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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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)
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. :)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 🙌
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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'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
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.
*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.
you can really see dettlaff point of view. when your lover manipulates you to do bad things, turn outs she never loves you she only used you for her benefit, your feelings are used to harm others and yourself 🥲
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.
Dettlaff had all the right in the world to want to kill Syanna, and to be completely honest the ending where she lives kinda sucks because Dettlaff was killed by his best friend, Regis becomes hated by his entire race, Syanna gets away with everything, and no one even cares that the duchess let her get away with damn murder and blackmail
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.
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.
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.
Just like you, I tend to for the Syanna lives ending. As sympathetic as I am to Detlaf's plight, I just can't condone his action and let him live. He is too great of a threat. I believe that Syanna can be helped to a better life. Detlaf is too unstable for me. Also, I must admit my bias. I hold a preference for humans, though it does not guarantee I'll pick them over nonhumans. It's just that to me, Witchers are human, made by humans, for humans, so i fight for the humans.
I always let sieanna die, yes what detlaff did was horrible but she could have stopped all of this before it got out of hand but she was selfish and said “na I’m good” so for me it’s kinda 50/50
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.
I don't blame Detlaff at all, he killed people because he cared for her and wanted to save her, then once he learned the truth he didn't kill her or anyone the next second ,he gave her a chance to explain everything. She didn't arrive at the meeting point then he started killing people in mass, you can say that is a wrong thing to do but are those people that innocent to begin with? Remember those people thought Syanna was cursed, treated her like sh*t because she was born on a wrong lunar phase or whatever, like really people? You created that hate in Syanna, you banished her (or the rulers you elected did), if you didn't do that none of this would have ever happened, so you deal with the consequences of your actions! If you poke a lion with a stick then don't cry if he tears your arm off!!!
A war for a woman is so poetic,sad truthfully she manipulated a kind soul that had flawed reasoning,i saw it as needing to kill a man who could not be reasoned after trying multiple times and helped the queens sister as i had a debt..maybe i was pragnatic..i felt guilty killing detlaff.
I tend to go after the master not the puppet. If syanna wasn’t out to get revenge none of B&W would’ve happened. So she definetely deserves punishment. Also no amount of abuse or trauma can ever justify murder and it’s not like syanna was an angel as a kid. So i always go for the ending where syanna dies and Dettlaff and Anna live. If there was an option to kill both Syanna and Dettlaff i’d pick that but i can’t remember if there is. Because i do think Dettlaff went too far by killing innocents. He should’ve just killed her then fogged away and left Toussaint.
if detlaff would have just killed her and then left it would have been fine. instead of the whole 3 days thing and then attacking the city. Syanna is a terrible person. At least Detlaff is not evil for the sake of evil. he is just a child with his emotions it seems that happen to be able to destroy anything he wants
there were no good endings in blood and wine, you had to choose the lesser evil according to your point of view. me, I killed him, he had to go and you gave perfect reasons to do that. but I didnt like how syanna got away with her crimes.
His anger was understandable but he lost sympathy when he involved Civilians that had nothing to do with it. In Alucard's Words: "Then kill the one who did the deed." He could've killed her then and there, instead of involving people that had nothing to do with it and causing the deaths of Innocent Men, Women, and Children. Especially Children.
no matter what, dettlaf should die, like you said, its a witchers responsibility. The bigger question that i ask myself is does syanna deserve to live? lots of factors come into play here as one outcome is literally killing her own sister, its almost impossible to make the right decision on a first playthrough but its still something i struggle with on replays.
Personally I blame Syanna for everything that happened. I'd say the only thing I blame Detlaff for is wanting to destroy Beauclair. A city that did nothing to him.
