Lambert's Quest Decisions (Spoilers)

[Herb & Bea Ehltée]

So, who did you kill or not kill here? The drunk elf former scoia'teal girl at the bar? And Karadin?

I killed the elf girl because a rather ambiguous dialog choice led directly to it, and decided not to reload the save.

As for Karadin, I'm not sure which option to go with and what repercussions it might have. I read the letter from him to Hammond saying he wanted no part in a proposed joint business venture or anything to do with him at all really, indicating some sort of repentance or desire to move on, and he did seem to have a peaceful family life going on.

On the other hand, his voice actor made him seem kind of mild mannered and yet somewhat arrogant, so the dialog option where Gerralt says his remorse is feigned seems to me in part correct. Still not sure whose side of the story is right though. Lambert seems to have had a great deal of respect for Aiden and clearly doesn't believe a word of Karadin's story, but Lambert also seems like a hot head.

Keep in mind I play through all RPGs first as goody two-shoes, but not to the point of shirking deserved revenge. Just unsure if this fellow Karadin is full of it or not.

What did you do? Any terrible repercussions to leaving Karadin's wife a widow? Sparing him?

[Kondaru]

Seems they could have easily killed Aiden and probably left no trace that they'd been anywhere near him. But somehow word got out not only about who was involved but some details at least about what happened which would lead me to believe that it wasn't an ambush but rather a meeting and you don't generally meet with someone you plan to assassinate.

This argument goes both ways: if it was a botched attempt then there was no need to leak about it. "Yes, we tried to meet with the Witcher, but we found him dead." End of story.
Also, ambushing a witcher is difficult, even for another witcher. All those senses, reflexes, etc. I would dare to say that there are very few cases when witcher can be truly ambushed. Like when he is drunk, in flagranti, seriously drugged, under some vile spell, etc.

What bothers me most about Aiden is the teaming up with Lambert. Why do that? Witchers travel the Path alone. They don't team up, not even for companionship. If they want to hang with friends, that's one thing. But jobs, they're meant to be done alone.

Naaaah, that is overdoing it. Geralt travelled with Vesemir for months by the beginning of Witcher 3. Letho and his colleagues worked together to advance the plot that is pivotal to Witcher 2. Even if original stories by Sapkowski I do recall some mentions of jobs done together by several witchers.

Geralt is a friendly type, and he has a lot of friends and companions; Dendalion being the most famous and frequent of them. Lambert is not so trusting and not so sympathetic. Actually it makes sense that he was a close friend to Aiden – just as one "freak" can be a friend to another. Also it is quite clear that they were not travelling together all the time – just as Geralt and Dendalion do not. They were meeting frequently, they shared drinks and stories, then they were doing a job or two together, and after that they were separating for a time. That’s it.

I kind of had the feeling that Lambert really needed Geralt to take the lead of he'd lose it completely -- slaughter not only Karadin but anyone who got in his way, just as what happened at Lund's officel. He ran after Lund and left Geralt to deal with his men. Lambert is hot-headed and reckless. If he's so convinced of Karadin's guilt, why bother talking to him at all? Why not simply go there with the express purpose of killing him and avenging Aiden's death? And why ask Geralt for help? Surely he could have handled Karadin and his men alone.

Nah, Lambert would do fine himself. Lund led him to Vienne, Vienne led him to Selyse, and it was actually Lambert who found Karadin rather than Geralt. Hammond was a dead trail.

Why speaking to Karadin at all? Well, Lambert is not an assassin. He wanted to avenge his friend, and he wanted those guilty of his wrath to know pretty well why they are dying. Also, I guess that he was pretty confused with all the family and "I’m now a reformed man" act.

Look, Lambert had not called on his friends, he had not looked for Geralt, or anything. Geralt was nearby, so Lambert asked him to spare some time for a friend. In the very similar fashion that Yennefer asked for Geralt’s help on Skellige (Mask of Uroboros), that Triss asked for Geralt’s help in Novigrad (early missions) or in Vizima (Witcher 1), that Orianna asked for Geralt’s help in orphanage, that Geralt asked for Dijsktra and Zoltan’s help in rescuing Dendalion, etc. Let’s be serious: people not always ask for help because they truly need it; they are asking for help because it makes their lives easier and because it allows them to maintain positive relationships with other people.

