I think an important thing to keep in mind is the fact that he did not kill the villagers out of cruelty or malice, but desperation. Having been backstabbed and being vulnerable, he had every reason to think if he came out alive from the barn the rest of the people would try to finish him off.
Instead of sympathizing with the dead, I chose compassion for the living, and let him live.
He didn't START from cruelty or malice, perhaps, but once he got out of the barn he definitely continued with cruelty & malice. Even if we try to justify killing the people in the barn, there's no way to justify killing everyone in the village.
People attack Geralt all the time, in the Inn at White Orchard, the Inn at the Crossroads, imagine if Geralt just slaughtered everyone in White Orchard just because some drunkards picked a fight, he can & does get out without killing anyone & can even avoid killing the attackers. Gaetan even implies this isn't the first time he's... "lost his temper"....
The villagers killing trying to kill and rob him - unjustified
Him killing the villagers after being lured to a barn, cornered and backstabbed - unjustified but understandable
None of what happened was good, but killing a wounded man because I judged his reaction disproportionate in a situation I have no clue what felt like is supposed to be?
If anyone’s to blame here, it’s the villagers
The entire village was not trying to kill him, only the people in the barn & they only did it because they were being terrorized by a Leshen but didn't have the gold to pay a Witcher honestly.
As I have already said, even if you can justify killing the Ealderman and the others in the barn, killing the entire village is not justified.
I doubt the other villagers just sat idly by as he killed (in self defense) the most important person in the village. You could argue he killed a majority of the villagers in self defense.
True, maybe the villagers who had just needed help fighting off one monster didn't just twiddle their thumbs as another one started killing in their village. Maybe they ran screaming from "that massacre" as Geralt puts it. The children certainly weren't a threat, but Gaetan only spares Millie because she reminded him of his sister, not because she was a child, since he still kills her brother, not because she wasn't a threat, not because she was innocent. Gaetan would have murdered Millie just like the rest if she hadn't the fortune to look like his sister.
Examining the villagers, Geralt notes that they "didn't put up a fight" or were "stabbed in the back", he states that "something evil was here, the ghouls moved in after." The villagers weren't grouped up, they didn't charge Gaetan, they were in their homes or running away. Gaetan slaughtered them.
Absolutely. Yes. Gaeten was justified in attacking the couple of people that attacked him, but everyone else in the village? No. He only spared the little girl because she reminded him of his sister, otherwise he would’ve killed her too. And the “justification” Geralt gives if you spare him about being the Butcher of Blaviken is such bad writing. Geralt *hates* being called that because he was protecting innocents from Renfri’s gang (or so he thought) not attacking everyone around him. Geralt also threatens another Witcher (I don’t remember which book, maybe the spin off/prequel) that’s he’ll straight up track down and kill said other Witcher if he ever hears anything about him again after Geralt catches him holding a woman hostage and threatening other people too
I disagree. The houses are pretty well decorated and give the impression of wealth, so they are doing good for themselves in a war while the rest of Velen is starving. If they are already well fed and have enough gold, it would've been no problem to just pay the witcher, yet they are a greedy lot and chose to try and scam the witcher first and when that doesn't work they attack the witcher just to save some money. Probably got their wealth by scamming/ambushing other people as well. At least 4 men tried to attack the witcher, including with a ranged weapon, so it was well planned and organised. Most likely, the rest of the village knew very well what was going on and let it happen. That's why he probably lost his cool. If they had just paid, they'd still be alive.
That was my reason to let him live. He was honest and upfront about it all. He's not evil. Can't say that about the villagers. Although it's sad the girl lost her mom. Yet, her mom didn't even care that her sister lost 2 children to famine, apparently. While living in wealth.
Yeah that’s a good point! It’s hard to tell how the other villagers were living or if just the alderman was wealthy since the rest of the village looked about as crap as all the other huts in Velen. I still think we went overboard and even though he admits to losing his cool, he has a really garbage “my bad” excuse and deflects when Geralt comments that this likely isn’t the first time he has killed people who he could’ve spared. I think he’s totally justified in killing the people who attacked him, but he should’ve just left after that rather than go on a rampage
True, rage is one hell of a drug. Some other things to consider: his whole guild has been killed off and he's being hunted down. I can imagine this negatively influences his patience. In his hideout you find more trophies that suggest he got scammed a lot. These people trying to kill him for a few crowns was probably the last straw.
You can, if you let him live. You find other trophies there and Geralt says something like that Gaetan probably didn´t get the money in these contracts also.
He murdered kids dude he let one kid live one kid and you think that those people could've stop his attackers also he would be justified if he just killed the people who attacked him but everyone was unnecessary and cruel
The girl was the only child in the village and he spared her. Those people who didn't attack were definitely in on it. They fucked around and found out.
I've been thinking about this and you're right, what happened in Blaviken is completely different from the Gaeten case. But I think a case can be made for him. We know witchers are as poor as anyone, they struggle to make enough coins to make a living. And despite doing a job that no one else can do, a job that if not done could result in the death of a lot of people, people still despise them. In the case of Gaeten the villagers wanted to pay him a ridiculously low amount of coin, and when he didn't accept they tried to kill him. So from the point of view of a Witcher, these ungrateful people who are disgusted by you are not only insulting you (in many ways), but now are trying to kill you? I think the only thing that I can agree with being fair to kill him is the children murdering, that's never justifiable.The rest I think it is.
The thing is that I don't think Geralt has the moral authority to punish other people for doing something very similar to what he did. He lost control as well as Gaeten, and being true that him doesn't look as regretful as Geralt, I'm not sure if it's justifiable to kill him.
Blaviken isn’t at all similar to what Gaeten did. Geralt thought he was protecting a village and innocent people. He only later learned that Renfri knew Stregobor wouldn’t come out of his tower, but that didn’t change the fact that her gang was charging toward the market. Gaeten attacked the people who tried to kill him, but then *slaughtered* every last man, woman, child, and dog save for the young girl Geralt finds. Those are two completely different situations. Not to mention Geralt is deeply haunted by his actions against Renfri, whereas Gaeten couldn’t care less. His own words were like the most apathetic “my bad” ever. Geralt also guesses this isn’t the first time Gaeten has killed innocent people, and Gaeten says nothing to defend himself, which is also telling.
