[Spoilers] About Lambert's quest, "Following the Thread"

[iamnamtab]

Did anybody else like that the quest was a journey of revenge where in the end, it turns out the guy is still a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and doesn't deserve to be spared? When I first started the quest, I thought it was going to be a cliche "Let go of the past" quest where you have to convince Lambert to spare the guy he's hunting because he's redeemed himself, but I was pleasantly surprised that if you compare the stories told by the bad guy's friends to the bad guy's story, and read all the quest notes, you find out the dude is completely guilty and is lying about having redeemed himself.


Edit: To the people claiming I'm wrong and Karadin is a changed man, here's evidence he's lying about having redeemed himself.

1: Lambert says Aidan, the witcher killed by Karadin, was a straight-laced man "who would never leave a contract unfinished." Karadin claims Aidan was a drunken lout who left a contract unfulfilled and let a monarch's daughter die as a result. Those are complete opposite portrayals of Aidan and I trust Lambert, who spent years with Aidan, over Karadin, who only saw him for a few minutes before he killed him.


2: Karadin claims Vienne killed Aidan and created a false story to assuage her guilt. This claim is completely false, when you meet her, Vienne has no guilt whatsoever about Aidan's death, brazenly admitting to be part of the squad that killed him.


3: In his note to Hammond, Karadin says " I am familiar with several slave traders in Novigrad who I can connect you with." Karadin only came to Novigrad AFTER he killed Aidan and supposedly reformed himself, so why is a "changed man" and a self-claimed philanthropist familiar with slave traders, and why is he helping the slave trade grow by giving Hammond new contacts in the slave trade? Karadin hasn't changed at all, and this note proves it.

[Cheeky_Demon]

Well you raise some good points. His part in the death of Lambert's friend is clear. However, it still very much is a 'let go of the past' quest as you say. Just because you determine that he is guilty, does that entitle you to kill him in front of his adopted family? How many people has Lambert himself killed. Are the family and friends of those people entitled to seek revenge against Lambert?

The point of the quest is that - 'two wrongs dont make right', the bigger man has to step up and walk away even if you dont like it etc

[izotron]

Originally posted by Cheeky_Demon:

Well you raise some good points. His part in the death of Lambert's friend is clear. However, it still very much is a 'let go of the past' quest as you say. Just because you determine that he is guilty, does that entitle you to kill him in front of his adopted family? How many people has Lambert himself killed. Are the family and friends of those people entitled to seek revenge against Lambert?

The point of the quest is that - 'two wrongs dont make right', the bigger man has to step up and walk away even if you dont like it etc

>Are the family and friends of those people entitled to seek revenge against Lambert?

YES THEY ARE !

> the bigger man has to step up and walk away

this makes no sense !

[Gold♥Shield]

I spared him simply because he isn't lying about his ties. The letter you find in Skellige proves he doesn't want to get into the slave trade and as far as Lambert's friend is concerned, ♥♥♥♥ happens in a Witcher's line of work. The guy seemed on the up and up when it came down to confronting him, so there was no reason to kill him for something that happened to someone else.

[Y Ddraig Ddu]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

I spared the guy. I wasn't convinced he was still bad. What I got was that he wanted to go straight but his former partner in crime was writing him those letters trying to convince him to come back to the slave trade. I was pretty sure that wasn't the case.

Yes, BB is correct and the OP is wrong. I still thought it was one of the better quests in the game, but that's not really saying much. It all came together in the most expected way possible. Worst of all, regardless of whatever "choice" you picked, it would never come up again at any time in the game, even if you were as mean to Lambert as the game would let you.

[: )]

First "You have changed."
Second "Kill him"

[iamnamtab]

To the people claiming I'm wrong and Karadin is a changed man, here's evidence he's lying about having redeemed himself.

1: Lambert says Aidan, the witcher killed by Karadin, was a straight-laced man "who would never leave a contract unfinished." Karadin claims Aidan was a drunken lout who left a contract unfulfilled and let a monarch's daughter die as a result. Those are complete opposite portrayals of Aidan and I trust Lambert, who spent years with Aidan, over Karadin, who only saw him for a few minutes before he killed him.


2: Karadin claims Vienne killed Aidan and created a false story to assuage her guilt. This claim is completely false, when you meet her, Vienne has no guilt whatsoever about Aidan's death, brazenly admitting to be part of the squad that killed him.


3: In his note to Hammond, Karadin says " I am familiar with several slave traders in Novigrad who I can connect you with." Karadin only came to Novigrad AFTER he killed Aidan and supposedly reformed himself, so why is a "changed man" and a self-claimed philanthropist familiar with slave traders, and why is he helping the slave trade grow by giving Hammond new contacts in the slave trade? Karadin hasn't changed at all, and this note proves it.

