[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.

[Sai Kyouji]

Am I the only person that noticed the mother and kids (AND the guards) never uttered a word when there are 2 unfriendly armed mutants wearing full armor clearly not looking for a civil chat with our dear changed man and philantrophist?

Yes, Karadin. I'm sure you told your wife that you're a former effing slave trader and assassin before marriage. But, I am not about to believe that you and your wife never expected any sort of payback from those years. If you did and wanted to live, you would have asked some of your guards to stay behind. If you did and NOT expected to live as a sign of atonement, you wouldn't have resisted. Either case, your wife would have at least said something to try to save you.

Karadin, you took a gamble to convince Geralt and Lambert knowing you can't possibly win agaisnt 2 witchers after cutting ties with your band of merry killers. You failed.


Come on, guys. Lund was killed in Novigrad. Karadin obviously could tell revenge killing is in progress. Any good husband would have had their family steer clear of the revenge killers.

Oh, and you don't send a squad of experienced assassins that includes a witcher to collect debt. The pay would be higher than the debt collected.

[GGuts]

The thing that made me spare him is, that the quest seemed so purposely forced and the stories about the events so contradictory. Karadin went to great lengths to cover up his past just before Geralt and Lambert arrive? I don't know... maybe.

But the game doesn't even let you investigate if he is telling the truth. There would be a number of ways to dig deeper and confirm or falsify his side of the story:

1. You can't talk to the wife or kids.
2. You can't ask Karadin about the slave trading or the letter.
3. You can't go back to the drunk lady and present her with what Karadin said.
4. You can't contact and confront the people that supposedly ordered the assassination or debt collection and of course you can't ask Karadin about them.
5. Geralt just plain ignores the letter, the one piece of evidence that seems to prove he has cut ties.
6. Lambert apparently asked the wrong questions (or no questions at all?!) and just killed that other girl, but still expects Geralt to make up his mind about killing Karadin and even gets mad if he won't. I mean Geralt didn't even know the other Witcher. (lol)
7. Lambert seems hot-headed and bent on revenge.

If the game won't let me approach a decision logically, then I don't wanna choose at all. Period. And I don't think Geralt would actively go kill some other Witcher because Lambert says he deserves it, and even before thouroughly investigating, when there is no real evidence (on the contrary, there is the letter).
Innocent until proven guilty I guess. If Lambert still wants to kill him then so be it.
It just doesn't make any sense to just decide to kill him right on the spot as Geralt and the quest felt unfinished to me.

[GGuts]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by GGuts:

The thing that made me spare him is, that the quest seemed so purposely forced and the stories about the events so contradictory. Karadin went to great lengths to cover up his past just before Geralt and Lambert arrive? I don't know... maybe.

But the game doesn't even let you investigate if he is telling the truth. There would be a number of ways to dig deeper and confirm or falsify his side of the story.
You can't talk to the wife or kids.
You can't ask Karadin about the slave trading or the letter.
You can't go back to the drunk lady and present her with what Karadin said.
Geralt just plain ignores the letter, the one piece of evidence that seems to prove he has cut ties.
Lambert apparently asked the wrong questions (or no questions at all?!) and just killed that other girl, but still expects Geralt to make up his mind about killing Karadin and even gets mad if he won't. (lol)
Lambert seems hot-headed and bent on revenge.

We have no outside witness to the events that transpired. We only have Karadin's version. Vienne's is less than useful at best. As for Lambert, we know nothing of the source that provided that information to him. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Present were Aiden, Lund, Hammond, Karadin, Vienne and Selyse. Aiden is dead. Lund offered nothing more than Vienne's location at the inn. Vienne's account is sketchy but tells them Karadin has broken ties with all his old mates (which is consistent with what Karadin tells them and it's consistent with the letter he wrote Hammond), and that Selyse is in Tretogor and Hammond is in Skellige.

Hammond offers nothing since he fears Geralt was sent by the guilds trying to punish them for horning in on their action. The letter found on him clearly shows that Karadin wanted nothing to do with Hammond's slave trading scheme. He even vows to cut off all contact with him in the future.