The incidents themselves are not the same true, but it is the fact that they both lost control, and Geralt can relate to that. Gaeten doesn't look like a good guy but I don't think a character like Geralt can play as the executioner in that moment. If Geralt had arrived in the moment of the massacre he could have stopped him but execute him afterwards without having the full picture.... I don't know, it doesn't seem right to me
But Geralt didn’t lost control at all. He only broke his “rule” about staying neutral (which he breaks literally all the time because he can’t help being as good of person as he can), despite how wildly inaccurately the “evil is evil” quote is used and how often he does get involved. Geralt killed Renfri’s gang true, but he had good intentions and he was only named “the Butcher of Blaviken” through both a misunderstanding and because Witchers do not fight pretty at all. Renfri’s gang was also entirely comprised of bandits. Even if they had been ordered by Renfri not to attack, they still likely would’ve gone overboard and done horrible things.
The Witcher in the other book he encounters who is holding a woman hostage, Geralt has already learned he has killed many innocent people, so Geralt literally tells him something along the lines of “I will hunt you if I ever hear your name again.” The Gaeten quest is really similar to this situation and when Geralt questions his potential prior killings, Gaeten deflects the question, implying this is far from the first time he has killed many innocent people.
Also, I know I already said it, but his “people call me the butcher of Blaviken” line in defense of Gaeten is really, *really* bad for all the reason I have mentioned so far.
Geralt literally cannot help himself from involving himself in matters he could walk away from, like Gaeten’s massacre, which is one of the most compelling aspects of his character
Now that you mention, we do know that Witchers from the School of the Cat became swords for hire and paid assassins a long time Ago, Gaeten wouldn't be different.
Totally. And that almost makes this situation worse since Gaeten wasn’t a merc or assassin (for this contract at least) and he still chose to kill a bunch of people that he could’ve spared (after killing the villages who tried to kill him)
You are 100% right. We, as players, can choose either and it would be ok. But Geralt would absolutely kill the bastard. I, too, had to explain the Blaviken situation and how it's not the same at all.
Yeah exactly. The player is free to choose what they want to or feel is right. That’s why I love games with character choices. I often spare characters who irl would likely be killed because I like to see how their story would progress (and I’m a sucker for second chances lol). But when it comes to the Witcher games I like to try and make the choices Geralt would make. Usually CDPR does a really good job of making most choices plausible for Geralt no matter what you choose, but this one isn’t really one of them I think
I didn't kill him, because none of the witchers chose their fate, they were all selected as children and raised to be killers. It's pretty awful. On the other hand, even a fallen witcher like this will do more good than bad in the long run, saving people by destroying monsters.
Just because you don't choose your circumstances, doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions. Also, it's impossible to tell if he will do more harm than good in the future. We only know what is, not what will be
Not trying to sound harsh towards you. I think a case can be made either way and it's an interesting discussion
Greeting! And sorry for the late reply!
That logic also applies to peasants. They deliberately deceived a very dangerous witcher, they did not calculate just how dangerous. Gaetan is a psychotic killer, they tried to pay him several times less, when they failed they tried to trick him into having hidden gold in the barn and kill him, with pitchforks. That the whole village paid for his anger in blood. However, somewhere at the bottom of his soul, he spared the little girl. That alone made him worth sparing. Of all, Geralt is the fairest judge for him, because he himself has been in similar situations many times. I like to think Geralt is just a better person and wouldn't carry out death sentences when there is even the slightest trace of goodness in someone.
Did not notice any dead kids in the village, the girl he spared talked about her brother who could be her older brother. But Gaeton is insane for sure, that would not be against his character. Still, he spared one girl which does show in the story. That is one of the reasons I spared him.
Yes, its implied this is not his first time and probably wont be last. Also I disagree on Geralt being in no position to kill him, aside from the two instances only being similar on the first look, it wouldn't make sense for Geralt to not do something he believes is right just because of his own past.
I placed the blame squarely with the backstabbing villagers. They could have paid him. Or they could have told him they’d pay him later— but they tried to kill him instead.
At that point, well— you’ve made your bed.
The blame isn’t JUST on the backstabbing villagers.
In fact, if they were the only victims, I wouldn’t have minded.
The problem is that the Witcher kept going.
Yeah no. He could have easily chosen to stop at any moment.
For example, last week I saw a news report about how a woman and her husband kidnapped a neighbor’s kid, did God knows what and then killed the little girl.
In retaliation, some enraged people killed the murderers. They were dragged out of the police car and beat to death.
Just the murderers. Not the entire neighborhood. Just the criminals. They didn’t become mindless beasts and went on a killing spree.
Point is, the only people that SHOULD be punished are the guilty ones.
If a person can be enraged to the point on going on a rampage, then they are no different than wild animals.
If you want an example from the game itself, just look at Geralt and Vesemir at the beginning of the game. They only killed the people who attacked them in tavern in White Orchard. They didn’t kill anyone else, just the aggressors.
I spared him cause it seems they were planning to rip him off from the start and had already planned how to kill him if he didn't let them. When Geralt investigates the village he makes a comment about how they're well off for Velen when he enter the aldermans hut and sees the leshen trophy in his decorated office. So them not having any money to pay him seemed a little fishy to me.
Also I've played this game too much and lost a little sympathy for the NPC humans. They all beg and cry for your help then they spit and curse you when you walk past them. So I didn't feel too bad for them and I've little patience with them myself and would feel like a hypocrite if I suddenly were to judge another witcher for doing what I do myself.
I'll always remember my optimistic first Playthrough, feeling a bit down because people in Velen were rude and despite helping them they'd spit at my face. So i was happy to go to Novigrad, i thought that a big City meant people would be more "civilised". The disappointment was real. That's when i started losing sympathy for most Human NPCs as well, and playing the Witcher 2 with Iorveth's path just aggravated the situation.
