupidly that her knights would be more than enough, without any thoughts to the fallout of if her knights were not in fact enough LIKE GERALT TOLD HER THEY WOULDN’T BE. The deaths of her knights and her citizens could’ve been prevented if she wasn’t madly asserting that her sister who started the mess was to be protected above all else. The fact that killing a man filled with grief and guilt and rage that someone he loved had lied and used him in that way is considered the best ending makes me so upset. I could write an essay about this, but my rant has probably been long enough.
Syanna still goes to jail in the good ending though, charges against her are not dropped And Dettlaff literally sent vampires to eat innocent orphans because a girl was mean to him, if you think bweaking his fee-fees is worse than butchering an entire innocent orphanage you probably have issues of hyper-emotionaIity of your own that cloud your objective judgement
Detlaff definitely needs to die. A higher vampire who massacres a city because he’s bummed out about a rough breakup is a threat to humanity. But Syanna needs to die to. She’s a psychopath and a murderer.
Nice video! But it isn't really not controlling his emotions, it's more like pack morality. What humans think is right & wrong means just as much to him as last winters snow (And rightly so) Complex nuances just don't exist in that mortality, It's a simple yes or no. Everything else is a lie or deception
Syanna had a awful childhood but that doesnt judge her actions. I dont think killing her is the right choice either. Both sisters living is the best choice in my opinion.
For my playthrough of B&W I chose to kill detlaff. I hated making that choice because I actually like him as a character and I still empathize with him. I found his story to be quite tragic and only made the choice to kill him because I wanted to see the best outcome between Syanna and Anna Henrietta and when he decided to attack tousant he proved to be a danger to humanity. As a person I wish there was a way to keep both Syanna and Detlaff alive. As a witcher I had to choose the lesser of two evils
both were a toxic couple that caused tons of suffering and problems, both also had extenuating circumstances that did have an impact on what they chose to do. For me, I killed Dettlaff and reunited the sisters, since both cannot live, I'll take the higher vampire who genocided a town to die, He is no Regis.
Funny conclusion. Thing is, isn't detlaff going with Regis at the end? Aside from the whole stick of just pissing off of Human territory? While the Human Monster if let live kills her relative or somesuch? I mean sure you could argue that as a witcher one couldn't understand Human nature and just thinks it'll be fine. But as I see it, there's also another quest like that, this dilemma is there to truely ask yourself the question "Who's the Monster here?", getting "emotional" for a betrayal isn't exactly monstrous behavior, Humans waged war for even lesser things.
The ending I usually go for is killing detlaff but sometimes I’ll go for detlaff killing syana ‘cause I think she does deserve it. The issue is, they both had reasons to do what they did but both did it the wrong way. Syana got dealt a bad hand but decided to make it worse. Detlaff was deceived but decided to let that anger out on innocent people. There really isn’t a right or wrong choice (as it is with most things in the Witcher) but I feel killing detlaff is the best because like you said, he could be dangerous. Anna is also extremely selfish and unrealistic in her expectations of Geralt throughout this whole thing so she deserves some blame. The whole dynamic is great and what makes blood and wine a masterpiece.
Syanna pissed me off so much i let him have her every time lol. the only thing i think he did wrong was taking his anger out on the whole city, they weren't involved and thus didn't deserve his wrath tbh
I agree but in terms of attack in Beuclaire i see it as peasants being the victims of a conflict between two people with power (Dutchess vs Detlaff) same as Radovid vs Emyr. Dutchess threatens to ruin a loyal man's whole family and business over 1 lost barrel of wine yet hides her disguising sister away from the consequences of Syanna's actions knowing full well the people of Beuclair might be in danger. she had 3 days to think about it: her guilty sister or sacrifice people of Beuclair in the impending attack yet instead of using her head she decided to be a b**** as usual. in that case Dutchess is far more dangerous than Detlaff because she can start a war over something dumb and kill more people than that just cause she didnt like something.
I believe she doesn't like him anymore cause dettlaff is the type of like "too possessive, too loyal and clingy" she says to geralt that dettlaff love is like an animal, deeply, madly, unconditionally.. Which is imo not that bad, his possessiveness does not harm syanna but instead helping her, until dettlaff knows everything.. But syanna is just a typical human, human they never feel satisfied and grateful, lmao
I did all the endings and chose the one where detlaff and both anrietta and syanna died. I would've preferred to let detlaff live but i didn't find it acceptable that he put a whole city to the sword. I also didn't like either of the sisters so I took one for the team and took the worst possible ending.
I get heated about this situation. What Syanna did is incredibly wrong and she instigated everything Detlaff did. She's the reason he did what he did. Was he wrong in not controlling his emotions? Yes and no.. he's a higher vampire but obviously has human feelings and emotions. If it were not for Syanna, none of this would have happened. I gave him mercy in my playthrough and will do so again. I believe Detlaff made mistakes and he feels bad about it, but Syanna did terrible and DELIBERATE things WITHOUT guilt. I do see why you made your choice and I do agree to an extent, but I believe Syanna could be just as dangerous if she decides to use someone else to do her bidding.
Dettlaff was not right but he is still a man that has a mind of a child - he was innocent and pure hearted and believing and easy to manipulate , the perfect victim for a woman like Syanna! I symphatize with him so much, i like him and he is one of my favourite OC characters from all the characters that are not in the books. so even if he is a bit extreme he is still my boy
I will just say this. Dettlaff seems to have a very honorable way of looking at things. A beast kills hundreds of beeings Dettlaff has no conexion to whatsoever-he lets nature (strong preys on the weak) take it's course. The moment a beast harmed a beeing that Dettlaff felt endebted to (the boy with the aple) - he kills the beasts in order to avenge the boy and basically "pay" his debt. When it comes to Syanna he offers her every bit of love he has ( everywhere it's implied she kind of became his world) literally making her his most precious. She tricks and abuses of his powers (and fucks others, player controlling Geralt, im looking at you -and myself haha- ) and basically repays his consideration by "spitting" on everything he feels, so he decides to kill hubdreds of humans himself. If you ask me, Dettlaff is the embodiment of law and equivalent exchange. For him she was everything so it only feels fair to take everything from her as well (or at least what he feels would be worth a lot to her). Ofc there are points to be made about him beeing overzealous and ending up doing more harm than good with his overprotective and "unmeasured" reactions but at it's core, Dettlaff is law, Dettlaff is RIGHT (not as beeing in the right but paying every moral debt he has with someehat equivalent exchange). Now, do i ask you, would you still like law if law was as unforgiving as Dettlaff? P.S. i also remember Geralt kills one of his subjects, a Bruxae, so Dettlaff rambles a lot about how he has to kill the witcher in order to be "fair". It's only after you agree to try and help him he sort of drops the killing stuff and awaits you to make yourself up to him in some other way. Dettlaff is a beeing that serves only himself, but is one of the most fair beeings (stupiditly fair tbh) i have ever encountered in a videogame. P.P.S when i was a kid i sort of believed in what he believes, then i realized imbeciles are everywhere and smart people have to shut up in order not to offend those incapable of linking 2 thoughts 2gather themselves.
Not wrong in his anger. But wrong in execution. Should’ve just killed Syanna and dipped. Didn’t need to murder all of Toussaint for it. But Regis did mention he has..emotional problems.
No point in semantics. Doesnt matter which came first, the chicken has hatched. Its out of the egg and wont go back in. Both have displayed that they are a danger to many innocent lives. Lives with untold stories and value of their own. Thus the best course of action is to remove the threat. Both are ultimately guilty parties regardless of motive.
*SPOILERS* (If you havent played the end of BaW) * * * * So I got the worst end where all died. Why? I got Syana into savety because of the wristband, killed detlaff in the most brutal bossfight so far with a lot of cheese, and then told Syana straight to the face, that she did a shit load of evil things after I learned to despise her in the fairy tale. Well just for her to turn up and murder her unbelievable naive sister. I just wished the Duches thought once before acting up - so yeah, all died, Regis got banished and Geralt sits on the loss of two dear friends.
Syanna being the root cause does not in any way excuse Detlaffs actions, Syanna being mistreated as a child does not in any way excuse her actions. The reasons why someone commits murder does not make the murder OK. Geralt never made the choice to kill Detlaff, it was an option. Detlaff forced the option upon them. The choices made to save Syanna and Detlaff dying is the best choice, she will be judged, found guilty, and live the rest of her days in the room she was imprisoned in. It might be a gilded cage but it's still a cage. Detlaff made his own choice to die when the plan was to get him to stop and go away.