What Lambert reveals of what he learned from Selyse cannot be corroborated because she's dead now, thanks to him. He states Karadin's new name, the name of his ship and proffers that the "live goods on the sly". What does that mean exactly? To Lambert, it's proof positive that Karadin is slave trading, but does it really mean that? We just don't know. If he were to be doing that, why turn down a lucrative offer from Hammond to team up in his scheme? What is more likely is that the "live goods on the sly" may be animals or other creatures that might be worth plenty if smuggled in or out of Skellige. Sure, I'm conjecturing here now too but there's no proof against it any more than there is proof in favor of slave trading. It's Lambert's wont to believe the worst about Karadin at this point.

I don't see what good could have come from speaking with Karadin's wife or children. What could they say that wasn't third-hand at best? If he did confess all his sins and crimes to his wife, she would only be repeating whatever he told Lambert and Geralt because presumably whatever she knows would only have come from Karadin. It's not as if she would have seen any of it for herself. Same for the children. I very much doubt he confessed all to them. They are far too young to understand any of it anyway.

Going back to Vienne would probably not do much good either. If what Karadin said was true and accurate, how likely do you think she would be to admit it? Aiden is dead because of her. She's so drunk she almost does admit she was responsible but follows it up with how she doesn't really remember, which is probably why she's become such a drunk. Of course you have the option to let Lambert try to kill her which results in a nasty fight with some other elves present but none of it truly reveals, corroborates or refutes what Karadin said happened.

That letter is key and the fact that Geralt goes on to state so matter of factly that Karadin never severed ties with Hammond and that they were in business with each other proves one thing: some extremely sloppy writing.

I'm sorry but every time I harp on what's wrong with this game, I get my head handed to me but this is a prime example. The letter is there and Geralt can find and read it yet he completely ignores it and tells Lambert a pack of false statements as if they were fact. Lambert also comes into all this with a story that is unsubstantiated and never reveals his source for the information. Did it all come to him in some sort of dream? WTF?

What it comes down to is this. I have a brain. I found and read the letter. I know Lambert well enough to realize how hot-headed he can be and how little he actually thinks things through. I've witnessed how he dealt with Lund and I sure didn't like it. I saw how he wanted to kill Vienne as well. I could at least prevent that. There was no way to spare Hammond because he attacked me and given what he was, I had no qualms for taknig him and his men down. I would have liked to have heard what Selyse had to say for herself but I'm sure Lambert didn't spare a moment's hesistation in ending her life as quickly as possible... just because.

But ignoring that letter in that manner, it made me feel like an idiot. And Geralt isn't supposed to be an idiot. Apparently the devs just forgot that. They seem to forget quite a bit while working on this game. The more's the pity.

But as for Karadin, to me he was a changed man. Does that wipe away all his past evil deeds? No. But that's not for me to judge. And it's not for Lambert either since he has no concrete proof of what happened. Everything points to Karadin trying to turn over a new leaf, start a new life, make up for his past, cut himself loose from old ties and to "do good" since his marriage. I cannot condemn a man who confesses his sins and seems changed, especially since I do not know the whole truth about Aiden, and I suspect, neither does Lambert.

This was really badly written and handled but then so much of the game suffers from this. Which is why it really gets my goat to see all those stupid awards slapped on their shoulders. The devs were sloppy, too sloppy to be called professionals. A title such as this should have been better edited, better coded and certainly had better QA.

I mostly agree with what you said, although you may be a little bit harsh. This quest was intended to give the player a moral dilemma and force them to decide, but it wasn't completely thought through. I still love the game and most of its writing though. It's just that not every quest was given as much attention to detail as the Bloody Baron / Ladies of the Woods quest.

I still think talking to the wife, kids and the even the drunk ex-assassin after the dilogue with Karadin could have possibly shed some light on to Karadin's character. Especially the children and the drunk girl, since both usually are bad liars. Talking to children has given you valuable information before during the Ladies of the Woods quest.