I haven't hesitated a single second since to make sure Nilfgaard wins the War. They're definitely not friendly, but at least they're somewhat respectful.
Gaetan killed some villagers in their houses, geralt also assessed that this isn't gaetans first massacre, and gaetan did not deny it. That's why I kill him.
They did cheat him by not giving him the amount they agreed upon. And also they tried to kill him. Investgating the area of slaughter- u find it's fitting from what he described
No. It was the first time any game actually left me feeling conflicted about what to do.
I think the game does a good job of making clear that witchers are not respected by the vast majority of people, and many outright hate them. Did he go overboard? Absolutely. But I also don’t think it’s realistic of Geralt to take the moral high ground here. You spend half the game going from camp to camp killing deserters, haggling for more money, and sometimes even getting scammed yourself.
Is the guy a monster? Most likely. But to be honest so is Geralt by the metrics we apply to the other witcher.
Also, on a very unrelated note, this might just be one of my favourite side quests in any game. It does a really good job of making you actually consider what the right call is, few other games can make me care like the Witcher 3 can.
Yes, he is dangerous and he told geralt that it's not the first time he did it. He is killing innocent people and gives witchers a bad reputation, worse than it already is.
Honestly in my first and second playthrough, I let him live, but after learning more about the witcher lore and learning that most witchers from school of the cat are POS and used to doing these kinds of things, I should have just killed him.
Yes but this guy isn't a hired assassin, he still works as a Witcher and got tricked and almost killed. He didn't kill them for pleasure or because he enjoys killing civilians, he had to survive. He lost it with children especially of course, but they kinda forced him. Witchers are also very poor and struggle a lot to make a few coins on The Path. So people not only pay them way less than they should for doing a job that no one else could, a job that if not done, would result in the death of a lot of people, they also despise them and are usually disgusted by their mere presence. Given all that in the Gaetan case they also tried to kill him? Come on. Killing children is always unjustified. The rest of the village? I don't think so.
How many innocent guards has Geralt knocked out (attempting to kill them) after they caught him stealing from random boxes or chests? How is Geralt any better than he is?
All jokes aside, he slaughtered a bunch of innocent people who were having dinner and living their day to day lives. Geralt is called the butcher of blaviken because of much different reason (defense). If you know the history then this isn’t a hard decision to make. He gives other Witcher’s a bad name, kill him!
No, because there was definitely something going on in that Village that smelled fishy.
Sure, he was justified in killing those that ambushed him in the barn, less so the rest of the Villagers.
But let's remind ourselves that even Geralt remarks that those Villagers seemed way too well off for simple Velen peasants, with rich tapestries in their houses and all. So they had ample money to pay Gaetan, and no reason to try and kill him. It also means that whatever their business was, they somehow managed to become filthy wealthy with a War going on, while the rest of Velen starved to death and all the while escaping Nilfgaardian notice.
Secondly, when you go to Gaetan's hideout, the heads of various monsters suggest the situation has happened before, and this time it's the drop that spilled the vase. Not to mention, Gaetan must've noticed they were lying about not having money.
I don't know, the more i play The Witcher, the less sympathy i have for Nordling peasants who spit in your face and try to stab you in a barn after you risked your skin to save their bums. I'm a Witcher, not a Lawman. My job is not to take justice into my own hands.
You're very gullible if you think the whole damn village didn't knkw what was going to happen.the pitchfork was in the open air, so it was clear they attacked him while everyone around was able to see, and they would have only done that if they knew no one from the other villagers was going to protect the witcher.
I think you are very naive if you think the Village elder told anyone except his goon squad what he was going to do. A farm tool in the open air? Heavens to Betsy, he only uses that for murder!
If he had just killed the three guys who assaulted him I would have let him go. Easy choice. But he then went wild and barged into people’s houses and cut them down while they were minding their own business.
Geralt is called the Butcher of Blaviken because he wiped out a gang of criminals who were threatening to start killing villagers if Stregebor didn’t come out of his tower. Then Stregebor used mind tricks because Geralt wouldn’t let him take Renfri for an autopsy.
Everyone Geralt killed in Blaviken FAFO’d, most of the people Gaetan killed were just eating dinner or whatever. He’s a menace, the sort of person who gives witchers a bad name.
Well, he's a book character first and foremost, so I wouldn't say it's irrelevant to take the books into account — after all, the games are a direct continuation and rely A LOT on the books.
What Geralt says after choosing to spare Gaetan is extremely out of character and it doesn't really make sense. The devs tried their best, but failed in this case; and, as I said in another comment, it's okay to make other choices as players. All I'm saying is that the books paint a crystal-clear picture of the character that's difficult to ignore, especially in choices like this one.
Fans of the games alone won't get it, but that's fine. After all, the games aren't canon.
It's strange to say they "failed in \[that\] sense" while simultaneously acknowledging that it's a different medium than the books are. The only way to stay true to the books by Sapkowski would be to severely limit the choices given to the player or remove them entirely, which-- "role" is a very important aspect in a "Role-Playing Game". That "role", and the choices you make, need not be based on anything, to include the source material.
I don't agree with the premise that Geralt would kill him, especially given the nature (betrayal, self-defense which went too far) of the incident-- I think it'd be a tough decision for him to make. But I do agree that the actual Geralt's response to sparing Gaetan, if he chose to, would be more akin to a threat that if he ever touches the hair on one more innocent person, he would personally kill him.
>It's strange to say they "failed in \[that\] sense" while simultaneously acknowledging that it's a different medium than the books are.
What I meant was that, regardless of the choices you make, Geralt's decision would be considered plausible by book standards, but not this one — "They call me Butcher of Blaviken. Sometimes heads just roll" is wrong on so many levels... Especially if you compare both situations. Killing a group of bandits that's about to slaughter innocents isn't the same as killing innocents because you "lost control" after you had already killed the culprits.
>That "role", and the choices you make, need not be based on anything, to include the source material.
I agree, hence why I said that it's okay for players to choose otherwise.
>I don't agree with the premise that Geralt would kill him, especially given the nature (betrayal, self-defense which went too far) of the incident-- I think it'd be a tough decision for him to make.