The popularly perceived ''good'' ending, to me, is actually the second to worst ending. And the popularly perceived ''second worst'' ending, to me is the best ending. The Duchess is hot but the feminazi (That they try so hard to persuade you is ‘’good/desirable'’ ) is unceasingly annoying. The game tries so hard to show that Detlaf is evil and Syanna is a ''misunderstood anti hero''. But that is BS. Because she had a ‘’sad’’ childhood, she manipulates Detlaf into killing people for her. She is the evil one! Everyone says the sisters need to come together in reconciliation and Detlaf is evil... but they are so weak minded, how can they not see that Syanna is 100% the evil one? When I went with her to the land of Fables, I made a decision that I didn't even think about too deeply, it was a small decision to take a ribbon or not...I did...and it caused me to get the worst ending (For me). Syanna gives Detlaf ''sexiness'' and intoxicates his brain like malicious women do... Dettlaff did nothing wrong out of his own volition. The Duchess is foxy and cool,but Syanna..the ''tragic figure''... is utterly manipulative,vindictive and evil. And you can't have Regis..the best character of them all getting anything but the best. Even though Duchess Anna is hot...Regis is fam. Syana manipulated Dettlaff and used his love for her to beguile him, using him to do evil at her behest. Dettlaff 100% deserves to live, for his sake as well as for Regis. Syana deserves to die. She is the cause of it all, just because she had a ''sad childhood'', Anna would look away , ignoring the deaths of innocent people just for the sake of Syana, her love for her sister blinds her to her evil. Syana is the cause of so many deaths and yet she is allowed to continue with no repercussions ? I shall not stand for that. Syana deserves to die and Regis will help Dettlaff to become a better person by means of working through his trauma.
For me it feels unfair to kill dettlaf while syanna goes unpunished. I wish there was option to kill detlaff for the attack on touissant (I cannot spell the name of the capital) while also sending syanna you death or jail for blackmailing a men into killing 4 people. The closest thing is to kill detlaff and let syanna die for killing her sister. But I don't like the implication that syanna would get away with everything if she decides not to kill her sister.
To be fair, killing Dettlaff is like killing a human to save 100 goldfish lives. We as humans like to think that killing us would be "undesputably" wrong but killing a literal immortal for the sake of those who are basically goldfish? Yeah I'll save the immortal over the goldfish thank you very much. The only reason why I haven't done it in the game is because I am a greedy fuck that can't say no to that sweet wine yard estate.
Except that in this scenario you are Geralt i.e. another goldfish and not an human, and the goldfish would 100% put the life of his fellow golfishes above that of an instable human who may end up causing the demise of endless golfishes over his life
@@lmd7369 He is not dumb by any means, he is capable of normal social interactions and even hid in an abandoned toy shop knowing that thieves would be unlikely to break into it as opposed to other abandoned buildings.
@@SockAccount111 And most humans are more capable of normal social interaction than him. So what’s your point? Dettlaff is simple-minded, driven by emotion, probably the least complex character in the entire game. He is a Khagmar 2.0, unwelcome amongst both humans and higher vampires (Both the duchess and the unseen elder want him dead). A sore loser. There was another vampire in Novigrad who committed murders, but at least that one had a twisted logic in his understanding of morality. Dettlaff started a massacre simply because a female human hurt his feelings, that’s the lamest reason ever to commit genocide for. He brings shame to his species. A higher vampire? More like a brainless beast. For the sake of humanity you should kill dettlaff for he’s a dangerous monster. For the sake of higher vampires, you should also kill Dettlaff, for he brings trouble and breaks their peace.
Who thinks vampires will become the main threat, with 2nd gen of lycanthropy based Witchers to hunt them since most other monsters and Witchers have died off
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Glad youre making lore vids again its been one of my favorite series on yt for a couple years now
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?
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)
Good to see you uploading again m gonna start my 15th play through in celebration
So glad this channel's active again! 😻😻😻
Anyone else notice how Dettlaff kind of resembles Emhyr looks wise? Like a young Emhyr could have been mistaken for Dettlaff pretty easily
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Why am I getting Anakin Skywalker vibes from Dettlaff?
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.
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.
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.
I personally believe she used Detlaff as a tool the whole time
1:55 aka Dettlaff Has No Chill!
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.
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
Didn't Geralt ask if this isn't Detlaff's first time butchering a whole city?
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
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
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 🙌
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.
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.
Detlaff I usual kill and Siena i usually save for the promise you make to the duchess
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
Love these videos
❤ still going Witcher lore! I played Witcher for years n finished it twice 😂
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.
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
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
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
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.
@@MG-uy3ieI have the same opinion.
Long time no see!
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.
Love you vids bro
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'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
Syanna was in the wrong
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
*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.
It's been a while
Are any of the Bood & Wine characters in the books?
its not about right or wrong. they both played their part in the mess. you got two choices. one head rolls or both.