I think that Detlaff was far from unhinged or insane, he was a very level headed individual (for a vampire) who valued human life the same way we'd view the life of a chicken or a sheep. Sure, said animals are useful to us for as long as they lay eggs or give milk, but once they outlive their prime, they quickly turn into more work then they are worth. For such a creature who feasts upon the very lifeblood of humans to show sympathy and care towards even a few, is already a rather strange feat, considering how little the two have in common, so I think Detlaff murdering Syanna for her treachery should be fully understandable. I'm going out on a limb here, but oaths and promises often play a very strong role in Mythology, and breaking such an oath is something rather serious and often punished harshly. Syanna leading Detlaff on and essentially promising him her heart, just to use him and turn him into her weapon was such an act and Detlaff deserves his revenge. In the same turn, I do believe that Detlaff would honour his agreement, considering how mad it made him when Syanna lied to him and manipulated him, I doubt he'd do the same to others, it does not strike me as his nature. Sorry for the long ramblings, but I hope I made at least some sense, English is not my native language so I am experiencing a bit of a harder time to express my thoughts clearly.
Honestly it's the Dutchess fault. She condemned her entire city and her subjects because she became a huge hypocrite by refusing to turn her sister over. She claimed she upholds the laws and traditions of Toussaint and no one is above them but when her sister was caught red handed then all that went out the window. I'm more pissed the citizens of Toussaint didn't turn into a massive mob and go after the Dutchess for condemning them all for one person.
Usually go for killing Detlaff because he is the more direct danger. However Syanna was responsible for what happened I'd say, but needed detlaff only to enact her plans. I believe Detlaff's intentions were always far better than Syanna. Yes he was in turn responsible for the death of hundreds, but only after Syanna forced his hand by not showing at Tesham Mutna. Yes he could have just not done that, but he did give his word If one is to choose, regardless of what happens after and purely based on the ethics I think Syanna is the greater evil, so to speak. There is also the psychological effect of Syanna being a young and beautiful woman, which generally causes biases already there. Do you want to super slaughter the pretty woman, or the older-than-time-itself vampire with the actual blood of innocents on his claws? However Geralt is a witcher. His profession is to kill monsters that threaten humans, and this was after all just a contract. Then again Geralt has made choices different to how one might expect a 'witcher' to
In my first playthrough I killed him because I felt this is the correct thing but on my later playthrough I choose to let him go not for him but because of Regis..I did not want him to be the enemy of his entire race due to killing Dettlaff
They way I see it, Detlaff and Syanna are both monsters in the end and deserves to die. Detlaff for starting a massacre, and Syanna for blackmailing him into comitting murder. Yes the victims were bad people and Syanna was abused, therefore rightfully angry, but it doesnt justify what she did imo. And even though she isnt as physically threatning as Detlaff, she is still very dangerous and manipulative. Its kinda poetic to be honest. Both Syanna and Detlaff were born as someone most people would shun and call a monster- Detlaff being a vampire and Syanna being born "cursed". They werent that to begin with, but because of how poorly they chose to deal with their trauma, they became actual monsters and in the end payed with their lives for it. Thats why I prefer the ending where both dies at least. It also fits the most with the Witcheruniverse in my opinion- There rarely is a fairytale-ending where everyone lives happily ever after.
Detlaff dies Syanna dies Anna Henrietta dies Geralt gets the vineyard and is considered a hero Yep, that's my favourite ending 😅 Though it's probably something Geralt wouldn't wanna do.
I felt kind of annoyed how regis explain detlaffs behaviour and emotions as some super deep concept humans couldnt understand. Its not as complicated as he tries to make it sound "oh yeah humans get mad when their scorned, vampires get REALLY mad, its very complicated Geralt". Regis always felt like he was talking down to geralt when he tried to explain the ways of higher vampires. In the end tho, he knew detlaff was a problem and couldnt protect him and his bs anymore.
And Syanna's 5th target - if you follow that path - is the Duchess, her own sister. So I would say kill them both. Yes, the Duchess isn't happy, but justice is served Witcher-style But I apparently have a Gwent problem (and have the Achievements to prove it), so because you can save Syanna by beating the dealer/former-match girl at Gwent, I do and Syanna lives and I go through that 5th victim hunt to save the Duchess.
From a human point of view: he was definitly wrong to punish the once who had nothing to do with it. From a Vampire point of view: perhaps he was wrong. Humans are to them what ants are to us. We would not necessarily apply the same ethics when killing a bunch of ants who invaded in your house as we would do when people get killed. Ants would definitly look unhappy to us murdering their entire collony and we would be like, mwah. The people of Toussaint would look unfavourably to being killed by a bunch of Vampires, but those vampires could very well have exactly the same reaction as we would have when removing an annoying ant collony from our house: mwah. And I feel the Witcher III touches perfectly on this in Tesham Mutna with the -rather horrible- conversation found in the books between a vampire and a prisoner.
kill Detlaff because he might be a threat in the future? No, that's too easy. Detlaff would have lived his life not bothering anyone, he would have minded his own business if not for the Monster of Beauclair, aka Syanna. She was the monster who is ultimately responsible for everything that happens during B&W, including the attack on the city. Detlaff could have killed her on the spot but decided to give her a chance to explain herself. But she was not prepared to take any responsibility for her actions. Detlaff is not a human, as mentioned, and highly emotional. He doesn't care about human life or morals at that point and why should he? He has been used by a human to kill other humans and now he's supposed to value human life? All Syanna had to do is go to him, explain herself and who knows, Detlaff might have shown the same restraint and let her go as he did the first time? He feels used, he feels betrayed and doesn't give a single fuck. Nor did the Duchess or Syanna because they knew what the consequences would be. Detlaff, after his temporary lapse of rationality, is still reasonable as the attack on the city ends instantly as soon as Syanna is dead. Syanna most definitely doesn't deserve a life at the royal court after all she did. Killing her is a just punishment. Detlaff, I think, will avoid humans even more than he did before meeting Syanna. I don't think he will be any threat anymore to anyone. Killing him on the chance that he might kill another person is like castrating every single catholic priest because they might molest boys in the future. For me, killing Detlaff is out of question because Detlaff can't be killed unless another higher vampire kills him, which means Regis. That in turn means Regis violates highest vampire rules making him a target for other vampires. For what? for humans? Fuck them! Killing Detlaff would mean punishing Regis, but what was Regis crime to this point? Regis is a friend and even as a human I value my friendship to him higher than the lives of future potential human victims of a vampire's rampage. Killing somebody to prevent potential future crime? where does it end? kill every soldier on the planet? then every politician? Lastly every male and every female just because they might hurt somebody? Detlaff, due to the fact that he's a higher vampire, is outside of human judiciary, he's got the ultimate Get Out Of Jail card.
damn right, just the Regis factor alone does it for me, the vampbro is an amazing character, to be honest, leagues above dandelalion, the chemistry between Regis and Gerald is really bros vibe, while I never got that from the gigolo, if I the books both Regis and dandelion are written the same as in the Witcher 3, I really don't know how Regis just appeared in one story and died, and how dandelion gets the best mate seat, written by the same author, but regis in tw3 is easy the most charismatic character.
If you're interested in joining a community with fellow witcher fans check out the discord, also for updates follow my twitter (X), I hope you all enjoyed the video!
Twitter (X): twitter.com/WitcherGeorgeB
Discord: discord.com/invite/T8Hv9BbUJ6
Detlaff was only wrong for taking his anger out on Toussaint.
what was he supposed to do?
@@gabnel1000 Not take his anger out on Toussaint. I mean, the baker and the smithy had nothing to do with it. Why punish them. It is wrong in multiple ways.
That being said: I ALWAYS safe Detlaff because I do get it though :p
@@thomasp12384 it think the whole thing would have been avoided if Syanna died.
She's a terrible human being
true, i really hated that i couldn't save him and be the good guy :( i wish i could save him and syanna both
And for attempting to kill Syanna. Had he done it because she had him kill 4 people, sure, but he doesn’t seem to care about that. What he’s actually mad about is just about getting manipulated by an ex. This happens all of the time, anyone who gets this angry about being treated badly in a relationship is just a child.
No for being angry at Syanna for her treachery. Yes for making Beauclair feel the wrath of the vampire.
It was her murder scheme that merited harsh judgement. Ghosting Detlaff is something that happens in relationships, and while it sucks, it is not actually something that merits, not even remotely, a violent response.
Yeah but, knowing that it was her home and what she wanted most of all, it makes sense that he wanted to destroy it.
Ah, a video on Detlaff. Honestly, one of the most intriguing original characters in the game.
For me he was a complete idiot in the game, an one dimensional moron, getting manipulated and then lashing out like an fool, even his friend calls him a shit stain of a vampire, not even close to being a threat to Geralt who looks like a genius in comparison though still dangerous due to being made in the first place.
I stopped playing for time reasons and now ... I did what I didn't want to do. Spoiler. But I could not resist, I find him very interesting too.
And I think I can't play the end if there is no way to save them all. War begets war and cruelty begets cruelty. I don't want that to ruin the game for me. Maybe somebody else can do that part so I can have the party.