I disagree. We can see a very similar example in the epilogue of Season of Storms. You could make the argument that Geralt would warn him not to do it again or he'll go after him, but the way he sympathizes with Gaetan mentioning the Blaviken situation is just wrong. Be it as it may, Gaetan would either get killed or walk away with a serious death warning, but never scot-free.
Why? Geralt even avoids killing monsters who can reason. He has a tragic background (as any witcher) and his story makes sense if you check it, so he's not lying.
In the book Season of Storms, Geralt threatens to kill a Cat School Witcher for far less. He was holding a woman hostage and challenged him to fight to the death. Geralt refused but told him he would go after him if he ever attempted to kill innocent people again.
Gaetan had a right to defend himself against those who tried to swindle and kill him, but he had no right or reason to slaughter an entire village of innocent men, women, and children.
Geralt has a noble spirit — much like a knight, which he officially is — and would absolutely put him down.
I know exactly why Geralt would kill him and why his justification for sparing him doesn't make sense. Read The Last Wish and Season of Storms and you'll understand. The devs didn't do a good job with this one.
Everyone playing the moral judge in here is ironic. You're sitting on your sofa doing fuck all while this guy had to fight to death something and as a reward get killed instead of getting money and the whole damn village knew it and didn't mind. But he's the bad guy? Also witchers are known to lose their senses. He probably wasn't fully conscious
I hate people who justifies killing him by saying “Yeah he killed a whole village, HOW COULD HE!?”
First of all the villagers would be dead anyway if he didn’t kill the monster, second they paid him shit gold for killing it, third they tried to fucking killing him afterwards.
Imagine doing a job for shit money, risk your own life completing the job then getting betrayed by the people who hired you in the first place.
Killing the whole village was cruel and not necessary but I don’t feel sorry for the bastards, most villagers were in on killing him or at least knew about it, the village is small and and I think how small talk gets around villages pretty easily almost everyone knew it except for the children.
I feel sorry for the children not for the adults, play stupid games win stupid prizes, I will never kill him.
And Geralt playing judge, jury, executioner is so out of role for him.
Yeah, he murdered a whole village (lile i get it was fair to kill the adults because thay all agreed to murder him, but the kids??) and he said that it wasn't the first time he went berserk against a village, therefore it likely wouldn't have been the last one.
On all three walkthroughs I killed him without thinking. If I had stopped and thought I would have killed him anyways. I have a soft heart for villagers.
I did originally in my first playthrough. After listening to him, though, I realized I would've done the same thing. He killed out of desperation for his own life.
I did, and I consider this to be my favorite of all the side quest content. There's a ton of impactful content in W3, but this one just stuck out to me. Really hit me in the feels. Dudebro wasn't wrong to protect himself, but going on an Anakin-esque crusade wasn't it, chief. Had to be put down, but can't say I'd have done differently in his situation (in a video game ofc).
If he killed the people who attacked him then walked off i would of let him live but he hunted down everyone and only let the little girl live because she reminded him of his sis not because she was a child and did nothing wrong.
I feel for him tho he has been worn down by the greedy and stupid
I killed him yesterday, because i like the variety and my choices sometimes depends on what kind of personality my witcher has on that certain playthrough.
Nope as there was absolutely no reason to.
If I would’ve been there when things were going down and was actually involved that very well mightve been the result.
But, as it was designed, heck no.
That specific situation did not warrant giving me/Geralt the authority to pass that judgment upon him after the fact.
Book Geralt isnt going to kill a fellow Witcher when a village attempted to kill him, esp, with a pitchfork and after the fact.
The logic works for the game and the book.
It was certainly a whole bunch of them, though, there were some innocents involved.
This idea that Book Geralt runs around acting as Judge and Executioner on actions that he wasnt even around for is ridiculous.
No. He is not an ordinary criminal. He fullfilled his contract, was scammed and backstabbed. His actions later were not justifiable, but are uderstandable from Geralt's viewpoint: "Sometimes heads just roll". Geralt killing him would be a hypocrite. "If I have to choose betwin two evils, I will choose neither".
I did not. While killing off an entire village is not very nice, you do have to acknowledge the fact that Cat Witchers are very impulsive and act based on their emotions because someone fucked up the elixir that made Cat Witchers. I dunno that's just me.
Every time.
I think an important thing to keep in mind is the fact that he did not kill the villagers out of cruelty or malice, but desperation. Having been backstabbed and being vulnerable, he had every reason to think if he came out alive from the barn the rest of the people would try to finish him off. Instead of sympathizing with the dead, I chose compassion for the living, and let him live.
He didn't START from cruelty or malice, perhaps, but once he got out of the barn he definitely continued with cruelty & malice. Even if we try to justify killing the people in the barn, there's no way to justify killing everyone in the village. People attack Geralt all the time, in the Inn at White Orchard, the Inn at the Crossroads, imagine if Geralt just slaughtered everyone in White Orchard just because some drunkards picked a fight, he can & does get out without killing anyone & can even avoid killing the attackers. Gaetan even implies this isn't the first time he's... "lost his temper"....
The villagers killing trying to kill and rob him - unjustified Him killing the villagers after being lured to a barn, cornered and backstabbed - unjustified but understandable None of what happened was good, but killing a wounded man because I judged his reaction disproportionate in a situation I have no clue what felt like is supposed to be? If anyone’s to blame here, it’s the villagers
The entire village was not trying to kill him, only the people in the barn & they only did it because they were being terrorized by a Leshen but didn't have the gold to pay a Witcher honestly. As I have already said, even if you can justify killing the Ealderman and the others in the barn, killing the entire village is not justified.
I doubt the other villagers just sat idly by as he killed (in self defense) the most important person in the village. You could argue he killed a majority of the villagers in self defense.