[GGuts]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by GGuts:

I mostly agree with what you said, although you may be a little bit harsh. This quest was intended to give the player a moral dilemma and force them to decide, but it wasn't completely thought through. I still love the game and most of its writing though. It's just that not every quest was given as much attention to detail as the Bloody Baron / Ladies of the Woods quest.

I still think talking to the wife, kids and the even the drunk ex-assassin after the dilogue with Karadin could have possibly shed some light on to Karadin's character. Especially the children and the drunk girl, since both usually are bad liars. Talking to children has given you valuable information before during the Ladies of the Woods quest.

Very different children, to be sure. Those orphans have been on their own for some time, then handed over to Gran/Anna and the Crones in order to free up food for other mouths in their homes or as sacrifices for the villagers of Downwarren. Yet what information do they give Geralt? That nice old Gran is there taking such good care of them and fattening them up as future meals for the Crones? They know nothing of this or of their fate in Gran's hands or what the Crones has in store for them.

So what exactly do you expect to learn from Karadin's children? That they know their step-dad was an assassin who'd killed lots of people for money? Is that truly realistic? Wouldn't their mother have tried to shield them from such horrors? She may love and believe in him and try all she can to convert him from his evil past, but I very much doubt she'd sit the kiddies down and subject them to gruesome details of their new stepfather's past, in the interest of full disclosure. Children are usually spared such things in a marriage.

And the wife wasn't a witness to what happened. She wasn't there. She could only reveal whatever Karadin had told her. True, it might have been different from what he told Lambert and Geralt but none of what he said seemed fabricated. At least not to me.

Back to the writing, there are just too many instances for me to let it go. The whole thing with Triss, she outright states that she's glad he's recovered his memory completely and how that should stop people from taking advantage of him. Hmm, like she did? And how he is so damn forgiving about it all. Really? Then why break up with her? She did nothing to help him recover his memory throughout two full games, did all she could to convince him and to take full advantage of his situation, to sleep with him for nearly a year and yet now she's glad no one else will do that to him. How grand of her and how fantastic of Geralt to just let it slide.

The jerk even has to ask: "Someone's been taking advantage of me?" Seriously? Was this written by a ten-year-old? She admits she did and he immediately offers that he wasn't even hinting that she'd taken advantage of him, ever. Wow. Did they take a stupid pill and just write off the previous two games where Geralt's responses are concerned but not where Triss' are? I just don't get that exchange at all. What was the point of it?

Lusty Triss bedded Geralt against his will, confesses all and Geralt sees nothing wrong with any of it, yet still breaks up with her after a year of deceitful bliss... because there's suddenly Yen back in the picture. But wait! She's not because she's gone off to try and find Ciri on her own, only she's bungled it all up and now has to come running back to a witcher so he can save the day, despite having bedded her best friend for nearly a year.

The entire Count Reuven's Treasure and all that it entailed was so convoluted and drawn out, it was a bit of a mess. Ciri is in search of Yen and Geralt, can't find them, goes in search of a mage for help in repairing the phylactery. Seeks out help from Dandelion after a meeting with a mage (Triss, unbeknownst to Ciri) goes wrong, only to be introduced to W horeson Junior. And he wants a treasure, but not just any treasure will do. It has to be Sigi's treasure. And then that's gets stolen in turn by Menge. Yadda-yadda-yadda. Practically turns into a farce right in the middle of Novigrad. Sheesh.

*sigh*

I get what you're saying, but you have to remember it's still a game. Some things don't make sense, because they are just gamey. To me, fact is: There is still no other game that comes close to this quantity of stories while upholding such a (mostly) commendable quality and direction, where side quests surprise you with character depth that you would expect from the average game's main story. There are plotholes like in most movies even, but I'm still the guy that gets the concept of "suspension of disbelief" for the sake of enjoying the story. I have never been someone to analyse a work from a creator's or writer's point of view, at least during my first playing/watching because I want to be captivated. I want to enjoy things for what they are and not criticise them for what they are not, so I just accept certain things others can not, maybe even just pretend they didn't happen or happened differently and continue on.
In the end it's still a game, not a book or movie where telling a story to the viewer is the only thing that matters. They decided to make Triss a likeable character and a romance option for gamey reasons despite her wrongdoings, but then again Yennefer isn't exactly an angel either.
Same with the Reuven quest line. To me Suspension of Disbelief comes easy with this game, because there just isn't anything that comes close to it.