He's one of those antagonists that makes you go "His point is so damn legit, but I can't let you do it that way"
his point kinda goes out of the window when you decide to mass murder children to achieve it
I'm surprised nobody takes Regis into the consideration
I think Geralt would do everything to not kill Dettlaff as he was Regis' friend and would instead try the peaceful option
Also he was very aware that both him and Regis could just die in that fight
My Canon ending is to spare Dettlaff and go to Prison. I feel like it does the least harm especially for Regis
I mean, wars have been done for less. Dettlaff gave them an out, give him justice (which it was justice for ending Syanna) or war. It's not like he just flat out attacked. The duchess was selfish however and wanted held her sister's life worth the war, even though she deserved to be torn apart.
I'm not saying he was right, but he wasn't wrong either. It's a perfect showing of The Witcher's morality nuance.
I agree with this. Everyone had a role in the death of the people. Anna kept her sister in there. I understand her not wanting to give her up after not being together but you have a duty to your people. Dettlaff ultimately did it so he’s still responsible as well.
That's an interesting take, I like the comparison with war and you are right. In the past and in the Witcher, wars have been fought over 'love' and seemingly meaningless things, but we feel that's okay because it's human stupidity. Perhaps Dettlaff was just existing in his setting acting like the kings queens and empires around him.
i kinda honestly think detlaff was worse than syanna i mean sure she did manipulate him to kill 4 people who were very horrible but just after that detlaff decided to commit genocide against humans who he believed to be thinking and innocent people( it is not like he was an apathetic vampire detlaff has shown in numerous occasions he cared about humans) so him slaughtering them because of his sadness is just that much horrible
I just let him meet Syanna. Things didn't go well. Got a house. Felt very authentic to a typical Geralt story.
I'd like this ending if the duchess died too
@@RX29 Duchess was doing anything to hold the duchy together, which i respect. Being an upstart, Lets be honest, she was raised as an upstart, and has lots of responsibilities to put it simply. Syanna was killing very important people and her last target was Duchess herself, which will cause power vacuum and thus massacres bigger than whatever Dettlaff did will happen.
What Dettlaff is doing is taking his rage on city because one bitch did a bad things! If anything, What Geralt and Regis should have done is "Hey Detty, How about you put yourself together and take her with yourself! Let her listen to her backstory and you will learn a lot more and do less harm."
so you skipped out on one of very few unique fights the game has.
@Saphkey wasn't that interesting looking
8:00 She wasn’t exactly in a place where she could choose to go, which was Annarietta’s idiocy. Dettlaff likely thought Syanna had left the city to die rather than meet him.
Syanna was ostracized by the Beauclair nobility and then horribly abused by a few individuals, then in the course of her revenge made it Detlaff's problem and horribly abused him in the course of it. Detlaff was manipulated and horribly abused by Syanna, then in the couse of his revenge decided to make it Beauclair's problem and tried to slaughter evey man, woman and child living in it. They're both monsters deserving of the fate that awaited them, and the only reason i spared Syanna hers was because i had the power to do it.
In my playthrough, I never wavered from the sight of the carnage on the streets of Beauclair. Detlaff is an extremely powerful, unstable and dangerous individual. The strongest example of a monster. I as Geralt, am a monster slayer. Detlaff dies.
Not to mention comparing what Syanna did to what he did. Yes, he gave Anna Henrietta a choice, give her to me or I'll kill innocents. What kind of deal is that? He was asking her to turn over Syanna to him, her own sister, none of us could do it. We can speak ill of our own blood, but as soon as somebody else tries something, then there's hell to pay. Anna Henrietta was acting as any sibling would. Then consider what the situations entailed, Syanna was punishing those who had hurt her, starved her, then left her in a region away from any civilization to die of frost, hunger, or beasts; and one (Palmerin) who did just as bad by not speaking up for her when he knew what his companions did was wrong. Syanna went overboard, but her reasons are understandable. Detlaff killed innocents because he was angry and didn't show sympathy that we know he has. He did the same thing as Anna Henrietta in reverse, he knows her feelings through his experiences with La Croix and in the past, Detlaff is the real monster because he understands but says "no, I don't want to be civil and reasonable about it!"
I would let both of them live if I could, but there's no way I'm killing Dettlaff, he did everything he could for Syanna and he was due his revenge. If I remember correctly it's not Syanna who refused to face Dettlaff actually, it was Annarietta who refused to let her. Also consider the fact that you don't kill Dettlaff, Regis does and he will be shunned by all vampires after that for one and you are basically making Regis kill his blood brother. It's incredibly unfair to Regis overall.
Yeah, though Detlaff decides to attack you himself when Syanna is saved, so it was just me fighting for my life. Kind oft his fault.
If I could have chosen, I would let him go.
It's unfair from Detlaff that he forces Regis to decide between his and Geralts life.
I thought you could let Dettlaff go free?
@@JohnJohn-qq1cwonly if you let him kill syanna
Glad youre making lore vids again its been one of my favorite series on yt for a couple years now
He was definitely wrong when he took out his anger on the innocent people of Toussaint. That's why my Canon ending is killing detlaff and having the sister's both die😅
It's a bittersweet ending perfect for the witcher world.
Good to see you uploading again m gonna start my 15th play through in celebration
Hey George, enjoying the theme of the video, I would like to clarify one detail about the immortality of Higher vampires. I see many people incorrectly interpreting the meaning of the phrase: "only one Higher Vampire can kill another". in the quest named "La cage au fou ", If the player decides to drink and chat with Regis, there are lines of secondary dialogue where he says: "If a member of another race kill one of us, we can be reborn with a living higher vampire's help. However, if one of our strikes the deadly blow, death is permanent." On another line geralt asks: "But were you dead?"(referring to the event in which Regis was melted by Vilgefortz) Regis responds: "As humans understand -YES." then says: "if not to Dettlaff, i migh have drowned in a ETERNITY OF ICE TERROR". In other words, Yes, they can be killed in the human understanding of death, if they suffer too much damage, and are unable to come back to life without help from another vampire. Now with help they can come back to life, and if one vampire kills another, death is permanent and irreversible. I see some comments saying that Regis would regenerate alone, from the damage of Vilgefortz, after many centuries, but Regis himself claims that he would have drowned for eternity in freezing terror without the help of Dettlaf (in the case of partial damage such as dismemberment or decapitation , he would regenerate on his own, now being completely melted by magic, only with help). That's why regis owes his life to dettlaf, he has an eternal debt, not just a temporary one. OBS. Last year, cdpr released an unprecedented story on the gwent journey about the regis shortly after its rebirth, before the BOW expansion. In this story, this idea is reinforced that in high-level magical damage, vampires need help with blood to recover, including a witcher who uses magical items capable of containing the regeneration of higher vampires. I recommend reading the story. (obs2: I took all the dialogue from the game, if anyone doubts my explanation, just check the source)
In my mind, Dettlaff was becoming a monster. Yes, he did save a village a long time ago, but only when he was personally affected. And we see that motivation swings both ways. When he is personally affected, he has no issue putting an entire city to the sword. To be clear, both are wrong, but only one has the power to be a walking nuke.
Dettlaff may have been classified as a monster, but I don’t think he truly was one in the sense that he was evil. In his hideout, he fixed children’s toys while waiting for awful letters to be sent containing names of people he held no ill will against but was forced to kill anyways in horrendous ways because of constant threats. He spent months terrified for Rhena/Syanna’s safety because of the blackmail notes after spending quite some time worrying for her safety and searching for her after her disappearance. He was constantly on edge and no doubt felt a lack of control that he may have not experienced since arriving in this sphere, considering the gap in power between himself and most other existences, with the exception of other Higher Vampires. He likely had never feared death until he feared for hers, and despite that, he was still kind to the residents of Beauclaire when he could be. He was friends with De la Croix and at least friendly with the bootblack. He was horrified and grief-stricken making the choice between his friend’s life and his lover’s. He lived in a state of stress and fear for months, killed a friend and dismembered him horrifically, just to find out the person he feared for and wanted to protect more than anyone else was the one who’d created that fear in the first place, that the love he believed they shared was one-sided. The betrayal broke him so badly that he had to leave, but she’d already escaped him once, so he came up with a reason for her not to run. He hoped she’d meet him to save the citizens, prove that even if everything else was a lie, that she still wouldn’t sacrifice countless innocents for herself. He didn’t know she was unable to meet the deadline, only that she came late and with Geralt and Regis in tow. He likely believed at that point that there wasn’t a single redeeming quality in her, especially because Regis has explained Dettlaff has an extremely strong pack instinct. She had originally been the heir to the duchy, he likely assumed that if she’d never seen him as pack, she’d at least see the people she’d grown up intending to rule as such. To my mind, he was put under extreme duress and still agreed to trust Geralt and try to find a way to free Rhena without murdering any more knights, he showed kindness to people that others of his race considered no more noteworthy than mosquitoes, and he gave her an opportunity to talk. Who knows what would’ve happened if Anna Henrietta hadn’t locked her in the Land of Fables and she’d been allowed to meet him on time.