It's Lambert's version of the story that's the key point here. Who told him what happened? Where did he get his information?

True. But Lambert is not truly asking Geralt why Yennefer is bossing in Kaer Mohren. Dendalion is not asking Ciri why she needs the phylactery fixed. Roche is not asking Geralt why he needs to meet Radovid. Friends are not always asking such questions: they are ready to trust, and eager to listen if need be. That is what friends do. Actually the fact that Geralt is *not* asking any additional questions to Lambert is the best proof that he trusts him. So why shouldn’t we? Geralt knows Lambert much better than we do.

"Hammond

Thought I made it clear during our last fact-to-face talk. I don't want to keep in touch with you, and I especially don't want to do any business with you. I've no doubt the enterprise you proposed would be profitable. Nevertheless, to speak colloquially: count me out.

There are plenty of other potential buyers in Novigrad: goldsmiths, jewelers and merchants dealing in luxury goods, for starters. I don't want to get involved.

Whatever you decide, I wish you well with it. Treat this letter as our final farewell.

Karadin."

OK, so "Thought I made it clear during our last face-to-face talk." suggests that their most recent encounter was face-to-face. Which suggests that they were recently speaking to each other. Discussing things. Then "and I especially don't want to do any business with you" suggests that they were doing business together and that Karadin was dissatisfied with the results. I absolutely agree that this is vague; still it does sound personal rather than like reference to some old times when Karadin was leading the band.

I’m not trying to force my interpretation on You. I just perceive the letter as one more question rather than a proof on anything.

Unfortunately for Geralt, that's not what he says. He states categorically that Karadin never severed ties with Hammond, which is blatantly false as stated in the letter and that they're actually in business together, which again is completely refuted by the letter where he says plainly that he did not want to do ANY business with Hammond.

True, this is a riddle at best and contradiction at worst. If anything, I do believe that this issue should be ironed out with some patch. I’m not saying that Devs should make it outright clear – but Geralt’s comment on the fact is truly difficult to understand.

But it doesn't make what Geralt said correct given that the letter IS in the game now and the player DOES find and read it. We KNOW that Karadin was not in business with Hammond and definitely did not want to be. So it makes what negates what Geralt said completely.

Well, You have certainly heard the wild speculations by other players that the letter was a ruse, that it was forged, aimed to mislead Lambert and Geralt, etc. I’m not saying that it makes sense, but actually when we have two facts that are contradictory we do *not* know anything for sure. In the very same way I could say that we do *know* that Karadin and Hammond are still working together (since Geralt said that, and his clause IS in the game now), and that the letter is the item that is wrong.

But then there's Lambert chiming in with what he learned: "he trades in live good on the sly." Why not come right out and say slavery if that's what he meant? Why? Because that probably wasn't at all what he was told.

Nah, that makes no sense. Lambert is not a mockingbird. Assuming that he heard some "unconventional" phrase and is reflexively repeating it is overdoing it. I find it possible (though improbable) that Lambert is wrong in his assumptions, but let’s keep it straight: Lambert is famous for using fancy words, so using this as an argument that he is an idiot does simply make You look even more biased.

As for the witcher story, the problem with the games is that they're hardly canon and they don't exactly closely adhere to the books' or stories' lore.

There are some very slight differences between books and games, mainly related to *looks* of some characters.

Plus intro in Witcher 1 shows exactly this part of “The Witcher” story.

And the story is then repeated in Witcher 1 game several times (since Adda is pivotal to the story).

And the very story was also added to Witcher 1 manual.

And the story is also confirmed in "The World of the Witcher Compendium" by CDPR.

But OK: otherwise those games do not strictly adhere to those books. :-)

And while I would concede that it's hardly likely that anyone would pay the full agreed upon amount upfront, if the Duke was a d!ck, he might want whatever portion of it back just because he's a d!ck.

True. But if such is the case than it still makes Aiden to be in his rights.

It seems that You have not truly digested how wealthy people think. Witchers are never paid *that* much to make it significant amount for a duke. For Duke money was hardly important – I guess his single robe was worth more than what he agreed to pay to Aiden. If he truly wanted to get Aiden it would be to punish him.

That's assuming a lot on your part, isn't it? We know nothing about what sort of man this Duke was.

Right. But You have just made the very same assumption a moment ago… :-D

I doubt very much if Geralt were in a similar situation, that he'd acquiese and just hand over his swords either. It would lead to a heated argument at the very least.