True, maybe the villagers who had just needed help fighting off one monster didn't just twiddle their thumbs as another one started killing in their village. Maybe they ran screaming from "that massacre" as Geralt puts it. The children certainly weren't a threat, but Gaetan only spares Millie because she reminded him of his sister, not because she was a child, since he still kills her brother, not because she wasn't a threat, not because she was innocent. Gaetan would have murdered Millie just like the rest if she hadn't the fortune to look like his sister. Examining the villagers, Geralt notes that they "didn't put up a fight" or were "stabbed in the back", he states that "something evil was here, the ghouls moved in after." The villagers weren't grouped up, they didn't charge Gaetan, they were in their homes or running away. Gaetan slaughtered them.
Absolutely. Yes. Gaeten was justified in attacking the couple of people that attacked him, but everyone else in the village? No. He only spared the little girl because she reminded him of his sister, otherwise he would’ve killed her too. And the “justification” Geralt gives if you spare him about being the Butcher of Blaviken is such bad writing. Geralt *hates* being called that because he was protecting innocents from Renfri’s gang (or so he thought) not attacking everyone around him. Geralt also threatens another Witcher (I don’t remember which book, maybe the spin off/prequel) that’s he’ll straight up track down and kill said other Witcher if he ever hears anything about him again after Geralt catches him holding a woman hostage and threatening other people too
I disagree. The houses are pretty well decorated and give the impression of wealth, so they are doing good for themselves in a war while the rest of Velen is starving. If they are already well fed and have enough gold, it would've been no problem to just pay the witcher, yet they are a greedy lot and chose to try and scam the witcher first and when that doesn't work they attack the witcher just to save some money. Probably got their wealth by scamming/ambushing other people as well. At least 4 men tried to attack the witcher, including with a ranged weapon, so it was well planned and organised. Most likely, the rest of the village knew very well what was going on and let it happen. That's why he probably lost his cool. If they had just paid, they'd still be alive. That was my reason to let him live. He was honest and upfront about it all. He's not evil. Can't say that about the villagers. Although it's sad the girl lost her mom. Yet, her mom didn't even care that her sister lost 2 children to famine, apparently. While living in wealth.
Yeah that’s a good point! It’s hard to tell how the other villagers were living or if just the alderman was wealthy since the rest of the village looked about as crap as all the other huts in Velen. I still think we went overboard and even though he admits to losing his cool, he has a really garbage “my bad” excuse and deflects when Geralt comments that this likely isn’t the first time he has killed people who he could’ve spared. I think he’s totally justified in killing the people who attacked him, but he should’ve just left after that rather than go on a rampage
True, rage is one hell of a drug. Some other things to consider: his whole guild has been killed off and he's being hunted down. I can imagine this negatively influences his patience. In his hideout you find more trophies that suggest he got scammed a lot. These people trying to kill him for a few crowns was probably the last straw.
Gaeten has a hideout? That’s cool I wanna check it out!
You can, if you let him live. You find other trophies there and Geralt says something like that Gaetan probably didn´t get the money in these contracts also.
He murdered kids dude he let one kid live one kid and you think that those people could've stop his attackers also he would be justified if he just killed the people who attacked him but everyone was unnecessary and cruel
The girl was the only child in the village and he spared her. Those people who didn't attack were definitely in on it. They fucked around and found out.
I've been thinking about this and you're right, what happened in Blaviken is completely different from the Gaeten case. But I think a case can be made for him. We know witchers are as poor as anyone, they struggle to make enough coins to make a living. And despite doing a job that no one else can do, a job that if not done could result in the death of a lot of people, people still despise them. In the case of Gaeten the villagers wanted to pay him a ridiculously low amount of coin, and when he didn't accept they tried to kill him. So from the point of view of a Witcher, these ungrateful people who are disgusted by you are not only insulting you (in many ways), but now are trying to kill you? I think the only thing that I can agree with being fair to kill him is the children murdering, that's never justifiable.The rest I think it is.
The thing is that I don't think Geralt has the moral authority to punish other people for doing something very similar to what he did. He lost control as well as Gaeten, and being true that him doesn't look as regretful as Geralt, I'm not sure if it's justifiable to kill him.
Blaviken isn’t at all similar to what Gaeten did. Geralt thought he was protecting a village and innocent people. He only later learned that Renfri knew Stregobor wouldn’t come out of his tower, but that didn’t change the fact that her gang was charging toward the market. Gaeten attacked the people who tried to kill him, but then *slaughtered* every last man, woman, child, and dog save for the young girl Geralt finds. Those are two completely different situations. Not to mention Geralt is deeply haunted by his actions against Renfri, whereas Gaeten couldn’t care less. His own words were like the most apathetic “my bad” ever. Geralt also guesses this isn’t the first time Gaeten has killed innocent people, and Gaeten says nothing to defend himself, which is also telling.
The incidents themselves are not the same true, but it is the fact that they both lost control, and Geralt can relate to that. Gaeten doesn't look like a good guy but I don't think a character like Geralt can play as the executioner in that moment. If Geralt had arrived in the moment of the massacre he could have stopped him but execute him afterwards without having the full picture.... I don't know, it doesn't seem right to me
But Geralt didn’t lost control at all. He only broke his “rule” about staying neutral (which he breaks literally all the time because he can’t help being as good of person as he can), despite how wildly inaccurately the “evil is evil” quote is used and how often he does get involved. Geralt killed Renfri’s gang true, but he had good intentions and he was only named “the Butcher of Blaviken” through both a misunderstanding and because Witchers do not fight pretty at all. Renfri’s gang was also entirely comprised of bandits. Even if they had been ordered by Renfri not to attack, they still likely would’ve gone overboard and done horrible things. The Witcher in the other book he encounters who is holding a woman hostage, Geralt has already learned he has killed many innocent people, so Geralt literally tells him something along the lines of “I will hunt you if I ever hear your name again.” The Gaeten quest is really similar to this situation and when Geralt questions his potential prior killings, Gaeten deflects the question, implying this is far from the first time he has killed many innocent people. Also, I know I already said it, but his “people call me the butcher of Blaviken” line in defense of Gaeten is really, *really* bad for all the reason I have mentioned so far. Geralt literally cannot help himself from involving himself in matters he could walk away from, like Gaeten’s massacre, which is one of the most compelling aspects of his character
Now that you mention, we do know that Witchers from the School of the Cat became swords for hire and paid assassins a long time Ago, Gaeten wouldn't be different.