I never kill Wham-A-Wham in Skellige because he killed people who entered his home uninvited and started destroying it, and if there was a way to spare Niellan in Velen from his death or cure him entirely of his lycanthropy, I would, regardless of if he killed his sister-in-law. Honestly, my Geralt at least has killed many a soldier just doing their job over the course of the 3 games, and I love Lambert even if he doesn’t always choose the most morally correct path. I can’t condem Dettlaff just because he isn’t as common or dumb as a rock troll or because he’s an entry in a bestiary rather than the person carrying one.
Not every monster has fangs and claws, in my experience of playing Witcher 3 I spent more time trying to save monster from humans.
And some of the worst acts and most horrible of deeds were done my humans, to me the one that sticks in my mind most was the werewolf and the sister, and in this video we have a very similar story so if one of the two must die ied pick the human as she knows what she is doing is wrong and immoral, not only is she committing murder but she is blackmailing, manipulating and using betraying someone to get her own way, she is acting far more monstrous than the vampire.
thats true, Detlaff might be a "monster" and "unstable" in human terms but we know from his backstory that he can calm down and he doesn't just randomly attack without a reason. and if we judging Detlaff as a "potential future threat" then what about Regis? yes he is nice for now but he murdered 100s of people in his younger days..whats stopping him from doing it again? anyway Syanna is far bigger threat. she is scheming and just because she had a hug from her sister and didnt kill her (if Geralt babysits her out of his character) whats stopping her from gaining allies later on and brining civil war on Toussaint against her sister later on? shes just as much of a threat if not more.
Yep. No matter my playthrough I just can't bring myself to kill Rock Trolls.
Like yeah they'll eat people but I think that's only if they can't find something else to eat
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Agree, in my first playthrought i felt so weird (but in a good way) that the witcher really make me more sympathetic towards monster and non human, it's not the dev intention, but yet my morals keep siding with them most of the time.
I remember there is a contract for killing a cave troll cause the human claim the troll are bad and killing the villangers, i think it's the Wham a Wham troll.. The troll said that the villagers keep harassing and throwing a rock to him like basically hurting him, so that's why he kill those villagers that come to his cave.
So glad this channel's active again! 😻😻😻
I think Dettlaff reacted exactly in character personally. He overreacted. I feel like he held onto the vain hope that she deep down did love him (thus the invite ultimatum). And when he could deny the truth no longer (that she'd just kinda used and abused him), he had that explosive lashing out that was perfectly in keeping with his character. I also personally feel (I guess in my headcanon) that Geralt would both work towards getting the best ending between the sisters because she probably reminded him of Renfri and how he couldn't save her, and kill Dettlaff because the Witcher code demanded it. He was a monster that killed, its reasons don't ultimately matter to a Witcher. Anyways, thanks for letting me share my thoughts and thank you for yours! I love your videos WitcherGeorge!!
the witcher code is made up, though. just something Geralt would say to justify his not taking certain contracts, or make his lowly profession-caste feel legit
agree about this being in character for Dettlaff
My reasoning was simple, it was my first time playing the game and I just saw what dettlaff did after he found out he got betrayed. After that I didn’t really care about dettlaff anymore and thought only about killing him because dettlaff knows his power and knows what he can do, who knows what he can do in the future if he gets angered like that again. The man is unstable asf
I tried letting Dettlaff go once, It doesn’t feel right to me. Don’t know why, yes I am happy my good friend Regis is not an anathema, but he will need to constantly babysit Dettlaff so he won’t go berserk again in the future. I think people really over exaggerating by saying Regis will be hunted down by lesser vampires (which Regis can take care of easily), no He just simply be an outcast, and it’s not like Vampires will ever go back to their world anyway. Give it a time, all vampires will eventually understand why Regis decided to kill Dettlaff (to keep the peace between humans and higher vampires)
“Witchers are created to kill monsters” I stand by that, so I always go with endings where I have to fight him. And tbh, I like the ending where both syanna and dettlaff die 😈
Honestly, had Detlaf just killed Syanna without endangering the city and without expecting her at the vampire temple, he'd have been redeemed, but after his little stunt, more than just Syanna's 4 victims died, making him worse than Syanna to me. They were both assholes true, but at least Syanna can be saved and somewhat redeemed due to her PTSD, whereas Detlaf killing half the city was uncalled for.
Unasked opinion,
But I think the curse of the black sun is Bollocks. Gerald thinks so too, last wish he laughs and spits at the idea, and I agree
If you treat some one as if they are a bad person from the day they are born, what do you expect?
Yeah, i went with the same ending like you.
Like Geralt said "I understand the actions she took but i do not condone them", i feel the same way.
I also think Dettlaf,even tho not human, choose to go on with the bad things and his death was a consequence of those actions... but i do also understand his point of view as well.
Love these videos
What an amazing video. I really enjoyed your storytelling and comments about this part of blood and wine. Keep this great witcher content up! Cheers! 🍻⚔️
Anger was justified, though the action was out of line.
I give him slack as he's not human and lacks nuance, his big love manipulated him and goaded him into killing folk.
Seyannas treatment was awful though just because of a prophecy.
All in all he's otherwise an honourable man (in terms of his word), you bring him the girl and he kills her and moves on.
7:36 I think he was giving himself time to cool off so he wouldn’t make a mistake because of his emotions. I don't think he planned to besiege a city with vampires or even kill her. Before they were lovers, she was pack and I think he wanted to understand why she betrayed him so willingly. He might’ve killed her in the end anyways, but I don't think he was planning to do so when he gave the ultimatum, I think he just wanted to keep her from disappearing on him again while he calmed down
Dettlaff in the game was a complete moron, an utter buffoon of a character, the weakest in the expansion, what happened.
ikr he felt like an edgelord & a parody of the twilight vampires all rolled into one, if he wore a fedora i'd have thought his character was satyre
Anyone else notice how Dettlaff kind of resembles Emhyr looks wise? Like a young Emhyr could have been mistaken for Dettlaff pretty easily
Great video! I guess it’s whose side of ethics you choose to side with. As humans most of us understand from Toussants pov. Obviously murder is wrong in coke blood but I think anyone that has been used by a partner in life def understands why he’s so upset especially since he doesn’t possess a humans morals or POV. Really enjoyed this video. Hope you have more planned.
My canon ending for B&W is to let Dettlaff live and I'll explain why. This will be a long post, so bear with me.
***Contains book and game spoilers below***
I've played this game 9 times through and for most of those endings, I killed Dettlaff and got the different endings where Syanna lived, but there was always an uncomfortable feeling that had always settled in my gut after this and was not truly content with these endings. It took me a long time to figure it out. I've played the DLC over and over choosing different options to get different endings but letting Syanna live each time - and I just couldn't truly be content with any of the endings.
Until I discovered the reason behind the feelings of discontent.
This shows the masterful writing of CPDR.
Most players cannot see beyond Syanna's and Dettlaff's emotionally driven acts of violence and betrayals. I get it. It's convincing. Kudos to the writing team. However, there is a beautiful deeper layer that underlies this entire storyline that most players can't notice because of the obvious questionably moral deeds of Dettlaff and Syanna. That layer sits quietly underneath waiting for the true observer to notice it and be influenced by its lowkey wisdom. When I discovered this layer and really paid attention to it, I knew how this story needed to end. And yes, it's the unpopular decision.
I've read through the entire book series 2x and played all the games multiple times. Yes, I am an obsessed fan of the Witcher. :) The layer that goes unnoticed in this storyline is the depth of Geralt's and Regis's friendship. If players have read the books, there might be a better chance that they would notice this quiet layer that runs like waters flowing deep beneath the surface and may clue into it.
Geralt and Regis have a beautiful and loyal friendship that is unlike any other friendship Geralt has ever had. Regis and Geralt formed an unlikely bond. It was unlikely a monster slayer would bond with a monster - however, these two did and this was developed in the book series. It's because Geralt looked up to Regis, to his wisdom, his trusted character, his higher form of living. They were both freaks, outcasts, considered monsters, and have greater physical powers than anyone else. They related to one another. It's quite a beautiful concept. Regis also sacrificed himself to help Geralt defeat Vilgafortz in the books.
This bond is woven throughout B&W. At one point, Regis explains to Geralt that only another higher vampire can truly kill another vampire or he will just regenerate. But there is a serious consequence if a higher vampire murders another of its kind. That price is to live a life of the fugitive for eternity. His own kind would never cease hunting him down with the intent to kill. Regis explains to Geralt that if he kills Dettlaff he would never be at peace, constantly on the run, living the life of a fugitive from his own powerful kind forever.
I cannot believe that Geralt would take this information nonchalantly and only trudge forward with "I have a contract to fulfill." I also think that Geralt would trust Regis enough to watch over Dettlaff. I also believe Dettlaff learned from this experience and would keep his promise to never be a threat again to Toussaint (or even anywhere else).