[Y Ddraig Ddu]

1: Lambert says Aidan, the witcher killed by Karadin, was a straight-laced man "who would never leave a contract unfinished." Karadin claims Aidan was a drunken lout who left a contract unfulfilled and let a monarch's daughter die as a result. Those are complete opposite portrayals of Aidan and I trust Lambert, who spent years with Aidan, over Karadin, who only saw him for a few minutes before he killed him.

So you're saying in those few minutes before Karadin killed him there's no way Aiden was acting like a drunken lout and foolishly tried to attack his would-be assassins? I also don't recall Lambert ever saying that Aiden was straight-laced, just that he was a great friend. Remeber also that Karadin was a hired hand just to carry out an order; who knows what lies his employer fed him?

Originally posted by iamnamtab:

3: In his note to Hammond, Karadin says " I am familiar with several slave traders in Novigrad who I can connect you with." Karadin only came to Novigrad AFTER he killed Aidan and supposedly reformed himself, so why is a "changed man" and a self-claimed philanthropist familiar with slave traders, and why is he helping the slave trade grow by giving Hammond new contacts in the slave trade? Karadin hasn't changed at all, and this note proves it.

Yeah, because a person who himself worked as a slave owner for years wouldn't still have SOME connections with any of his former cohorts who took up shop in Novigrad, right?
Had he merely been feigning reformation we would not have dismissed his wife and children not long after Geralt and Lambert showed up, and he would've had a lot more harsh words for them when Geralt chose to kill him (assuming Geralt chose to kill him, of course).

Look, there's nothing wrong with trying to read between the lines, but sometimes that smudge of ink between line 17 and 18 on page 379 is just a coffee stain.

[izotron]

Originally posted by ydraig:

1: Lambert says Aidan, the witcher killed by Karadin, was a straight-laced man "who would never leave a contract unfinished." Karadin claims Aidan was a drunken lout who left a contract unfulfilled and let a monarch's daughter die as a result. Those are complete opposite portrayals of Aidan and I trust Lambert, who spent years with Aidan, over Karadin, who only saw him for a few minutes before he killed him.

So you're saying in those few minutes before Karadin killed him there's no way Aiden was acting like a drunken lout and foolishly tried to attack his would-be assassins? I also don't recall Lambert ever saying that Aiden was straight-laced, just that he was a great friend. Remeber also that Karadin was a hired hand just to carry out an order; who knows what lies his employer fed him?

Originally posted by iamnamtab:

3: In his note to Hammond, Karadin says " I am familiar with several slave traders in Novigrad who I can connect you with." Karadin only came to Novigrad AFTER he killed Aidan and supposedly reformed himself, so why is a "changed man" and a self-claimed philanthropist familiar with slave traders, and why is he helping the slave trade grow by giving Hammond new contacts in the slave trade? Karadin hasn't changed at all, and this note proves it.

Yeah, because a person who himself worked as a slave owner for years wouldn't still have SOME connections with any of his former cohorts who took up shop in Novigrad, right?
Had he merely been feigning reformation we would not have dismissed his wife and children not long after Geralt and Lambert showed up, and he would've had a lot more harsh words for them when Geralt chose to kill him (assuming Geralt chose to kill him, of course).

Look, there's nothing wrong with trying to read between the lines, but sometimes that smudge of ink between line 17 and 18 on page 379 is just a coffee stain.

sometimes yes but in this case can you find any justification for not killing him ?

[iamnamtab]

Originally posted by izotron:

Originally posted by ydraig:

So you're saying in those few minutes before Karadin killed him there's no way Aiden was acting like a drunken lout and foolishly tried to attack his would-be assassins? I also don't recall Lambert ever saying that Aiden was straight-laced, just that he was a great friend. Remeber also that Karadin was a hired hand just to carry out an order; who knows what lies his employer fed him?

Yeah, because a person who himself worked as a slave owner for years wouldn't still have SOME connections with any of his former cohorts who took up shop in Novigrad, right?
Had he merely been feigning reformation we would not have dismissed his wife and children not long after Geralt and Lambert showed up, and he would've had a lot more harsh words for them when Geralt chose to kill him (assuming Geralt chose to kill him, of course).

Look, there's nothing wrong with trying to read between the lines, but sometimes that smudge of ink between line 17 and 18 on page 379 is just a coffee stain.

sometimes yes but in this case can you find any justification for not killing him ?

Exactly. Let's say, hyopthetically of course, that Karadin didn't kill Aiden, even if Karadin's not a murderer he's still a bastard who is pretending to be a philanthropist while actually supporting the slave trade and trying to create a trade route between Skellige and Novigrad for selling slaves.

[Y Ddraig Ddu]

Because the children would be deprived of their father for the rest of their lives? Because Karadin killed Aiden not out of hatred or disgust or jealousy or passion or because he's an all around terrible human being but simply because he was following the orders of his employer?

If Lambert is truly seeking justice and not just petty, blind revenge, he should decapitate the big wigs who put the hit on Aiden instead of their hired muscle.

