I've just finished reading "The Lesser Evil" story, but I didn't understand the ending.
At the end, when the thugs are preparing to perform the massacre, when Geralt talks to them, it's they who attack him first by shooting him with a crossbow, and the fight ensues. When all thugs are defeated, Renfri approaches Geralt, admits that the wizard said he doesn't care if she's going to kill people, and she attacks him with a sword. When the fight is over, the villagers start throwing rocks at Geralt and the mayor asks him to leave and never come back.
I get the author's intent - the prophecy had to be fulfilled, the hero had to become tormented by his actions and he had to get the "Butcher of Blaviken" title for doing nothing wrong.
Maybe we readers are cursed with this single point of view, but how was it perceived by the villagers, really? A guy, who is in favor with the mayor is getting attacked by suspicious-looking, armed men, kills them in self defense, and later is attacked by a woman skillfully wielding a sword. They didn't have to hear their conversation, but at least they could see he is reluctant to fight her?
Mob is mob, I get it, but the mayor, knowing the situation, could try to reason with the villagers. Why did he condemn Geralt himself, when he at least had the context and knew what could happen? He said earlier he's happy with his convenient life and he doesn't want any trouble, but at the end he acts like he believes that what Geralt did was wrong, not like he wants to please the villagers.
I'm not buying answers like "people are selfish, dumb and conformist", I'd like to get an interpretation of how people could have seen the situation and what could have been the consequences for the mayor if he defended Geralt at the end.