And as Regis sacrificed himself in the books, it's fitting and satisfying that Geralt would sacrifice his contract completion in order to save his best friend's life. Even if that meant he'd be tossed in prison. I cannot believe that Geralt would knowingly sentence Regis to that fate if he followed through with the contract and kill Dettlaff knowing what that outcome meant for Regis. Best friends think about each other first. They sacrifice if need be and I feel this is the ultimate "leveling up" of Geralt on his emotional journey that started with Ciri entering his life and ending with valuing the life of his good friend over completing a contract. I feel that Geralt believes that Dettlaff would live by his word and trust Regis enough to ensure he would never do such a thing again.
For me, this is the only ending that agrees with me. Letting Dettlaff live so that Regis can live a peaceful life wherever he choses.
This IMHO is the masterful writing of the book author and CDPR. I love this so much.
If you've read this far. Thank you. :)
" Regis explains to Geralt that if he kills Dettlaff he would never be at peace, constantly on the run, living the life of a fugitive from his own powerful kind forever."
Regis *only* explains this to Geralt after Dettlaff is already dead and the bruxae attack him, *not at any point before* . Therefore, Geralt can not possibly know of this, and would not factor it in.
@@SockAccount111 No, he explained it to Geralt in the cemetery where Regis was living. This was towards the beginning of the quest, before the fight with Dettlaff. Geralt knew going in. They sat outside on the gravestones and shared a bottle of vodka between them having this conversation.
@@celticbabs3105 Nope, he doesn't. You are mistaking it with their last conversation in mere-lachaiselongue, in their first conversation during la cage au fou Regis does not talk at all about the possibility of exile, were he to strike Dettlaff down, you are mistaking the two convos.
@@SockAccount111 Well, damn. I could have sworn he told Geralt about the consequences before the big fight. I watch a playthrough to make sure. Regis purposefully omitted that information -unless he mentioned it in another convo. Maybe all my many playthroughs mashed everything together and I assumed Geralt knew he could potentially sentence his good friend to a very difficult life. I'm on my 10th paythrough now but haven't reached B&W yet. I will pay very close attention and see if that alters my choices for this playthrough. But still, I personally like Regis not being a fugitive for the rest of his life. :)
@@celticbabs3105 Yeah it's kind of normal to get mistaken, there's a lot of things happening all at once and it's hard to keep track lol
1:55 aka Dettlaff Has No Chill!
Always happy to see you upload new videos, keep it up 👍 without your playthroughs I never would've started Witcher 3 and therefore might've never found my way into the world of the witcher, which nowadays I love nearly as much as Tolkiens Middleearth 🤩 you've still got the best content when it comes to explaining the world of the Witcher 🙌
My preferred option would have been to fight and defeat Detlaff, maybe take his head, but not have Regis kill him. Instead, Regis takes away his remains and regenerates him...just like Detlaff did for him.
Syanna had an abusive childhood, but plenty of formerly abused children don't turn psychos as adults. She is evil and needs to die. Anna Henrietta is harsh, as can be demonstrated throughout the story, but when she finds out her sister is involved--she also shows herself to be a selfish brat. Not too much lost there either. Detlaff was manipulated and (in human terms) went far overboard. Rather typical in mythology, though--gods, spirits, fairies etc. go waaay too far in punishment. Don't punish just the selfish prince by turning him into a beast, instead punish the entire castle by turning all the innocent servants into silverware too. Don't curse the unfaithful guy, curse his entire family for generations. Teaching Detlaff a lesson might have been a good idea...but I don't like how far we had to go.
Syanna blackmails an innocent= she needs to die
Dettlaff k!IIs hundreds of innocents= he needs another chance
double standards much? lmao
Syanna deserved better.
The only thing I can do is kill Detlaff, even Regis says that Detlaff has gone to far. If Regis is appaled by Detlaff's actions, then he's done something seriously evil. Regis was even willing to undergo exile if he tried to harm Syanna bcause he believed his friend was wrong but hoped that he'd listen to reason if they just talked. Not to mention what is the base of the deal he gave Anna Henrietta, "give me your manipulative sister or I'll make you pay." What sibling would take that deal, none of us would. We can speak ill, torment, or threaten our own blood, but the moment somebody else does, then there's hell to pay. Anna Henrietta did what any sibling would do, protect the ones we love.
Not to mention we have to consider the whole situation, Detlaff did the same exact thing as Anna Henrietta. He was willing to do anything to protect Syanna. He murdered 4 people, he cared for La Croix and was so overcome by grief, remorse, and anger that he mutilated his own arm. But he did it anyways because he loved her. Not to mention he can feel sympathy and empathy, he could understand what Anna Henrietta was feeling, but he didn't want to. Instead he tore apart the families of Beauclaire, seeing people that had no hand in the events being ripped to shreds without a single care. He also understands their law, but refused to appeal to Anna Henrietta, just talk to her and not harm Syanna. Speak with Syanna and then be present to speak against her in trial, but he wasn't willing to.
Then we have Syanna's story. She believed she was getting moral justice against 3 knights that hurt her and starved her; then left her in a region that had zero civilization to die of frost, hunger, or beasts. Palmerien did just as bad, he knew what the others did was wrong but what did he do? Absolutely nothing, he wouldn't speak up for Syanna, he didn't advocate for them to give her clothing, food, and a weapon. He just let them hurt her, then send her off to almost certain death. Every one of the 4 deserved grave punishment, not death per say, but grave punishment. Then we have her belief that her sister should die, she asks Geralt, "If cared about me so, then why did she forget about me?" After Geralt explains, she feels remorse at what she did. Syanna imagined a spoiled brat, sneering as the knights dragged her away. A brat that was happy she was gone or who never loved her at all. Syanna did great wrong and should be punished, but why she did it was more understandable.
Detlaff did greater wrong that appalled all those around him, even his best friend and essentially blood brother. He was the true monster as he could understand, he could understand it all. He could understand what Anna Henrietta's feelings and reactions, but he decided he didn't want to. He didn't want to try and be civil or reasonable, he didn't want to find a better way, he didn't want to understand Anna Henrietta. He wanted what he desired or he would open the gates of hell. That is a true monster, one who can understand, one that knows the same feelings, but decides they won't because its not what they want. The true monster was the one who knew it all, but decided he wouldn't be kind and compassionate, he would be a murderous and unfeeling beast.
For 8 years since it's release I have played this game again and again. Still this choice is the only one that to this day I am not sure what to do. What a game!
Thank you so much for still uploading Witcher content. I have been obsessed since right before Covid 😂🫶❤️
I think what happenned in toussaint was syanna's doing, dettlaff was being used from the moment syanna saw him and found out what he was and how he was, imo dettlaff just wants to be left alone he won't go on a killing spree unless he's driven to it so geralt letting him live is something i'd see geralt do, syanna's story is a story of a self fulfilling prophecy but if syanna had made another choice dettlaff wouldn't have killed anyone in toussaint and there wouldn't be a blood and wine expansion lol
lets not forget the dutchess is at a major fault too. she knew for 3 days there will be an attack and did absolute NOTHING. she didnt even warn her own people about it! on top of that the only thing that could have stopped the attack was hidden by the dutchess herself. so i blame both sisters for the shitshow that followed. If people care so much about how many people are murdered over one persons needs then why don't they attack Emyr? he murdered 1000s if innocent people and ruined the lives of 1000000s more just cause he wanted an empire. isnt that much worse? yet no-one calls him a monster that Geralt obliged to kill as a witcher.
So he killed innocent people (mostly),killed gerald's buddy and also a potentially good character,and ok he was manipulated and shit but why the fuck would you instead of going after the person that betrayed you,start an absolute massacre over bouclair and kill hundreds mabye even thousands of actually innocent people for no logical reason at all? I avoided idea of killing dettlaf the first time i played the DLC but his decision was just wrong in every way and i even felt like i HAD to kill him because like WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU START A DANSE MACABRE IN TOUSSAINT? Those people had done barely anything to you,you lived among them and yet you think its a good and logical choice to slaughter them over a dispute that they didin't even know anything about
Hardest decision ever, but I went back to look at cutscenes etc, to make sure I got the events right, and when Detlaff tell Syanna to meet him, he does seem to want to talk with her. He says she's to come and explain herself before three days.
I always thought that her not showing up made him think she did never love him and made him decide she had to die.
And she DID want to go, it was the Duchess that forbid it and locked her away.
I always wondered if we could have saved all of them (and the people of Toussaint) if we'd been able to get Syanna and him to meet before the three days were up, and before he got so angry that he unleashed the horde.
So in a way it's all of their fault. His, Syanna, the Duchess. All of them for different reasons:
Detlaff because he wasn't human, didn't react as one, but was still hurt and betrayed and lashed out
Syanna because she used Detlaff, all for revenge
Henrietta because she selfishly tried to control her sister and make everyone bend to her whim no matter the risk
I don't think there is a "right" answer, so far as morality is subjective. But that's what made that decision so hard, and the quest so good.
