AgentBlue said:
There's a wonderful Robert Mckee quote
Geralt's momentary indecision on whether or not to intervene has to do with his role in the world. But that doesn't make it a real dilemma. One has to ask, what does Geralt stand to lose by intervening?
Nothing.
He knows he can beat the party down easily. Thus, he goes in without his swords and Vesemir doesn't even feel the need to dismount. The whole ordeal ends in a matter of sixty seconds.
No dilemma.
Are you seriously saying that he doesn't have anything to lose by killing a bunch of soldiers of an invading army. We can imagine any number of consequences for him doing what he did; I'm surprised someone who quotes McKee isn't creative enough to imagine such scenarios.
And what does the fact that he can beat up the soldiers easily have to do with there being a dilemma or not? It doesn't matter that he's stronger, or less likely to die; these are unrelated details. It's not necessary that everyone would think about loss of life or personal harm when facing a dilemma such as the one Geralt did; he know he's a strong, capable person, if he was holding back, then there was another reason for doing so.
I think that reason has to do with the fact that his mentor was advising him to not get involved, and that witchers in general are advised to not interfere. Moreover, the attitude of kowtowing to the conquering invader is a natural response in the interest of self-preservation.
So no, there was a dilemma- what would be the consequence of breaking the witcher's neutrality, and what would be consequence of openly murdering soldiers of an invading army. Geralt simply did not give a shit about those things because he thought there was something more important- to not let someone he perceived to be a victim be brutalized and murdered.
Remember how he scoffs at the Captain that his hunt was tougher? We can discern from these bits of info that he already had disdain for their actions, but he was holding back because of his reasons. But then, he snapped when they talked about "doing it [their] way". If we think that implied rape, then it's possible that he thought that as well.
So again, no- he had something to lose, his neutrality and reputation, but he did what he thought he should. That's that, really.