Talk:Where the Cat and Wolf Play.../@comment-79.227.46.232-20170207024841/@comment-25411405-20170825162004

 This isn't as morally ambiguous as it sound, if you follow some rules to make your judgment.

 The utmost rule is, who has agency? This means, who is free to make their own decisions?

 The townsfolk are subjects of the Honorton alderman. They and their families could be subject to arbitrary punishment if they don't follow the alderman, so they have no agency what-so-ever.

 The Honorton alderman might have at least some agency. I assume the alderman must deal with the leshen, because otherwise it could decimate or destroy the village, so in this the alderman does not have any agency with regards to dealing with the leshen; he must hire a witcher.

 During his research, Geralt states, while entering what I assume to be the alderman's office, "Somebody's well off. Especially for Velen" So the aldermen enjoys at least the trappings of wealth. When Geralt finds the alderman in the barn, his description is, “Imperial mustache, plump cheeks... important man”. Evidence that the alderman might have money, but nothing direct; only indirect evidence. But it is not unusually that the aldermen etc. in Velen, and elsewhere in Witcher 3 always live a bit better than their subjects, to that he's not starving is practically to be expected.

 But Geralt does not find any money anywhere in the village so maybe the alderman, and conversely the village, was not wealthy, and there was no money was found. While traveling through Velen we've discovered that the Bloody Baron collects taxes from the surrounding villages, so we can assume that the alderman of Honorton too would be subject to these taxes. This might explain there being no money in the village.

 In the worst case, the alderman has money hidden away somewhere, but refuses to pay Gaeton with it. That would mean that dealing Gaeton down for the contract, and after the contract was fulfilled, offering to pay only a fraction of that, would be simply greed. This is possible, but that would make the alderman the responsible person in the village. The townsfolk however, having no agency themselves, cannot be held responsible. So it is not fair for Gaeton to kill them too. He could have as easily said to them, “you had no choice in this, so I do not hold you responsible, go and let me deal with the alderman, otherwise you will share his fate”. That would be fair. However, Gaeton only listened to his anger and was not concerned with the facts. He killed everyone, even the villages where were not involved, and only spared Millie because she reminded him of his sister.

 Gaeton could have required the alderman to show the money ahead of time, especially after they bartered so much before coming to an agreement, but he didn't. He could have let the simple folk leave unharmed, but he vented his anger on them, although they had no choice in the situation, and Gaeton admitted himself that this was not the first time that he had killed innocents in a fit of rage.

 Letting Gaeton go would make Geralt responsible for any harm Gaeton caused from that point onward. Maybe he could have bound Gaeton to him to keep an eye on him, but that doesn't sound reasonable, nor realistic. Besides, Gaeton doesn't really show any remorse, nor willingness to change for the better; just a kind of, “sucks to be me” attitude, too bad for the others”; the perpetual victim, although he has the most agency. That shows him to be responsible and dangerous.