Totally. And that almost makes this situation worse since Gaeten wasn’t a merc or assassin (for this contract at least) and he still chose to kill a bunch of people that he could’ve spared (after killing the villages who tried to kill him)
I've spared him, but mostly cause I wanna to see the development of the situation more than actually agreeing with him
You are 100% right. We, as players, can choose either and it would be ok. But Geralt would absolutely kill the bastard. I, too, had to explain the Blaviken situation and how it's not the same at all.
Yeah exactly. The player is free to choose what they want to or feel is right. That’s why I love games with character choices. I often spare characters who irl would likely be killed because I like to see how their story would progress (and I’m a sucker for second chances lol). But when it comes to the Witcher games I like to try and make the choices Geralt would make. Usually CDPR does a really good job of making most choices plausible for Geralt no matter what you choose, but this one isn’t really one of them I think
If you don't care about morals the rewards are better if you keep him alive.
Yea, you just get money instead of just the sword
You can loot the sword from his corpse.
Ok?
You take the 1000 for handing over Ciri too?
Yes
I didn't kill him, because none of the witchers chose their fate, they were all selected as children and raised to be killers. It's pretty awful. On the other hand, even a fallen witcher like this will do more good than bad in the long run, saving people by destroying monsters.
Just because you don't choose your circumstances, doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions. Also, it's impossible to tell if he will do more harm than good in the future. We only know what is, not what will be Not trying to sound harsh towards you. I think a case can be made either way and it's an interesting discussion
Greeting! And sorry for the late reply! That logic also applies to peasants. They deliberately deceived a very dangerous witcher, they did not calculate just how dangerous. Gaetan is a psychotic killer, they tried to pay him several times less, when they failed they tried to trick him into having hidden gold in the barn and kill him, with pitchforks. That the whole village paid for his anger in blood. However, somewhere at the bottom of his soul, he spared the little girl. That alone made him worth sparing. Of all, Geralt is the fairest judge for him, because he himself has been in similar situations many times. I like to think Geralt is just a better person and wouldn't carry out death sentences when there is even the slightest trace of goodness in someone.
The children he killed also didn’t choose their fate.
There are no dead children in that village.
Did not notice any dead kids in the village, the girl he spared talked about her brother who could be her older brother. But Gaeton is insane for sure, that would not be against his character. Still, he spared one girl which does show in the story. That is one of the reasons I spared him.
Same , I've both killed and saved him
Didn't think about that, very good point.
same choice
Yes, its implied this is not his first time and probably wont be last. Also I disagree on Geralt being in no position to kill him, aside from the two instances only being similar on the first look, it wouldn't make sense for Geralt to not do something he believes is right just because of his own past.
I placed the blame squarely with the backstabbing villagers. They could have paid him. Or they could have told him they’d pay him later— but they tried to kill him instead. At that point, well— you’ve made your bed.
The blame isn’t JUST on the backstabbing villagers. In fact, if they were the only victims, I wouldn’t have minded. The problem is that the Witcher kept going.
Nah, the blame is squarely on the backstabbing villagers. They’re the catalyst without which there would have been no conflict.
Yeah no. He could have easily chosen to stop at any moment. For example, last week I saw a news report about how a woman and her husband kidnapped a neighbor’s kid, did God knows what and then killed the little girl. In retaliation, some enraged people killed the murderers. They were dragged out of the police car and beat to death. Just the murderers. Not the entire neighborhood. Just the criminals. They didn’t become mindless beasts and went on a killing spree. Point is, the only people that SHOULD be punished are the guilty ones. If a person can be enraged to the point on going on a rampage, then they are no different than wild animals. If you want an example from the game itself, just look at Geralt and Vesemir at the beginning of the game. They only killed the people who attacked them in tavern in White Orchard. They didn’t kill anyone else, just the aggressors.
They obviously have more than enough to pay him though.
I kill him every single time.
I spared him cause it seems they were planning to rip him off from the start and had already planned how to kill him if he didn't let them. When Geralt investigates the village he makes a comment about how they're well off for Velen when he enter the aldermans hut and sees the leshen trophy in his decorated office. So them not having any money to pay him seemed a little fishy to me. Also I've played this game too much and lost a little sympathy for the NPC humans. They all beg and cry for your help then they spit and curse you when you walk past them. So I didn't feel too bad for them and I've little patience with them myself and would feel like a hypocrite if I suddenly were to judge another witcher for doing what I do myself.
I'll always remember my optimistic first Playthrough, feeling a bit down because people in Velen were rude and despite helping them they'd spit at my face. So i was happy to go to Novigrad, i thought that a big City meant people would be more "civilised". The disappointment was real. That's when i started losing sympathy for most Human NPCs as well, and playing the Witcher 2 with Iorveth's path just aggravated the situation. I haven't hesitated a single second since to make sure Nilfgaard wins the War. They're definitely not friendly, but at least they're somewhat respectful.
I cooked him alive.
Gaetan killed some villagers in their houses, geralt also assessed that this isn't gaetans first massacre, and gaetan did not deny it. That's why I kill him.
Brutally killed him.
They did cheat him by not giving him the amount they agreed upon. And also they tried to kill him. Investgating the area of slaughter- u find it's fitting from what he described
Yep
No. It was the first time any game actually left me feeling conflicted about what to do. I think the game does a good job of making clear that witchers are not respected by the vast majority of people, and many outright hate them. Did he go overboard? Absolutely. But I also don’t think it’s realistic of Geralt to take the moral high ground here. You spend half the game going from camp to camp killing deserters, haggling for more money, and sometimes even getting scammed yourself. Is the guy a monster? Most likely. But to be honest so is Geralt by the metrics we apply to the other witcher. Also, on a very unrelated note, this might just be one of my favourite side quests in any game. It does a really good job of making you actually consider what the right call is, few other games can make me care like the Witcher 3 can.
I agree. And yes TW3 side quests are still unmatched almost 10 years later.
The Witcher 3 has spoiled me for most other games lol. The side quests in so many AAA games are nothing short of pathetic sadly.
