In any RPG, the first run is the one that counts. You make choices relying on your instinct, personality and ideology, not on focusing to get a desired ending/outcome. I'd like to know which decisions you took, your reasons behind them and if you ultimately regretted them. Also, if you felt that any of these decisions were weird or out of place, be free to comment it as well.

I'l be first.

- Aryan La Valette: I killed him, but only because I really thought he wouldn't lay down his weapons. I challenged him to a duel to save his men. If only I knew he would actually surrender and save his castle, the choice would have been obvious.

- Side with Vernon Roche or Iorveth?: I hated Iorveth since the beginning. Arrogant, racist, murderer of innocents. Above all, just another Scoia'tael with delusions of grandeur. I chose Vernon to save Flotsam from the psychopath Bernard Loredo and, apart from liking Vernon, I was more focused on "saving the world" (or rather Temeria) than saving Triss. I never regretted siding with Vernon, even though it means working for the despicable King of Kaedwen and letting Saskia lose.

- Let Vernon do justice by his own hand?: No. Letting Kaedwen fall into disarray is the worst decision I could take. Even though Henselt is a real bastard and I empathized with the people of Vergen, Kaedwen annexing Upper Aedirn is the best thing that could have happened to the North. A minor evil for a greater good. After the war with Nilfgaard - which was pretty obvious at that time that it would happen, Vergen could always rebel to claim independence.

- Help Vernon or rescue Triss?: Obviously Vernon. It was painfully obvious since the beginning of The Witcher 2 that the writers would never dispose of Merigold. They are either in love with that character or couldn't think of a way of moving the story forward without her being the eternal lover of Geralt of Rivia - something that pissed everyone who chose Shani on the first game. Or both. In any case, I couldn't let Vernon die or suffer after so many adventures with him, as I couldn't let a child suffer. Dethmold's death was just another incentive on aiding Roche.

- Give Anais to Redania or Temeria? Redania. Giving it to Temeria is, as Roche puts it, sparkling a Civil War. Risking that for the chance of preserving Temeria's independence is not worth it.

- Let Sile get killed? YEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Screw that bitch.

- Kill the dragon? ...yes. Though I immediately regretted it and loaded a previous save to let Saskia live. Who cares if she's a threat to all living beings?

- Kill Letho?: To be honest, I felt bad for him. Humans treated him like cow dung, the schools of the Viper had been all closed and his friends were all hiding in fear of persecution. The world and the Emperor turned him into a Kingslayer. Though he was incentivized by the Emperor, he never actually had a choice. He did it all so he and his brothers wouldn't suffer anymore. Above all, he took care of Yennefer even when he didn't have to, specially when Yen's character can be frustrating.
So no, I couldn't kill Letho as much as I couldn't kill Berengar.

Aryan: I killed him, with the dialogue option that would force Geralt to fight against his entire battalion of men. I wanted to get the character attribute Executioner. And to see his mother's *tits* in the torture chamber.

Roche/Iorveth: Someone in Flotsam, tells us that Thaller (a character from 1), sends us his regards, a package gift, and the advice to listen Roche in every thing, because he is a patriot (has Temeria's best interest in mind). Anyone having played through 1, knows that Thaller is a very resourceful and dependable man, knows his two cents, and listening to him in either game, proves to be a good thing (in 1 he is innocent, and works for the conspiracy to be unveiled). Also, the bald bastard who framed us, is "adopted" by Iorveth, who hides him and offers to him protection and passage through secret elven paths. And Iorveth's Scoietael helped him DURING the assassination of Foltest. So capturing him, throwing a feast, and choosing Roche, would seem the only logical thing to do. Even if he was duped as we later learn, he played an active role in us getting devastated by that huge shitstorm of 2's scenario.

Henselt, king of Kaedwen, and almost of Aedirn too, in Roche path: I let Roche do him in. Ok about murdering the troops of his political enemy, Roche, who was trying to stage a coup in foreign country, but when he raped Ves, which most importantly had been our girlfriend, the bastard signed his death sentence at that very instant. Also, i find it good punishment in real life too, murder, for rape. Could do nothing else. Sorry.

Vernor/Triss: Vernon, for sure. I HAD to save that cute, innocent, unfortunate child, which saw too much horror before her eyes. Besides, i still have not forgotten Triss about not trusting us earlier with the Lodge's plans (mirror incident in 1). And in this way, you get the most powerful steel sword in game (Forgotten Vran's).

Give Annais to: General Natalis. The king died of OUR incompetence (willing or not, WE had been his bodyguard during his final hours; letting his country, and most importantly his last child, become tools to Radovid, was highly inappropriate and unacceptable, besides Radovid already "stole" the Order from Temeria and married Striga in my save).

Sille: I let her die and enjoyed the spectacle. She was deceiving us all the time; and she never surrendered herself to our "sword".

Dragon: I killed it. In this path, you cannot cure it. I wanted the Lodge gone. Letting the dragon loose under its control, would do nothing but hinder my wish.

Letho: As he said himself, favors had been already repaid in full, in act 1. That man, agent of Nilfgaard, even though a former friend, had no moral problem, hindrance or slightest inhibition, in faqing up Geralt's already hard and troubled life. A witcher, feared, loathed and disdained generally, branded as a kinglsayer, too? And from a former friend and companion, too? For me, the man signed his own death sentence, from the very end of the introduction, already. We drank vodka, like the friends we had been once, and i cut him down, fully buffed on potions, oils, and runes engraved on my sword. And i enjoyed it pretty much, to be honest.