Tfw no higher vampire concoction
Many vampires don't need to kill humans or drink human blood to survive and thrive.
you can really see dettlaff point of view. when your lover manipulates you to do bad things, turn outs she never loves you she only used you for her benefit, your feelings are used to harm others and yourself 🥲
I always kill him because its the best boss fight in the game and i aint missing it
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.
Dettlaff had all the right in the world to want to kill Syanna, and to be completely honest the ending where she lives kinda sucks because Dettlaff was killed by his best friend, Regis becomes hated by his entire race, Syanna gets away with everything, and no one even cares that the duchess let her get away with damn murder and blackmail
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.
No for feeling the way he did, but yes about the way he responded
I hope Regis shows up in the next Witcher game🙏
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.
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.
Team Syanna Always
Just like you, I tend to for the Syanna lives ending. As sympathetic as I am to Detlaf's plight, I just can't condone his action and let him live. He is too great of a threat. I believe that Syanna can be helped to a better life. Detlaf is too unstable for me. Also, I must admit my bias. I hold a preference for humans, though it does not guarantee I'll pick them over nonhumans. It's just that to me, Witchers are human, made by humans, for humans, so i fight for the humans.
I always let sieanna die, yes what detlaff did was horrible but she could have stopped all of this before it got out of hand but she was selfish and said “na I’m good” so for me it’s kinda 50/50
What a nice surprise.
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.
I don't blame Detlaff at all, he killed people because he cared for her and wanted to save her, then once he learned the truth he didn't kill her or anyone the next second ,he gave her a chance to explain everything. She didn't arrive at the meeting point then he started killing people in mass, you can say that is a wrong thing to do but are those people that innocent to begin with? Remember those people thought Syanna was cursed, treated her like sh*t because she was born on a wrong lunar phase or whatever, like really people? You created that hate in Syanna, you banished her (or the rulers you elected did), if you didn't do that none of this would have ever happened, so you deal with the consequences of your actions! If you poke a lion with a stick then don't cry if he tears your arm off!!!
Regis does not deserve to be banished from the vampire society, that's it for me.
A war for a woman is so poetic,sad truthfully she manipulated a kind soul that had flawed reasoning,i saw it as needing to kill a man who could not be reasoned after trying multiple times and helped the queens sister as i had a debt..maybe i was pragnatic..i felt guilty killing detlaff.
I like the prison ending because Dandelion is in it
I tend to go after the master not the puppet. If syanna wasn’t out to get revenge none of B&W would’ve happened. So she definetely deserves punishment. Also no amount of abuse or trauma can ever justify murder and it’s not like syanna was an angel as a kid.
So i always go for the ending where syanna dies and Dettlaff and Anna live.
If there was an option to kill both Syanna and Dettlaff i’d pick that but i can’t remember if there is. Because i do think Dettlaff went too far by killing innocents. He should’ve just killed her then fogged away and left Toussaint.
Im a witch i kill monsters not make deals with them
if detlaff would have just killed her and then left it would have been fine. instead of the whole 3 days thing and then attacking the city.
Syanna is a terrible person. At least Detlaff is not evil for the sake of evil. he is just a child with his emotions it seems that happen to be able to destroy anything he wants
Hello !
there were no good endings in blood and wine, you had to choose the lesser evil according to your point of view. me, I killed him, he had to go and you gave perfect reasons to do that. but I didnt like how syanna got away with her crimes.
Syanna is in jail bro, read her entry
I let Syanna die. She deserved it
His anger was understandable but he lost sympathy when he involved Civilians that had nothing to do with it.
In Alucard's Words: "Then kill the one who did the deed."
He could've killed her then and there, instead of involving people that had nothing to do with it and causing the deaths of Innocent Men, Women, and Children.
Especially Children.
no matter what, dettlaf should die, like you said, its a witchers responsibility. The bigger question that i ask myself is does syanna deserve to live? lots of factors come into play here as one outcome is literally killing her own sister, its almost impossible to make the right decision on a first playthrough but its still something i struggle with on replays.
Syanna is the monster, Syanna dies. That's how every one of my games goes.
Personally I blame Syanna for everything that happened. I'd say the only thing I blame Detlaff for is wanting to destroy Beauclair. A city that did nothing to him.