Can you do a vid on small quests and from where in the books they are inspired from (or from other tales other than Grimm) that would be really cool! 🥰
I'm pretty sure the reason she could not meet him the first time is because she was trapped in the land of a thousand fables by her sister and very much agree 11:17 that's how I look at it he is extremely unstable to be left alive if it's not one thing he'll get set off by another thing
I go for removing Dettlaf and preventing Syana from killing Anarietta by appealing to her reason that Anarietta was a child. As a story nothing sits right with me about anyone involved with the exception of Regis. He is the only one who thinks rationally about this situation and though involved and owing a massive debt to Dettlaf he doesn’t allow it to become the soul arbiter in his decision making. Regis is the glue that holds the story together for me. So I take my decision based on what is best for Beauclair. Anarietta dying is a bad outcome. Syana dying is a bad outcome. So Dettlaff has to die in my playthroughs.
I was always wondering - why Regis didn't lock him up in that cage in Tesha Mutna? The same cage that was used in the quest where regis had to drink blood. I mean, it would be "cruel" to keep him there but at least he would still be alive and Regis coul potentially take care of him. Re-socialise Detlaf to maybe one day let go of Syanna? Thoughts?
And can i just say how much i love the witcher 3 as a game. It is one of the few games ive played that really makes you choose based on your personal beliefs. I know that Geralt is a Witcher and has duties but i always play as if i was him and make the choices i personally believe in. Humans can be monsters, and thats proven in the real world.
"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference"
Didn't Geralt ask if this isn't Detlaff's first time butchering a whole city?
❤ still going Witcher lore! I played Witcher for years n finished it twice 😂
The only thing Dettlaff did wrong was take out his anger on innocent commoners who had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Do a video about Regis's sideburns.
Random question for one and all, but I'm curious, do u think Gaunter could take down a higher vampire? Permanently. It's no secret Gaunter is immensely powerful but could he truly defeat a higher vampire? Because as far as I'm aware, the only known way to kill a higher vampire is if another Higher vampire strikes the killing blow. I'm curious to hear your thoughts
I imagine Gaunter could do whatever he wants. But I suppose the question I would ask is why? Why would he care what a higher vampire does, maybe if one crossed him he would but I am unsure. He could certainly influence events to cause another higher vampire to kill another, but i imagine he could do away with one should he want to.
Whenever I remember that killing monsters trailer. I know what I have to do
Just like I took out gaunter o’dimm
Yeah, but sienna only wanted those that hurt her dead, not all the ppl that detlahf will eventually kill, and she was willing to go meet him and die if she had to. It was Anna who prevented her and the only one responsible for all the death. I believe if Anna had accompanied Seana and asked Detlhaf to spare her, he would of. They got along well at the Mandregal
oh yeah don't get me started on how much i hate Anna... omg that woman, so stupid and so selfish.. just unbelievable.
Syanna is so smart and so within her right to demand justice or even just... more grimy self directed revenge for what happens to her.
The problem is: she insults her own intelligence and plan by resorting to detlaff when she herself knows what it is to be on the end of his emotions.
By not only using him as a tool, but also disregarding the years between them where the world didn't revolve around the space of her revenge plot, she essentially sets up her own downfall. Points the arrow right back at herself.
It becomes inherently selfish. The kind of revenge that claims to be after only the bodies of the knights and duchee: but ends up being the kind of revenge that doesn't care who or what lives it ends or ruins so long as its done. The entire fate of every death or punishment is set in motion by syanas tunnel vision when she was smarter than that.
It becomes so woeful that one of the lives ruined the most out of this farce is regis. For having to kill a friend who was getting better but also fellow vampire. Being marked forever for death by his kind.
Consequences like that might inspire the next 'syana' and their extravagant revenge plot. And more harm is generated from a knock on effect. More harm in the fallout for being sloppy and selfish and not caring what collateral you caused so long as you got yours.
I can see why Detlaff was angry because she betrayed his trust and love, killing all those people was wrong but I felt I couldn't let Syanna die and killed Detlaff, I think killing him like you said was the better thing to do, he was to erratic with emotions and could've gone onto do more people
Love you vids bro
I ended Syanna and Dettlaff in my playthrough. Syanna despite her tragic childhood is a killer (some of those may be justifiable but she's a killer nonetheless) and Dettlaff is a timebomb you don't know when he's gonna explode. Plus you get dandelion freeing you so that's pretty cool.
Endings according to me
4. Everybody dies
3. Dettlaff lives
2. The "happy ending"
1. Dettlaff and Syanna to belize
Here is another important thing to consider. The dutchess was the one who refused to take Sayana to Tesham Mutna so technically the vampire attack is her fault. If Dettlaff did not carry out the threat then sayana would never face justice and technically she never did if you kill Detlaff and allow the dutchess and sayana to reconcile. This means that all the terrible things people did on Sayana's behalf are wiped away and if you think about its there is not just the knights who died. There is also the singer at the mandragora and the cintrian. There is also the wine theft and numerous individuals who did terrible things at her command. All this and yet it gets swept away so the dutchess can be happy.
What should have happened was for Geralt to have a long conversation with the dutchess, the captain of the guard, and regis about how to resolve this. Later geralt, regis, the dutchess, and the captain of the guard all going along with Sayana in a prison cage to tesham mutna. Dettlaff can then present his case as can geralt present the proof he has. Im sure geralt and the captain would suggest she be punished with a lifetime trapped in the tower so anna can still see her but she can not commit terrible acts any more. As for Dettlaff, he feels considerable guilt despite how much he hides it so he must agree as penance to serve the family of the dutchess as one of its most powerful knights until her family agrees he has served them for long enough. Having a vampire like Dettlaff as the ultimate weapon in case of terrible situations is perfect. It would also mean everyone lives and no one dies in the end. Sure it deprives the game of a boss fight but many times in the witcher series its not always needed to have a boss fight. It only comes to it if you force it to take that route.
6:40 not so different from girls squealing over cute lil' piggies on the internet but when they put down their phones they'd happily eat a burger and some bacon slices.
Long time no see!
I personally believe she used Detlaff as a tool the whole time
Are any of the Bood & Wine characters in the books?
Yeah I felt pity for Detlaff at first until he went all Israel on Beauclair and after that, my view of him changed.
Back when I first played Blood and Wine I killed Detlaff, but I did serve Syanna up to him, because I believed that while both had been wronged, both had chosen to harm more than just those who had hurt them. However, I didn't know about the magical properties of the ribbon, so Syanna was saved, and while she was executed after killing Anna, Detlaff died thinking I had deliberately tricked him and she was going to get away with her betrayal. Despite the necessity I felt bad killing them both.
However, these days I believe the thing that stops most of us from indulging in our worst impulses is we're not powerful enough to do it with no consequences. In the same way a life of wealth, privilege, and legal protection causes the upper classes of humanity to abuse those poorer than them with glee, I believe that any human with as much raw physical and magical power of Detlaff could very easily react in similar ways to him. Additionally, it must be difficult for a creature like Detlaff to empathise with humans, in the same way many humans fail to empathise with animals. Our advanced intellect causes us to look the other way when they are harmed. For example the meat industry while necessary for humanity's survival is insanely disturbingly unnecessarily cruel to the animals it slaughters, and barely a single human on the planet bats an eye. So if Detlaff thinks the easiest way to get revenge on a few humans in a city is to wipe out the entire city, it's kind of understandable to see how little he cares for the innocents there. I'm not saying he's morally right, but I think he's a lot closer to human than a lot of us would like to believe. So honestly l don't know if I could kill him.
And look at all the good Regis has done for Detlaff already. In time, Detlaff's vast knowledge, power and experience could be turned to a better purpose, perhaps to the point where he could save far more people than he's ever hurt. In that friendship, Regis is Paarthurnax and Detlaff is the rest of dragonkind. If Paarthurnax, or in this case Regis stands a chance at changing his species for the better, a species that is nigh immortal and will 100% outlast Witchers, then allowing him to convert Detlaff to his philosophies would double that effort to reducing vampires as a threat as a whole long after I, in this case Geralt, have died from old age.