Malena: I helped her. I generally helped nonhumans throughout the saga. But when she led me into a death trap to repay my kindness and run off, i cut her down once i found her. Anyone saying Geralt does not kill women, remember Renfri.

Rupert and Gridley. Surrendered them to the ghost, which was tortured and experimented on by them, while being alive.

Newboy: I let him keep his talisman, because carrying it lowers armor by 10%. Before boarding Roche's ship, though, i looted chests, his platoon attacked me, i killed everyone, and removed it off his corpse. Besides, as the Reavers almost revealed from slip of tongue, they tried to rape Yen, our former wife, during the golden dragon story.

Experiment: I let the two fools experiment on me. I was VERY curious as to why, from 1, each and every alchemist or physician, had been hellbent on examining a witcher... Only to discover he feels a hairy tongue when drinking alcohol!

Too true. The Scoia'tael path seems pretty illogical to me. Sadly, it's the one where CDP spent most of their resources, easter eggs and effort into. Meh, no apologies needed. According to Steam, 98% of all people who played TW2 killed Henselt. Ah, the price of that decision is too high, but it feels SO good. Like you said on another post, Radovid is the strongest ruler of the North. He will take good care of Temeria if we lend Anais to him. And I do mean lend, because sooner or later that little child will become one hell of a rebel, and then one hell of a Queen.
Giving the child to Natalis means the destruction of Temeria. Apart from it being divided, I wouldn't be surprised if Radovid and Henselt use their Southern neighbors as meat shields to slightly stop the momentum of Nilfgaard's advance. Only death awaits to those at the Southern side of the Pontar Valley and I couldn't allow Foltest's daughter to suffer a terrible death just in hopes of maintaining her and Temeria's freedom. I like to think that if I let Saskia live, Three Jackdaws will free her from her spell on The Witcher 3. Only time will tell how foolish I was. Can't say the same. The Kingslayers partly fulfilled the description of 'Witchmen' described in the Physiologus and by various mages throughout the books: they were deprived of all human feelings thanks to the mutations they received. This is stated on Serrit's notes, where he struggles to understand Geralt's personality and way of acting.
By taking Yennefer, they proved to be quite honorable. And that's a rare trait. Killing the kings? It was either that or die and letting the hiding Witchers suffer the same fate. Also, framing Geralt was never in his agenda. He nailed it on their first meeting 'That's what happens for playing the soldier, boy!' Wait, what? When does he say that? I've always let those 2 guys make experiments on me, but it always seems that nothing happens. In fact, I thought it was an unfinished quest.

Strongest, unfortunately, pretty rarely, if ever at all, means just, and/or ethical. Forgot his early dealings with Salamandra already? To use them as a tool for less evil aspirations, such as causing little chaos in Temeria to later step in as savior neighbor? Or him adopting the order? Forget already how malicious this particular order is? And not only because of its manipulation of Salamandra! Even in the stories, guys are detestable, as the White Rose. Its honorable members, like Eyck, are not even "loved" by others around them. Siegfried in modern order was kind of a likeable sort, and even then, in certain circles hated, too. No one likes the Order. And double so, those who deal with it. In my earliest games, i ALWAYS killed Adda. Only reason i kept her alive now, is for Foltest's, and Witcher 3 scenario's sake, nothing more. Ah, now you remind me that you forgot out of your interesting conversation, the what did you do with Striga matter. A major choice. 3 Jackdaws was a mutated dragon that could also polymorph into a man. Don't think he has witcher abilities (curing curses), or mage abilities (casting spells for removing curses). And even if he would by some extraordinary chance meet Saskia and try to beat some sense into her, most probably those old hags would make her attack him or something. They think abhorrently, to the point that "better break it than loose its control" wouldn't seem too strange or unexpected. After all, Phillipa told Geralt to "thrust the dragon's heart with the consecrated dagger"; too fortunate that instead of that, he touched her forehead with it and cured her. "Grandma demoness" adviced him not for curing, but for killing her! (iorveth path) If i killed something that fits well in the description of "Monstrum: The portrayal of Witcher" or any other similar propagandist pamphlet, then i did a good work. Real witcher and real honor examples lies in other individuals of the "species". And put wholeheartedly their damn mightiest effort in, to prove those pieces of racist literature byproducts of hate and misunderstanding issues from those who scribbled them. This quest is not unfinished. If i remember well, in Iorveth path, you meet those two again. And this about hairy tongue, Geralt himself complains in some dialogue or monologue, right now i do not remember exactly the point.

Exactly the reason I'm not risking the whole of Temeria to be raped and plundered because of Radovid's selfish interests. By giving Anais to him, he will do all in his power to protect it. If I handle it to Natalis, I risk signing Temeria's death sentence. Radovid would prefer to watch Temeria burn than save it if it's not in his power.

Didn't ask about Adda because it was a choice from the first Witcher. In any case, I saved her for 2 reasons: 1. Foltest's threats concerning his daughter are not to be taken lightly and 2. It was the right choice, morally speaking. I held no grudge against Foltest. All kings were assholes, but he was the lesser asshole. Killing his daughter and then plunging his realm into another never-ending war with Redania was a little too much suffering caused to a man whom I held no contempt. If Radovid benefited with that choice, well that's just collateral damage. The only sort of knowledge about golden dragons were legends, and Three Jackdaws never denied or confirmed any of them. What it was painfully clear is that he possessed a good control of Chaos. Like all dragons, he was a magical creature, but in his case he was mutated AND ancient. It is even slightly speculated that he could have cured Yen's infertility, but he didn't want to because she was happy with Geralt, and Geralt's is irreversible.

I don't doubt Saskia would attack him. What I doubt is that she will win.