Right. And Karadin knew that. And he knew the price of those swords. So he was deliberately putting his brother-in-arms in a situation where the only option for Aiden was to fight for his life. So Karadin was not truly giving Aiden any choice. He was deliberately bringing his band to kill Aiden.

If he were still a mad ruthless killer, I would have thought he'd find a way to deal with the threat to his life, his family, long before they walked through the door to his home.

Nah, he didn’t want to spoil his cover of a honest guy. Witchers are not foes that can be easily defeated with standard means – even with standard illicit means. Also, he might have believed that Lambert would be alone, and that in the worst case scenario he would be able to kill him on his own.

If he truly had killed Aiden, he would have admitted it because he already feels "saved" from his past sins. He doesn't fear death. He's done all he can to redeem himself.

But it works this way only *if* he is true in his pursuit to redeem himself. If he is not then he is free to lie, cheat, and act in any way that he finds the most convenient.

So this is not truly an argument but rather an opinion. Which I respect, but which proves nothing.

He waits calmly at home with his wife and children for the witchers to arrive.

We have never heard a word from the woman or from the child. We do not know if she is his wife and if he sired the child (well, actually we are pretty sure that he had *not*). And even if she is his wife than she can be simply a part of his cover. Possibly one replaceable part of his cover…

Bow in hand, tense, and if she was already enough of a drunk back then, she'd have trouble holding on and waiting for the order.

Not too professional to go after a witcher after drinking whole night. And even if that was the case, then Karadin was probably just as drunk, and his memories are thus clouded by booze. Actually it is good thing that he is not accusing giant red-eyed hen for doing the killing…

Originally posted by Kondaru:
Originally posted by BuzzardBee:
Why not just say it was a free-for-all and Aiden wound up dead?

Because there is a slight chance in the quest that Vienne is still alive. The rest of Karadin’s hanza is dead for sure – already slayed by Lambert and Geralt.

So what? Even if she is alive, she doesn't come right out and admit that she killed him.

It means that Karadin is pointing someone who is alive and assumedly "more" guilty – and thus he is pointing someone who can be used to turn Lambert’s wrath elsewhere.

In a free-for-all with a witcher, it's far more likely that at least one or more of the gang might not have survived.

That is actually true. Which is another reason that makes me believe that they tried to trick Aiden from the very beginning. Most probably Karadin started with playing an old pal, fast talking how surprising coincidence it is to meet on the road like that, and then the rest of his band lashed out with all they had. It is even possible that Vienna was the one who ultimately succeeded; still it was Karadin’s scheme, and Karadin’s order.

Yes, I do. But I don't know what kind of witcher Aiden was. I only know that he was from the Cat School and no one, not even Geralt has any respect or regard for any of them. So why should I assume that he's as proficient as Geralt at knocking back arrows?

Besides, anyone can be taken by surprise. Geralt was struck by a pitchfork that nearly ended his life. No one would have thought a boy with a pitchfork would be capable of killing a witcher and yet one nearly did.

That is fair enough. No objections here.

[Kondaru]

No, this I disgree with strongly. He was asking Geralt directly to speak for him because he knew he'd lose it. His words: "Talk to him Geralt. If I do, first word he says to me, I'll lose it and throttle the f ucker."

Right, but that was when they already met Karadin, not before. As I had previously stated: Lambert had no *intention* for Geralt to act as his external consciousness. At first they had no idea that Karadin is going to play the act of a honest guy. Only when faced with the difficult moral decision Lambert doubted himself and trusted that Geralt will fare better. That is because he trusted Geralt, and knew him to be a better person.

What is important: it was not a part of Lambert’s *plan*. He was just acting reflexively in the middle of an encounter.

Why bring Geralt at all to the meeting.

And why Geralt and Ciri brought each other to the Bald Mountain?

Because the other one was nearby, and it is always nice to have someone to cover Your back.

It's one thing to defend yourself but to outright slaughter a man who's given you the information you've requested, that was a big deal.

Riiiight. I guess that You have ever completed Latho’s quest in Witcher 3, have You? And I dare to say that Geralt is much closer to Lambert than to Letho…

With only five members in the gang and having already dispatched Lund and questioned Vienne, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Lambert couldn't have gone to Tretogor AND Skellige on his own without enlising Geralt's help.