I mean she’s proven she’s able to avoid Dettlaff’s tracking, and he didn’t seem to know what else she cared about other than screwing up her sister’s life. He didn’t want to act rashly and he was probably still hoping she could explain so he could forgive her, so he probably wouldn’t want Regis to keep her prisoner until he could calm down. He didn’t know she wanted Anarietta dead, but he knew she was the exiled heir to Toussaint who had been manipulating him to cause mayhem for her revenge. He couldn’t threaten her sister or any other single person, but I think he was trying to make her prove the lives of the subjects mattered to her and she was more than just a callous manipulator prepared to pay any cost for her revenge. Truthfully, I think Syanna wouldn’t have waited for the massacre to start before meeting him, and it’s on Anna Henrietta that she chose her criminal sister’s safety over the city she was sworn to protect. If there was an option to kill or at least depose Anna Henrietta, I probably would’ve taken that, just because at the end of the day, Dandelion’s friend or not, the lives of those who rely on her were shown to matter less than her sister, who she was absolutely not holding to the same standards of ‘justice’ that the rest of the duchy lived by. Those guys you fought with at the bootblack’s stand went to prison over a fistfight, but she orchestrates widespread panic by murdering knights and spreading rumours to trigger rebellion and she gets to sit in a beautiful bedroom with the guards mostly seeming to be there to protect her from people who were angry over her crimes (at least that’s how I saw it). In the “best ending”, it doesn’t seem like either sister actually receives any real backlash because the Duquessa forgives Syanna and the civilians still love their leader who knew about the threat of the massacre and insisted rather stupidly that her knights would be more than enough, without any thoughts to the fallout of if her knights were not in fact enough LIKE GERALT TOLD HER THEY WOULDN’T BE. The deaths of her knights and her citizens could’ve been prevented if she wasn’t madly asserting that her sister who started the mess was to be protected above all else. The fact that killing a man filled with grief and guilt and rage that someone he loved had lied and used him in that way is considered the best ending makes me so upset. I could write an essay about this, but my rant has probably been long enough.
Syanna still goes to jail in the good ending though, charges against her are not dropped
And Dettlaff literally sent vampires to eat innocent orphans because a girl was mean to him, if you think bweaking his fee-fees is worse than butchering an entire innocent orphanage you probably have issues of hyper-emotionaIity of your own that cloud your objective judgement
Detlaff definitely needs to die. A higher vampire who massacres a city because he’s bummed out about a rough breakup is a threat to humanity. But Syanna needs to die to. She’s a psychopath and a murderer.
Why am I getting Anakin Skywalker vibes from Dettlaff?
Nice video!
But it isn't really not controlling his emotions, it's more like pack morality. What humans think is right & wrong means just as much to him as last winters snow
(And rightly so)
Complex nuances just don't exist in that mortality, It's a simple yes or no. Everything else is a lie or deception
Detlaff I usual kill and Siena i usually save for the promise you make to the duchess
Dettlaff proves the old sang, "not many decisions are truly impactful to the rest of your life, but picking the wrong women will be fatal."
Detlaff remind me of me we both getting used by damn back stabbers
Syanna had a awful childhood but that doesnt judge her actions. I dont think killing her is the right choice either. Both sisters living is the best choice in my opinion.
For my playthrough of B&W I chose to kill detlaff. I hated making that choice because I actually like him as a character and I still empathize with him. I found his story to be quite tragic and only made the choice to kill him because I wanted to see the best outcome between Syanna and Anna Henrietta and when he decided to attack tousant he proved to be a danger to humanity. As a person I wish there was a way to keep both Syanna and Detlaff alive. As a witcher I had to choose the lesser of two evils
both were a toxic couple that caused tons of suffering and problems, both also had extenuating circumstances that did have an impact on what they chose to do. For me, I killed Dettlaff and reunited the sisters, since both cannot live, I'll take the higher vampire who genocided a town to die, He is no Regis.
Funny conclusion. Thing is, isn't detlaff going with Regis at the end? Aside from the whole stick of just pissing off of Human territory? While the Human Monster if let live kills her relative or somesuch? I mean sure you could argue that as a witcher one couldn't understand Human nature and just thinks it'll be fine. But as I see it, there's also another quest like that, this dilemma is there to truely ask yourself the question "Who's the Monster here?", getting "emotional" for a betrayal isn't exactly monstrous behavior, Humans waged war for even lesser things.
The ending I usually go for is killing detlaff but sometimes I’ll go for detlaff killing syana ‘cause I think she does deserve it. The issue is, they both had reasons to do what they did but both did it the wrong way. Syana got dealt a bad hand but decided to make it worse. Detlaff was deceived but decided to let that anger out on innocent people. There really isn’t a right or wrong choice (as it is with most things in the Witcher) but I feel killing detlaff is the best because like you said, he could be dangerous. Anna is also extremely selfish and unrealistic in her expectations of Geralt throughout this whole thing so she deserves some blame. The whole dynamic is great and what makes blood and wine a masterpiece.
Syanna pissed me off so much i let him have her every time lol. the only thing i think he did wrong was taking his anger out on the whole city, they weren't involved and thus didn't deserve his wrath tbh
I agree but in terms of attack in Beuclaire i see it as peasants being the victims of a conflict between two people with power (Dutchess vs Detlaff) same as Radovid vs Emyr. Dutchess threatens to ruin a loyal man's whole family and business over 1 lost barrel of wine yet hides her disguising sister away from the consequences of Syanna's actions knowing full well the people of Beuclair might be in danger. she had 3 days to think about it: her guilty sister or sacrifice people of Beuclair in the impending attack yet instead of using her head she decided to be a b**** as usual. in that case Dutchess is far more dangerous than Detlaff because she can start a war over something dumb and kill more people than that just cause she didnt like something.
@@V123esI have the same opinion.
How could Syanna have no interest in Dettlaff he's literally SO hot😭😭🙏🙏
i know. i def have huge interest in him- and not only as a vampire...ahemm ahem
I believe she doesn't like him anymore cause dettlaff is the type of like "too possessive, too loyal and clingy" she says to geralt that dettlaff love is like an animal, deeply, madly, unconditionally.. Which is imo not that bad, his possessiveness does not harm syanna but instead helping her, until dettlaff knows everything..
But syanna is just a typical human, human they never feel satisfied and grateful, lmao
I did all the endings and chose the one where detlaff and both anrietta and syanna died. I would've preferred to let detlaff live but i didn't find it acceptable that he put a whole city to the sword. I also didn't like either of the sisters so I took one for the team and took the worst possible ending.
I get heated about this situation. What Syanna did is incredibly wrong and she instigated everything Detlaff did. She's the reason he did what he did. Was he wrong in not controlling his emotions? Yes and no.. he's a higher vampire but obviously has human feelings and emotions. If it were not for Syanna, none of this would have happened. I gave him mercy in my playthrough and will do so again. I believe Detlaff made mistakes and he feels bad about it, but Syanna did terrible and DELIBERATE things WITHOUT guilt.
I do see why you made your choice and I do agree to an extent, but I believe Syanna could be just as dangerous if she decides to use someone else to do her bidding.
Dettlaff was not right but he is still a man that has a mind of a child - he was innocent and pure hearted and believing and easy to manipulate , the perfect victim for a woman like Syanna! I symphatize with him so much, i like him and he is one of my favourite OC characters from all the characters that are not in the books. so even if he is a bit extreme he is still my boy
I will just say this. Dettlaff seems to have a very honorable way of looking at things. A beast kills hundreds of beeings Dettlaff has no conexion to whatsoever-he lets nature (strong preys on the weak) take it's course. The moment a beast harmed a beeing that Dettlaff felt endebted to (the boy with the aple) - he kills the beasts in order to avenge the boy and basically "pay" his debt. When it comes to Syanna he offers her every bit of love he has ( everywhere it's implied she kind of became his world) literally making her his most precious. She tricks and abuses of his powers (and fucks others, player controlling Geralt, im looking at you -and myself haha- ) and basically repays his consideration by "spitting" on everything he feels, so he decides to kill hubdreds of humans himself. If you ask me, Dettlaff is the embodiment of law and equivalent exchange. For him she was everything so it only feels fair to take everything from her as well (or at least what he feels would be worth a lot to her). Ofc there are points to be made about him beeing overzealous and ending up doing more harm than good with his overprotective and "unmeasured" reactions but at it's core, Dettlaff is law, Dettlaff is RIGHT (not as beeing in the right but paying every moral debt he has with someehat equivalent exchange). Now, do i ask you, would you still like law if law was as unforgiving as Dettlaff?
P.S. i also remember Geralt kills one of his subjects, a Bruxae, so Dettlaff rambles a lot about how he has to kill the witcher in order to be "fair". It's only after you agree to try and help him he sort of drops the killing stuff and awaits you to make yourself up to him in some other way. Dettlaff is a beeing that serves only himself, but is one of the most fair beeings (stupiditly fair tbh) i have ever encountered in a videogame.
P.P.S when i was a kid i sort of believed in what he believes, then i realized imbeciles are everywhere and smart people have to shut up in order not to offend those incapable of linking 2 thoughts 2gather themselves.
Not wrong in his anger. But wrong in execution. Should’ve just killed Syanna and dipped. Didn’t need to murder all of Toussaint for it. But Regis did mention he has..emotional problems.
He tried that but Anna didn't give Syanna up.
No point in semantics. Doesnt matter which came first, the chicken has hatched. Its out of the egg and wont go back in.
