maybe I was already too leftist when I played the game because keeping the sword from the elvish freedom fighter while the dude attacks him just seems petty and dickish and obviously taking a side in the conflict on the side of Roche.
Geralt has already stated he doesn’t really care about their quarrel, so just giving the dude his sword and let whatever happens happen just seemed like the more neutral (and less assholeish) of a move.
It's another trolley problem type thing; if you don't give him the sword you're obviously taking a side and just letting him die but you can pretend that you're not responsible; if you give him the sword you're in some sense "responsible" for whatever happens next, mainly that one of those two people is probably going to get killed. You're responsible in either instance, but it's easier to delude yourself you're not in the first.
I have to imagine a lot of it is weird brainworms about "nonviolence" despite playing a game where you slaughter people willy nilly.
maybe I was already too leftist when I played the game because keeping the sword from the elvish freedom fighter while the dude attacks him just seems petty and dickish and obviously taking a side in the conflict on the side of Roche.
Geralt has already stated he doesn’t really care about their quarrel, so just giving the dude his sword and let whatever happens happen just seemed like the more neutral (and less assholeish) of a move.
It's another trolley problem type thing; if you don't give him the sword you're obviously taking a side and just letting him die but you can pretend that you're not responsible; if you give him the sword you're in some sense "responsible" for whatever happens next, mainly that one of those two people is probably going to get killed. You're responsible in either instance, but it's easier to delude yourself you're not in the first.