But he could. And I’m quite sure that if You say "no" to Lambert by the beginning of the quest then when You meet him again in Kaer Mohern Karadin is already dead… :-)

Also remember that on the way to the altar, Lambert wanted to slaughter the trolls. It was Geralt who talked him out of it and calmly made a deal with the trolls so that they wouldn't be harmed.

So what? I do understand that You can try to save all the succubi, werewolves, elves, dwarves, and dopplers. But trolls? They are dangerous to people *not only* because of their temper and stupidity. They delight in eating humans. I do find it peculiar that Devs are showing us that "trolls are people too" (though even I can fall for the trick once or twice). Seriously: slaying those trolls is just like slaying bears or wolves. You can be a saint all the way, but hunting trolls (or bears) does not make Geralt wrong in my book. If anything then I would say that Geralt was over-impulsive – or even dense – in his attempt to negotiate and in allowing those trolls to disarm them both. After all it could easily end differently – with Geralt and Lambert in trolls’ cauldron – just because trolls not being smart enough to understand the deal.

The only redeeming factor is that Kear Mohren is far from human settlements, and that other witchers do know how to care for themselves. So leaving those trolls alive *probably* had not brought *immediate* danger to innocents. Which means that Geralt was risking *only* life of his own, and of one of his dear friends…

There was no need to kill the trolls but Lambert certainly would have simply because he could.

No, it was because that was his job. A rat-catcher does not usually need to check CV/profile of every rat that he is going to kill. He kills rats – period.

As for the foglets, better safe than sorry. Sorry Geralt was wrong but what if he had been right?

Let’s return the argument: and what if Lambert is right about Karadin as well? Better safe than sorry You say: Karadin is possibly ruining lives of hundreds, maybe thousands. The only price to keep it safe is to kill a proved traitor and murderer.

We are either discussing facts (so Lambert was right and Geralt was not) or we are trying to play safe (so leaving Karadin alive would be a huge risk). Either way Lambert’s way is the right way. ;-)

I'm sure that Aiden was much more like Lambert which might explain their friendship. However that might not have been such a good thing given Lambert's temperament and nature. If they were very similar, it might help to better explain just who Aiden was and what he was like.

Now You are assuming a lot. What we know is that Geralt is Lambert’s second best friend. So why not assume that Aiden was similar to Geralt rather than to Lambert? You know, the very fact that he agreed to lift the curse is quite a proof that he was not such a "hothead" as You believe Lambert to be…

Being rude and acting a rebel is still different from being naïve or childish. Do You have ANY proof of Lamber being poor judge of characters? Of him actually BEING a rebel? No, You don’t.

Lambert calling Uma "that monstrosity of yours" and being reminded by Geralt that Uma could be Cir, doesn't even apologize -- "I call 'em like I seem 'em. That's how I am." He's also jealous of Geralt in nearly every way. Jealous of his fame and success and jealous of his way with the ladies.

Nah, this is just being rude, and has nothing to do with poor judgment. He was still eager to help or even to risk his life to heal and to protect "the monster".

And I have never noticed any jealousy on Lambert’s part. He is just as helpful to Geralt as he can *every time* – even if Geralt deprived him of his revenge.

As for being a rebel? Well, impersonating Vesemir and openly fighting with him about the Trials, wearing his hat and making fun of him. All lovingly, of course. He has no respect for Vesemir because he represents everything he despises about his own life.

Oh yes, he has respect for Vesemir. He has respect for all his brothers-witchers, and he is willing to risk his own life for them every time. In a similar way You could accuse Geralt of having no respect for Yennefer since he put on her clothes for fun. Or at that point: You could accuse Yennefer of having no respect for Geralt…

He's constantly bringing up the boys that died with him on his trials, holds Vesemir accountable for them. It's hardly looking for a soft spot. It's looking for any excuse to jump down Vesemir's throat whenever he can.

Case in point: the table used for the Trial of Grasses, Sad Albert. Lambert says of it: "Every grandpa out there's got an attic full of torture devices."

Now, that can be actually true. Lambert can hold Vesemir responsible for own misery, for all those deaths, etc. To be sincere: Vesemir *is* guilty of many of those deaths.

But it doesn’t necessarily mean that Lambert has no respect for Vesemir. Or that Lambert is a rebel. Or that he truly wishes Vesemir to be ridiculed or dead.