Concerning the matter with the children: You aren't honestly saying that as an investigator that also has to be the judge and executioner, you wouldn't wanna talk to all the available suspects just because you think it's unlikely they know anything. You never know what could happen. Maybe you would notice fear in the wife's or children's voice, and can convince them to talk about it, maybe exposing him as a cruel tyrant, or something like that.
The orphans told you about the Godling and even if they don't explicitly tell you much else, manipulating people to show their real emotions about the matter at hand is part of a good investigator's repertoire, and usually is easier accomplished with most drunk people and children. And exhausting all the options before sentencing someone to death is what I and in my mind, Geralt would do.

Sorry if this isn't phrased all that well, I'm actually German and it's getting really late here. :D

[GGuts]

Also I just love how some seemingly tedious Witcher Contracts and Sidequests surprise you with some really interesting developments in this game.

[s]

i just killed him because i like killing

[GGuts]

Originally posted by ( ͡o ͜ʖ ͡o)👽:

i just killed him because i like killing

D:

[scottie0013]

I have reviewed the thread and all points of view, and I would like to point out a couple major flaws in Karadin's defense.

First, if Aiden had bungled the job, then he wouldn't have been paid. Witcher's don't get paid until the job is done. This is actually stated in the books. A duke would have known this and would have also had the resources to make sure the job actually was done rather than take Aiden at his word. Not to mention that a greedy noble, may not have wanted to pay for Aiden's services and hired Karadin to get his money back under false pretenses. A highway muging must be cheaper than lifting a curse. And Karadin, being leader of a mercenary/assasin band may have had plenty of reason to take the job without asking too many questions. He is part of a disgraced witcher school after all.

Second, the letter to Hammond only indicates that Karadin has no desire to deal in luxury goods while in Novigrad. Nowhere does it mention the slave trade. That is not mentioned until you meet Lambert at the Nowhere Inn. Yes, "live goods" could mean cattle or pets, however I doubt Lambert would have used it as such. Hammond was still in enough contact with Karadin to immediatly assume Geralt is a negotiator trying to reach Karadin for business reasons which means that they are in business. And if they are not dealing in luxury goods, then what else does Hammond steal? I'll give you a hint: live goods.

Third, if we accept that Karadin is in the slave trade then the wife and kids are his wife and kids by his word only. For all we know, they are slaves offered a cushy life in exchange for helping Karadin to pass as an upstanding citizen. And what mother wouldn't jump at the chance to give her children a happy rest of thier childhood? Especially when the alternative is hard labor or prostitution. The fact that we can''t talk to them, or that they walk away without a word, only emphasizes this possibility in my mind. Not to mention that they make for great deterents against pesky, vengeful killers from one's past.

Ultimately, I supported Lambert in killing him. But that is mostly irrelevant to the topic. This is a game, meant to make money for the creator, and to be enjoyed by the players.

[Sal-Express]

Originally posted by 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 !

Point 1: Depends on the situation, if lambert killed him cause he had not other choice, they have no right to kill lambert, and vice versa.
Point 2: Yes, that is correct, But if lambert, the guy who actually got affected, Wants him to die, he has too. Its lamberts right, not ours.

[blackjacksike]

Personally, I told Karadin that his remorse was fake, but I spared him as I thought that his adopted children didn't deserve to lose their father. (Lesser evil mixed with neutrality; neutrality because I trust Lambert by saying that I didn't trust Karadin and that I nonetheless spared him; lesser evil because I decided not kill an adoptive father)

By the way,

Originally posted by : ):

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

Very funny! XD I think I'll do this on my second walkthrough, lol.

[Cool Noah]

Personally, I spared him. Those of you justifying killing him because of his past crimes act like Geralt is some lawbringer. Two wrongs don't make a right and you're killing a potentially reformed man, father, and husband in cold blood. You are just as bad as he is if you kill him