Srsly? I've always spared him just becoz my Geralt is no human killer and prefer to stay out of the politics and the nobles' game. If Foltest wants him dead, than HE does it (most likely the Starks say LOL). Especially after I played the whole game and I had a more clear view of the story and the nuances. But on my first playthrough, when I met him I said to myself: "Boy, this kid really drives me nuts!" and in fact I find him too snobbish and arrogant for my standards. But I spared him the same for the reason already saidWichat said:Saved him because he seemed to be the last remnant of honor in the midst of corruption and treason.
PS
And because his haircut seemed a sign of rebellion against the world of noble-good-presence in which he lives. Teenage rebellion
In the first dialogue that Geralt has with Triss, he say: There's no sensible wars and with this point of view, how can he kill a young man who agrees to reason, even though he is full of anger at being defeated by the king who insulted the reputation of his mother?Geralt kills monsters, not teenage romantics.
I kill him, always.
Not because he's a bad guy but because Geralt's line to his mother is cold but realistic.
"People die in wars. Next time, don't start one."
(paraphrased)
My Geralt gave Aryan a chance to surrender and he turned it down so Geralt's response was simple.
"Well, okay, if you want to fight to the death. Fine. Just leave your men out of it."
Geralt's job isn't to save people from their own stupidity.
Not because he's a bad guy but because Geralt's line to his mother is cold but realistic.
"People die in wars. Next time, don't start one."
(paraphrased)
My Geralt gave Aryan a chance to surrender and he turned it down so Geralt's response was simple.
"Well, okay, if you want to fight to the death. Fine. Just leave your men out of it."
Geralt's job isn't to save people from their own stupidity.
I saved him. The boy looked angry, depressed, hurt, insulted by the King's doings, no need to lose also his life. Reasoning with him seems the right choice. If the King wants the boy dead HE should do it, not the Witcher. Besides, in the end of "Witcher I" Gerald saved the King's life, and so he owes him nothing, let alone eliminating people the King doesn't like.
I chose to save Aryan. For the simple reason I wanted to minimize casualties as much as possible. My Geralt was a guy who's straight to the point and honest at all times (I did lie once, I still feel bad about it). He's also a guy who hates needless bloodshed and detests killing in vain. All life is sacred but that sanctity is broken if I or my friends are threatened.
I adopt a very "Jungle Law" on killing: Kill only to feed yourself or to defend yourself. You may interpret "feed" and "defend" slightly different than me, but let's not get into the semantics of it. At all other times, I avoid spreading death, whether it's a classical monster or a monster of character.
I adopt a very "Jungle Law" on killing: Kill only to feed yourself or to defend yourself. You may interpret "feed" and "defend" slightly different than me, but let's not get into the semantics of it. At all other times, I avoid spreading death, whether it's a classical monster or a monster of character.