That he's a professional, was never in question. That he would do anything, risk anything for his friends, is also not the point. He just doesn't rationalize. Whereas Geralt would stop and question whether a monster deserves to die or is sentient and deserves to be spared is not something Lambert would even consider.

Yes, Lambert is much better in keeping humanity safe. He is much more true to his mission than Geralt is. Lambert is also less of a rebel, and much more like Vesemir seemingly wanted him to be.

So what is the point? That Geralt is over-thinking things and makes a lot of mistakes? Yes he does. For good and for bad. But it has nothing to do with Lambert being mislead or hot-headed.

He was always openly hostile to Triss but it may be that he is quite fond of her as when she was injured and weakened in TW1 and he helped nurse her, never leaving her side and appearing quite upset and concerned over her well-being until she had her potion.

Well, You are certainly free to have Your opinion. For me this is just another proof that Lambert has one golden heart that is simply hidden behind a façade of a "bad boy".

Because Lambert is not such a bad guy as You believe him to be. He drew Geralt – his elder brother – into the affair, and he does know that ethics are very important to Geralt. Yes, he seemingly perceives Geralt to be superior to him, and that is why he does not object him. Because if Geralt wishes to grant Karadin the privilege of doubt then it means that it is the right thing to do. Quite a trust. *Well placed* trust…

He's much younger than Geralt. It could be insecurity. And that doubt in the back of his own mind that he's been trying so desperately to bury regarding Aiden and the truth about what really happened.

It could – but it changes nothing. He trusts Geralt to be his better, so when faced with a moral dilemma he trusts in Geralt’s opinion. There is no fault in that. Actually I find it to be a virtue.

It is Geralt who plays god, and makes *calculated* decisions who should live, and who should not…

That he managed to impress Lambert tells me next to nothing. If he'd been a straight-laced, by the book witcher, I very much doubt Lambert would have paid him much attention.

Yet Geralt DOES impress Lambert. That is telling on its own…

And Dudu lost his money thanks to two ships that sank. Some misfortune is hard to come back from. Again, apples and oranges. If those ships had not sunk, he might have even more money than Karadin does now.

Just one question: have You actually read the story where Geralt meets Dudu for the first time? Seriously: there is no way that some sunken ships would make Dudu bankrupt *just like that*.

Actually I can hardly imagine anything that could make Dudu bankrupt. The only thing that makes sense is that he wanted to remain more or less straight, and/or that he were helping others a bit too much…

We know that he has changed his name. Owns a ship that sails between Skellige and Novigrad and sells "live goods" on the sly, according to Lambert.

You do know that only Skellige ships are safe on Skellige waters, right? So I would say that he must be / must have been truly close to those pirates...

But please don't tell me that he's counting on bluffing his way out of this when he knows that they've already killed his old gang.

Why? If I am right then he is quite good in bluffing. And my guess is that You actually let Vienne live = bluff her way out…

Maybe we should just agree to disagree. At least I'm not alone in my feelings. I do believe that he's changed. You don't. Fine.

Please note that this is not what I am actually saying. My idea is that we are *unable* to tell if he is bluffing or not. That both options are possible – and that there are many holes in both of them. And that in such a case killing Karadin is actually the *safest* way to proceed. Not necessarily good or noble. Not something to be proud of.

Still the safest.

They never die in their own beds because they are addicted to their jobs and ethics. They are risking their lives to fight monsters time after time, until they turn too old or until they meet one monster too powerful for them to kill. And, oh, they are also often killed by their employers, by scheming courtiers, by hateful fanatics, and by common mobs. Usually right after they try to do something good and selfless.

Right, and now we're just waiting on next season's grapes so Geralt can get nice and drunk on his own wine... because he's just so addicted to... taking care of a vineyard.

True… Even so I doubt that Geralt is going to die in his own bed. Don’t You? ;-)

Pity for yourself then that he didn't use it to try and kill Lambert and Geralt with the bombs.

Never gave him a chance. He is quick to kill. :-)

[Kondaru]

Let me ask you then. A witcher from the Cat School -- why are you so ready to trust him without knowing anything about him at all other than he liked to share contracts with his good buddy Lambert?

Because Lambert trusted him. Friendship and loyalty means a lot to me.