Just my two cents.

[iamnamtab]

Originally posted by ydraig:

Because the children would be deprived of their father for the rest of their lives? Because Karadin killed Aiden not out of hatred or disgust or jealousy or passion or because he's an all around terrible human being but simply because he was following the orders of his employer?

If Lambert is truly seeking justice and not just petty, blind revenge, he should decapitate the big wigs who put the hit on Aiden instead of their hired muscle.

Just my two cents.

It's an easy choice for me. Sure, it sucks that the kids will lose their adoptive father, but by killing Karadin you're stopping the slave trade from gaining a route between Skellige and Novigrad by eliminating Hammond and Karadin, which saves a lot of people, since from what I gathered the slaves (in Skellige, at least) are people kidnapped from their homes and forced into slavery.

Killing a slave trader who pretends to be a philanthropist (and who likely murderered Aiden) and stopping the slave trade from growing powerful trumps two kids losing their adoptive father.

[izotron]

Originally posted by ydraig:

Because the children would be deprived of their father for the rest of their lives? Because Karadin killed Aiden not out of hatred or disgust or jealousy or passion or because he's an all around terrible human being but simply because he was following the orders of his employer?

If Lambert is truly seeking justice and not just petty, blind revenge, he should decapitate the big wigs who put the hit on Aiden instead of their hired muscle.

Just my two cents.

That is for Lambert to decide, he just asked you for help you either help him or not.

You try to look at this with eyes unclouded by hate but all you see is actually nothing, you don't know the truth and you don't know the reason, you can speculate but that's about it.

But when the moment comes when you must make a choice, you decide based on the evidence you gathered but as already said that can be interpreted in different directions, so does it not come simply to that are you willing to help a friend or not !

You are not killing some saint, you are killing someone who managed to hurt your friend, someone who killed people before good or bad, slave trading and so on.

>Because the children would be deprived of their father for the rest of their lives?

He should think about that before he adopted them, he knew how he lived and now hiding behind a family ? He has a right for a second chance like everyone but he can't blame nobody but himself if it goes wrong, and if he is not strong enough to protect his family he needs to blame himself, for it is because of him they will suffer.

>Because Karadin killed Aiden not out of hatred or disgust or jealousy or passion or because he's an all around terrible human being but simply because he was following the orders of his employer?

Perhaps for him it was not personal but for others it was!

You are saying like he had no choice, he always had a choice !
You simply don't do it, are you going to be hurt or killed because of that, perhaps but at the end we all die one day it is for as to decide how we live and he choose to live by the sword so he shouldn't be surprised if he dies by one.

The argument he was just following orders is just a stupid argument, would you kill your family if your employer told you to ?

This quest has no good or bad ending, not because you can't be sure in what you are doing is right or wrong but because there is no right or wrong.

[odomi2]

That´s the point where I stopped liking Lambert. I too, refused to kill him, and Geralt then explains quite well why: "you want to kill him? do it, but I´m not convinced of his guilt, so I won´t touch him" (it was something like that). And then, Lambert not only isn´t man enough to take his own decission, but blames you for it and gets angry. ¿? Who deoes he think he is? xD
There´s nothing stopping him to kill Karadin, but still chooses that. Does he really expect you to kill someone you don´t know blindly? All this debate in the post is proof enough that you can´t be sure wether he is guilty or not, or wether or not you are entitled to kill him.

[izotron]

Originally posted by odomi2:

That´s the point where I stopped liking Lambert. I too, refused to kill him, and Geralt then explains quite well why: "you want to kill him? do it, but I´m not convinced of his guilt, so I won´t touch him" (it was something like that). And then, Lambert not only isn´t man enough to take his own decission, but blames you for it and gets angry. ¿? Who deoes he think he is? xD
There´s nothing stopping him to kill Karadin, but still chooses that. Does he really expect you to kill someone you don´t know blindly? All this debate in the post is proof enough that you can´t be sure wether he is guilty or not, or wether or not you are entitled to kill him.

> wether or not you are entitled to kill him

since when do you need to be "entitled" to kill someone ?

[odomi2]

Originally posted by izotron:

Originally posted by odomi2:

That´s the point where I stopped liking Lambert. I too, refused to kill him, and Geralt then explains quite well why: "you want to kill him? do it, but I´m not convinced of his guilt, so I won´t touch him" (it was something like that). And then, Lambert not only isn´t man enough to take his own decission, but blames you for it and gets angry. ¿? Who deoes he think he is? xD
There´s nothing stopping him to kill Karadin, but still chooses that. Does he really expect you to kill someone you don´t know blindly? All this debate in the post is proof enough that you can´t be sure wether he is guilty or not, or wether or not you are entitled to kill him.

> wether or not you are entitled to kill him

since when do you need to be "entitled" to kill someone ?

That´s up to you, of course...