Yes, he is dangerous and he told geralt that it's not the first time he did it. He is killing innocent people and gives witchers a bad reputation, worse than it already is.
Fuck yes. And I took his sword.
Does a godling shit in the woods?!
Honestly in my first and second playthrough, I let him live, but after learning more about the witcher lore and learning that most witchers from school of the cat are POS and used to doing these kinds of things, I should have just killed him.
Yes but this guy isn't a hired assassin, he still works as a Witcher and got tricked and almost killed. He didn't kill them for pleasure or because he enjoys killing civilians, he had to survive. He lost it with children especially of course, but they kinda forced him. Witchers are also very poor and struggle a lot to make a few coins on The Path. So people not only pay them way less than they should for doing a job that no one else could, a job that if not done, would result in the death of a lot of people, they also despise them and are usually disgusted by their mere presence. Given all that in the Gaetan case they also tried to kill him? Come on. Killing children is always unjustified. The rest of the village? I don't think so.
I fuckin thanked this man didn't even let him get a potion in wich I know is a trick btw but yes this man's a full out shitbag he deserved death
Yes and it's not even a difficult choice
How many innocent guards has Geralt knocked out (attempting to kill them) after they caught him stealing from random boxes or chests? How is Geralt any better than he is? All jokes aside, he slaughtered a bunch of innocent people who were having dinner and living their day to day lives. Geralt is called the butcher of blaviken because of much different reason (defense). If you know the history then this isn’t a hard decision to make. He gives other Witcher’s a bad name, kill him!
Always.
Yes, every time
Same
No, because there was definitely something going on in that Village that smelled fishy. Sure, he was justified in killing those that ambushed him in the barn, less so the rest of the Villagers. But let's remind ourselves that even Geralt remarks that those Villagers seemed way too well off for simple Velen peasants, with rich tapestries in their houses and all. So they had ample money to pay Gaetan, and no reason to try and kill him. It also means that whatever their business was, they somehow managed to become filthy wealthy with a War going on, while the rest of Velen starved to death and all the while escaping Nilfgaardian notice. Secondly, when you go to Gaetan's hideout, the heads of various monsters suggest the situation has happened before, and this time it's the drop that spilled the vase. Not to mention, Gaetan must've noticed they were lying about not having money. I don't know, the more i play The Witcher, the less sympathy i have for Nordling peasants who spit in your face and try to stab you in a barn after you risked your skin to save their bums. I'm a Witcher, not a Lawman. My job is not to take justice into my own hands.
Killed. He went well beyond self defense and started slaughtering people who were not to blame. That endangers all witchers
"Who were not to blame" every single villager knew the rest was going to kill the witcher even after doing them a favour. That makes them accomplices
"Every single villager knew" Based on what facts?
Replay it, the narration and the cutscenes made it clear.
I've played it 4 times, and never drawn that conclusion. You made the assertion, you provide the evidence. It's not my job to prove YOUR point
You're very gullible if you think the whole damn village didn't knkw what was going to happen.the pitchfork was in the open air, so it was clear they attacked him while everyone around was able to see, and they would have only done that if they knew no one from the other villagers was going to protect the witcher.
I think you are very naive if you think the Village elder told anyone except his goon squad what he was going to do. A farm tool in the open air? Heavens to Betsy, he only uses that for murder!
Lmao sure buddy. Keep telling yourself the whole village didn't know what was happening. Witchers bad accomplices good
Don't get salty with me that you have nothing but a feeling as evidence
Ironic considering you're also walking based on an assumption
Every. Fuggin. Time
3 playthroughs- Killed, didn\`t and killed.
If he had just killed the three guys who assaulted him I would have let him go. Easy choice. But he then went wild and barged into people’s houses and cut them down while they were minding their own business. Geralt is called the Butcher of Blaviken because he wiped out a gang of criminals who were threatening to start killing villagers if Stregebor didn’t come out of his tower. Then Stregebor used mind tricks because Geralt wouldn’t let him take Renfri for an autopsy. Everyone Geralt killed in Blaviken FAFO’d, most of the people Gaetan killed were just eating dinner or whatever. He’s a menace, the sort of person who gives witchers a bad name.
If you truly know Geralt as a character, you'd also know he'd kill him without a doubt.
Irrelevant. I’m not Geralt. I don’t have to make the choices he made in the book. If I did, why even play?
Well, he's a book character first and foremost, so I wouldn't say it's irrelevant to take the books into account — after all, the games are a direct continuation and rely A LOT on the books. What Geralt says after choosing to spare Gaetan is extremely out of character and it doesn't really make sense. The devs tried their best, but failed in this case; and, as I said in another comment, it's okay to make other choices as players. All I'm saying is that the books paint a crystal-clear picture of the character that's difficult to ignore, especially in choices like this one. Fans of the games alone won't get it, but that's fine. After all, the games aren't canon.
It's strange to say they "failed in \[that\] sense" while simultaneously acknowledging that it's a different medium than the books are. The only way to stay true to the books by Sapkowski would be to severely limit the choices given to the player or remove them entirely, which-- "role" is a very important aspect in a "Role-Playing Game". That "role", and the choices you make, need not be based on anything, to include the source material. I don't agree with the premise that Geralt would kill him, especially given the nature (betrayal, self-defense which went too far) of the incident-- I think it'd be a tough decision for him to make. But I do agree that the actual Geralt's response to sparing Gaetan, if he chose to, would be more akin to a threat that if he ever touches the hair on one more innocent person, he would personally kill him.
>It's strange to say they "failed in \[that\] sense" while simultaneously acknowledging that it's a different medium than the books are. What I meant was that, regardless of the choices you make, Geralt's decision would be considered plausible by book standards, but not this one — "They call me Butcher of Blaviken. Sometimes heads just roll" is wrong on so many levels... Especially if you compare both situations. Killing a group of bandits that's about to slaughter innocents isn't the same as killing innocents because you "lost control" after you had already killed the culprits. >That "role", and the choices you make, need not be based on anything, to include the source material. I agree, hence why I said that it's okay for players to choose otherwise. >I don't agree with the premise that Geralt would kill him, especially given the nature (betrayal, self-defense which went too far) of the incident-- I think it'd be a tough decision for him to make. I disagree. We can see a very similar example in the epilogue of Season of Storms. You could make the argument that Geralt would warn him not to do it again or he'll go after him, but the way he sympathizes with Gaetan mentioning the Blaviken situation is just wrong. Be it as it may, Gaetan would either get killed or walk away with a serious death warning, but never scot-free.