The popularly perceived ''good'' ending, to me, is actually the second to worst ending. And the popularly perceived ''second worst'' ending, to me is the best ending.
The Duchess is hot but the feminazi (That they try so hard to persuade you is ‘’good/desirable'’ ) is unceasingly annoying.
The game tries so hard to show that Detlaf is evil and Syanna is a ''misunderstood anti hero''. But that is BS. Because she had a ‘’sad’’ childhood, she manipulates Detlaf into killing people for her. She is the evil one!
Everyone says the sisters need to come together in reconciliation and Detlaf is evil... but they are so weak minded, how can they not see that Syanna is 100% the evil one?
When I went with her to the land of Fables, I made a decision that I didn't even think about too deeply, it was a small decision to take a ribbon or not...I did...and it caused me to get the worst ending (For me).
Syanna gives Detlaf ''sexiness'' and intoxicates his brain like malicious women do...
Dettlaff did nothing wrong out of his own volition.
The Duchess is foxy and cool,but Syanna..the ''tragic figure''... is utterly manipulative,vindictive and evil.
And you can't have Regis..the best character of them all getting anything but the best.
Even though Duchess Anna is hot...Regis is fam.
Syana manipulated Dettlaff and used his love for her to beguile him, using him to do evil at her behest. Dettlaff 100% deserves to live, for his sake as well as for Regis.
Syana deserves to die. She is the cause of it all, just because she had a ''sad childhood'', Anna would look away , ignoring the deaths of innocent people just for the sake of Syana, her love for her sister blinds her to her evil.
Syana is the cause of so many deaths and yet she is allowed to continue with no repercussions ? I shall not stand for that. Syana deserves to die and Regis will help Dettlaff to become a better person by means of working through his trauma.
They weren't five random people, they were the men who abused her as a CHILD.
@@Sageoftheforest7the incel is too busy seething at women to take that into account
I’ve made all 3 decisions before, but now I tend to let Dettlaff live.
I kill her every time. My dark vampire boy did not deserve the pain she put him through
For me it feels unfair to kill dettlaf while syanna goes unpunished. I wish there was option to kill detlaff for the attack on touissant (I cannot spell the name of the capital) while also sending syanna you death or jail for blackmailing a men into killing 4 people. The closest thing is to kill detlaff and let syanna die for killing her sister. But I don't like the implication that syanna would get away with everything if she decides not to kill her sister.
Dude, Syanna is in jail in the good ending, the hug was not a legal absolution. It boggles my mind how people did not get this
To be fair, killing Dettlaff is like killing a human to save 100 goldfish lives. We as humans like to think that killing us would be "undesputably" wrong but killing a literal immortal for the sake of those who are basically goldfish? Yeah I'll save the immortal over the goldfish thank you very much. The only reason why I haven't done it in the game is because I am a greedy fuck that can't say no to that sweet wine yard estate.
Except that in this scenario you are Geralt i.e. another goldfish and not an human, and the goldfish would 100% put the life of his fellow golfishes above that of an instable human who may end up causing the demise of endless golfishes over his life
He’s powerful but less intelligent than a goldfish. Even his unseen knows he’s trouble and asks Geralt and Regis to kill him.
@@lmd7369 He is not dumb by any means, he is capable of normal social interactions and even hid in an abandoned toy shop knowing that thieves would be unlikely to break into it as opposed to other abandoned buildings.
@@SockAccount111 And most humans are more capable of normal social interaction than him. So what’s your point? Dettlaff is simple-minded, driven by emotion, probably the least complex character in the entire game. He is a Khagmar 2.0, unwelcome amongst both humans and higher vampires (Both the duchess and the unseen elder want him dead). A sore loser. There was another vampire in Novigrad who committed murders, but at least that one had a twisted logic in his understanding of morality. Dettlaff started a massacre simply because a female human hurt his feelings, that’s the lamest reason ever to commit genocide for. He brings shame to his species. A higher vampire? More like a brainless beast. For the sake of humanity you should kill dettlaff for he’s a dangerous monster. For the sake of higher vampires, you should also kill Dettlaff, for he brings trouble and breaks their peace.
Who thinks vampires will become the main threat, with 2nd gen of lycanthropy based Witchers to hunt them since most other monsters and Witchers have died off