Both have displayed that they are a danger to many innocent lives. Lives with untold stories and value of their own. Thus the best course of action is to remove the threat. Both are ultimately guilty parties regardless of motive.
*SPOILERS* (If you havent played the end of BaW)
*
*
*
*
So I got the worst end where all died. Why? I got Syana into savety because of the wristband, killed detlaff in the most brutal bossfight so far with a lot of cheese, and then told Syana straight to the face, that she did a shit load of evil things after I learned to despise her in the fairy tale. Well just for her to turn up and murder her unbelievable naive sister. I just wished the Duches thought once before acting up - so yeah, all died, Regis got banished and Geralt sits on the loss of two dear friends.
Syanna being the root cause does not in any way excuse Detlaffs actions, Syanna being mistreated as a child does not in any way excuse her actions. The reasons why someone commits murder does not make the murder OK. Geralt never made the choice to kill Detlaff, it was an option. Detlaff forced the option upon them. The choices made to save Syanna and Detlaff dying is the best choice, she will be judged, found guilty, and live the rest of her days in the room she was imprisoned in. It might be a gilded cage but it's still a cage. Detlaff made his own choice to die when the plan was to get him to stop and go away.
I think that Detlaff was far from unhinged or insane, he was a very level headed individual (for a vampire) who valued human life the same way we'd view the life of a chicken or a sheep.
Sure, said animals are useful to us for as long as they lay eggs or give milk, but once they outlive their prime, they quickly turn into more work then they are worth.
For such a creature who feasts upon the very lifeblood of humans to show sympathy and care towards even a few, is already a rather strange feat, considering how little the two have in common, so I think Detlaff murdering Syanna for her treachery should be fully understandable.
I'm going out on a limb here, but oaths and promises often play a very strong role in Mythology, and breaking such an oath is something rather serious and often punished harshly.
Syanna leading Detlaff on and essentially promising him her heart, just to use him and turn him into her weapon was such an act and Detlaff deserves his revenge.
In the same turn, I do believe that Detlaff would honour his agreement, considering how mad it made him when Syanna lied to him and manipulated him, I doubt he'd do the same to others, it does not strike me as his nature.
Sorry for the long ramblings, but I hope I made at least some sense, English is not my native language so I am experiencing a bit of a harder time to express my thoughts clearly.
i dont think Detlaff would have attacked Beuclair if the meeting went as he asked... and lets face it it was reasonable request.
Honestly it's the Dutchess fault. She condemned her entire city and her subjects because she became a huge hypocrite by refusing to turn her sister over. She claimed she upholds the laws and traditions of Toussaint and no one is above them but when her sister was caught red handed then all that went out the window. I'm more pissed the citizens of Toussaint didn't turn into a massive mob and go after the Dutchess for condemning them all for one person.
Usually go for killing Detlaff because he is the more direct danger. However Syanna was responsible for what happened I'd say, but needed detlaff only to enact her plans. I believe Detlaff's intentions were always far better than Syanna. Yes he was in turn responsible for the death of hundreds, but only after Syanna forced his hand by not showing at Tesham Mutna. Yes he could have just not done that, but he did give his word
If one is to choose, regardless of what happens after and purely based on the ethics I think Syanna is the greater evil, so to speak. There is also the psychological effect of Syanna being a young and beautiful woman, which generally causes biases already there. Do you want to super slaughter the pretty woman, or the older-than-time-itself vampire with the actual blood of innocents on his claws?
However Geralt is a witcher. His profession is to kill monsters that threaten humans, and this was after all just a contract. Then again Geralt has made choices different to how one might expect a 'witcher' to
In my first playthrough I killed him because I felt this is the correct thing
but on my later playthrough I choose to let him go not for him but because of Regis..I did not want him to be the enemy of his entire race due to killing Dettlaff
Same, regis is geralts friend after all it feels so bad getting him punished because of 2 stupid sisters
They way I see it, Detlaff and Syanna are both monsters in the end and deserves to die. Detlaff for starting a massacre, and Syanna for blackmailing him into comitting murder. Yes the victims were bad people and Syanna was abused, therefore rightfully angry, but it doesnt justify what she did imo. And even though she isnt as physically threatning as Detlaff, she is still very dangerous and manipulative.
Its kinda poetic to be honest. Both Syanna and Detlaff were born as someone most people would shun and call a monster- Detlaff being a vampire and Syanna being born "cursed". They werent that to begin with, but because of how poorly they chose to deal with their trauma, they became actual monsters and in the end payed with their lives for it. Thats why I prefer the ending where both dies at least. It also fits the most with the Witcheruniverse in my opinion- There rarely is a fairytale-ending where everyone lives happily ever after.
Detlaff dies
Syanna dies
Anna Henrietta dies
Geralt gets the vineyard and is considered a hero
Yep, that's my favourite ending 😅
Though it's probably something Geralt wouldn't wanna do.
I hope Regis shows up in the next Witcher game🙏
I felt kind of annoyed how regis explain detlaffs behaviour and emotions as some super deep concept humans couldnt understand. Its not as complicated as he tries to make it sound "oh yeah humans get mad when their scorned, vampires get REALLY mad, its very complicated Geralt". Regis always felt like he was talking down to geralt when he tried to explain the ways of higher vampires. In the end tho, he knew detlaff was a problem and couldnt protect him and his bs anymore.
And Syanna's 5th target - if you follow that path - is the Duchess, her own sister. So I would say kill them both. Yes, the Duchess isn't happy, but justice is served Witcher-style
But I apparently have a Gwent problem (and have the Achievements to prove it), so because you can save Syanna by beating the dealer/former-match girl at Gwent, I do and Syanna lives and I go through that 5th victim hunt to save the Duchess.
From a human point of view: he was definitly wrong to punish the once who had nothing to do with it.
From a Vampire point of view: perhaps he was wrong. Humans are to them what ants are to us. We would not necessarily apply the same ethics when killing a bunch of ants who invaded in your house as we would do when people get killed. Ants would definitly look unhappy to us murdering their entire collony and we would be like, mwah. The people of Toussaint would look unfavourably to being killed by a bunch of Vampires, but those vampires could very well have exactly the same reaction as we would have when removing an annoying ant collony from our house: mwah.
And I feel the Witcher III touches perfectly on this in Tesham Mutna with the -rather horrible- conversation found in the books between a vampire and a prisoner.
kill Detlaff because he might be a threat in the future? No, that's too easy.
Detlaff would have lived his life not bothering anyone, he would have minded his own business if not for the Monster of Beauclair, aka Syanna.
She was the monster who is ultimately responsible for everything that happens during B&W, including the attack on the city.
Detlaff could have killed her on the spot but decided to give her a chance to explain herself. But she was not prepared to take any responsibility for her actions.
Detlaff is not a human, as mentioned, and highly emotional. He doesn't care about human life or morals at that point and why should he? He has been used by a human to kill other humans and now he's supposed to value human life? All Syanna had to do is go to him, explain herself and who knows, Detlaff might have shown the same restraint and let her go as he did the first time? He feels used, he feels betrayed and doesn't give a single fuck. Nor did the Duchess or Syanna because they knew what the consequences would be.
Detlaff, after his temporary lapse of rationality, is still reasonable as the attack on the city ends instantly as soon as Syanna is dead.
Syanna most definitely doesn't deserve a life at the royal court after all she did. Killing her is a just punishment.
Detlaff, I think, will avoid humans even more than he did before meeting Syanna. I don't think he will be any threat anymore to anyone. Killing him on the chance that he might kill another person is like castrating every single catholic priest because they might molest boys in the future.
For me, killing Detlaff is out of question because Detlaff can't be killed unless another higher vampire kills him, which means Regis. That in turn means Regis violates highest vampire rules making him a target for other vampires. For what? for humans? Fuck them! Killing Detlaff would mean punishing Regis, but what was Regis crime to this point? Regis is a friend and even as a human I value my friendship to him higher than the lives of future potential human victims of a vampire's rampage.
Killing somebody to prevent potential future crime? where does it end? kill every soldier on the planet? then every politician? Lastly every male and every female just because they might hurt somebody?
Detlaff, due to the fact that he's a higher vampire, is outside of human judiciary, he's got the ultimate Get Out Of Jail card.
Pure poetry, I solute you sir.
Well said
Thanks guys
damn right, just the Regis factor alone does it for me, the vampbro is an amazing character, to be honest, leagues above dandelalion, the chemistry between Regis and Gerald is really bros vibe, while I never got that from the gigolo, if I the books both Regis and dandelion are written the same as in the Witcher 3, I really don't know how Regis just appeared in one story and died, and how dandelion gets the best mate seat, written by the same author, but regis in tw3 is easy the most charismatic character.
"mass murder of hundreds of innocents is ok if a guy i like does it"
As expected from somebody with a Russian flag lmao, poetic
He was right, but his methods for dealing with the problem were wrong
I thought of Regis he was a good friend and didn’t deserve that ending