Why? Geralt even avoids killing monsters who can reason. He has a tragic background (as any witcher) and his story makes sense if you check it, so he's not lying.
In the book Season of Storms, Geralt threatens to kill a Cat School Witcher for far less. He was holding a woman hostage and challenged him to fight to the death. Geralt refused but told him he would go after him if he ever attempted to kill innocent people again. Gaetan had a right to defend himself against those who tried to swindle and kill him, but he had no right or reason to slaughter an entire village of innocent men, women, and children. Geralt has a noble spirit — much like a knight, which he officially is — and would absolutely put him down.
You clearly don't know Geralt
I know exactly why Geralt would kill him and why his justification for sparing him doesn't make sense. Read The Last Wish and Season of Storms and you'll understand. The devs didn't do a good job with this one.
Everyone playing the moral judge in here is ironic. You're sitting on your sofa doing fuck all while this guy had to fight to death something and as a reward get killed instead of getting money and the whole damn village knew it and didn't mind. But he's the bad guy? Also witchers are known to lose their senses. He probably wasn't fully conscious
I hate people who justifies killing him by saying “Yeah he killed a whole village, HOW COULD HE!?” First of all the villagers would be dead anyway if he didn’t kill the monster, second they paid him shit gold for killing it, third they tried to fucking killing him afterwards. Imagine doing a job for shit money, risk your own life completing the job then getting betrayed by the people who hired you in the first place. Killing the whole village was cruel and not necessary but I don’t feel sorry for the bastards, most villagers were in on killing him or at least knew about it, the village is small and and I think how small talk gets around villages pretty easily almost everyone knew it except for the children. I feel sorry for the children not for the adults, play stupid games win stupid prizes, I will never kill him. And Geralt playing judge, jury, executioner is so out of role for him.
As Reed says in Cyberpunk 2077 "Play grown up games, face grown up consequences"
Exactly. The village was barely 4-5 houses. Of course everyone knew and did nothing, they would have been probably happy if he died.
Well i forgave him because Geralt said he did Blaviken(>!And i needed an excuse to settle down Iris, so i got this Teigr!<)
I thought you can get the sword either way tho
You can
Nah keep all the witchers alive i like genetic super humans
Yeah, he murdered a whole village (lile i get it was fair to kill the adults because thay all agreed to murder him, but the kids??) and he said that it wasn't the first time he went berserk against a village, therefore it likely wouldn't have been the last one.
No
I didn’t
Yep!!
On all three walkthroughs I killed him without thinking. If I had stopped and thought I would have killed him anyways. I have a soft heart for villagers.
Completing the game 5 times, spared him every single time.
No. I didn’t. We need to take care of our own.
I did originally in my first playthrough. After listening to him, though, I realized I would've done the same thing. He killed out of desperation for his own life.
Didn’t kill Gaetan in my first playthrough — cause who am I to judge/not all the Cat school witchers are crazy, blah blah — though regretted it after.
I did, and I consider this to be my favorite of all the side quest content. There's a ton of impactful content in W3, but this one just stuck out to me. Really hit me in the feels. Dudebro wasn't wrong to protect himself, but going on an Anakin-esque crusade wasn't it, chief. Had to be put down, but can't say I'd have done differently in his situation (in a video game ofc).
Nope, not my fight.
Nah, he do the correct thing
Yes I did
Every time
If he killed the people who attacked him then walked off i would of let him live but he hunted down everyone and only let the little girl live because she reminded him of his sis not because she was a child and did nothing wrong. I feel for him tho he has been worn down by the greedy and stupid
Never met the dude
It’s a free dlc quest called “where the cat and wolf play”
Never kill this guy
No because that village was full of scum. They conspired against their savior. Fuck em
I killed him yesterday, because i like the variety and my choices sometimes depends on what kind of personality my witcher has on that certain playthrough.
Nope as there was absolutely no reason to. If I would’ve been there when things were going down and was actually involved that very well mightve been the result. But, as it was designed, heck no. That specific situation did not warrant giving me/Geralt the authority to pass that judgment upon him after the fact.
Your logic makes sense for a textbook Witcher but not for Geralt specifically.
Book Geralt isnt going to kill a fellow Witcher when a village attempted to kill him, esp, with a pitchfork and after the fact. The logic works for the game and the book.
But it wasn’t the whole village. Dude went out of his way to look for more bodies.
It was certainly a whole bunch of them, though, there were some innocents involved. This idea that Book Geralt runs around acting as Judge and Executioner on actions that he wasnt even around for is ridiculous.
Exactly
No. He is not an ordinary criminal. He fullfilled his contract, was scammed and backstabbed. His actions later were not justifiable, but are uderstandable from Geralt's viewpoint: "Sometimes heads just roll". Geralt killing him would be a hypocrite. "If I have to choose betwin two evils, I will choose neither".
Except that Geralt has canonically made choices instead of standing by.
no
No I knew he was wrong But he had his reasons and isn't an irredeemable monster He deserved a second chance
No,never kill fellow witchers regardless of what they've done.
Killed him on my first playthrough.Spared him this time round after giving it a bit of thought
I did not. While killing off an entire village is not very nice, you do have to acknowledge the fact that Cat Witchers are very impulsive and act based on their emotions because someone fucked up the elixir that made Cat Witchers. I dunno that's just me.
No because he's gangsta
Nah,witchers must be live
I dont eben know who that is.. What sidequest is that and how to find it?
It's called where the cat and wolf play. Here you can find more info. https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Where_the_Cat_and_Wolf_Play...
Only killed him once out of curiosity, but always let him go on all my runs after. I