It immediately means that Karadin is untrustworthy (however You look at it: Karadin *is* guilty of Aiden’s death). And since Lambert *is* trustworthy in my eyes, it make Aiden believable as well.

True, I would certainly wish to inspect the case a little more if I was in Geralt’s shoes. Unfortunately there was little opportunity for that when Karadin eventually played the act. I truly do not know which option I prefer, still I do believe that Karadin did deserve to die for his *past* crimes at least.

I beg Your pardon – could You please read my original post once more? I wrote quite a lot about that item, and it had nothing to do (or at least little to do) with the letter found on Hammond.

I quoted the letter in its entirety in the first response to the first part. Not rehashing it again here.

What I meant is that I had never used the letter as an argument. I have just mentioned that it is possibly suggesting some past connections, but I have certainly never stated that is proves anything.

He spent years as an assassin and hired hand doing smuggling, trading (slave and otherwise, I'd imagine) and learned a thing or two along the way. Certainly enough to suggest that Hammond leave off on his current scheme and pursue something more savory by naming merchants, jewelers and the like that he could trade with in Novigrad.

I can possibly see that hiring his dagger/sword could have brought Karadin a small fortune (though it is actually quite rare for professional killers to get truly rich), but how could it make him a good merchant? Also, suggesting to a pirate that he should sell stolen gold and jewelry rather than slaves (which usually means that pirate should simply start killing those sailors rather than enslaving them) is hardly a proof of good will…

And who exactly said that he was the most honest businessman in Novigrad? It's only presented that he's been quite successful at his business. Shall we run right out and start hanging dishonest but successful businessmen in our own real world simply because they cannot be trusted 100% of the time? We'd soon starve to death because they'd all have to hang.

Ah, but You see, that is entirely different story. Murderer and traitor who is truly reformed is one thing; murdered and traitor who is getting even more rich by cheating and making others unjustly suffer is another. I doubt You truly fell for the man if he told You: "True, I was killing and betraying hundreds of people, but now I’m only stealing from thousands of them, which makes them bankrupt and forces them to commit suicides."

And as for Skellige, many of their practices (raiding, looting, taking whatever they please because they can, even women for wives), is that admirable? Tolerable? Pirates rule the seas but the honest truth is far more of them participate in raiding than just the pirates. It's their way of life.

You are absolutely right: I *hate* how Skellige people are depicted in the game. I find it truly difficult to sympathize with pirates, robbers, and killers. Fortunately, an Craite family is shown differently, and by making Cerys rule I can *almost* civilize them all.

Everything Lambert says about the confrontation is suspect to me and I cannot understand why it isn't suspect to you. Why do you blindly accept all that he says without knowing its source?

As explained above, I generally trust my friends. But in this case it doesn’t really matter. Karadin is guilty of Aiden’s death – there is no denying – and that is the single most important fact about the situation.

I do recognize Lambert’s claim to be valid. We live in much better and much more civilized times, yet if I lived in the game-world, I am almost sure that I would be by Lambert’s side.

I am also quite sure that Geralt would kill ANY person for harming Ciri or Yennefer.

Doesn't mean one option is right or wrong. It's dependent upon the decision and choices the player makes, how they perceive the quest and how they interpret it.

The thing is that if there is no objective truth then this discussion is pointless. And what I mean is that we cannot simply trust what Geralt is made to say in game: we are forced to change the scope, look at the facts, and listen to what NPCs have to say.

I fear for any person who seeks redemption anywhere in your vicinity becase they'll have a tough time convincing you of their sincerity.

That is true: I am not usually trusting twice. If someone betrayed me once then there is no coming back to good terms and/or to trusting him/her again. It’s not like we are necessarily foes for life, but since then I will certainly ask for hard proofs every single time. And I will inspect those proofs with all the scrutiny that is due.

Then again, you may be faced with this issue yourself at some point in your life and I do hope you acquire some measure of forgiveness and sympathy along the way. You're going to need it.

I am trying really hard not to disappoint anybody’s trust. And I am quite sure that my family can depend on me.

As for leaving crime unpunished… That is much more complex. At the same time I am quite sure that You *would not* be happy if law enforcers in Your country were all as trusting as You are.

Also, I would seriously ask You not to make this discussion personal. If You are disturbed with my arguments, then I am sorry for making You uneasy, and I can certainly stop discussing the issue with You at this point.

But there were also people that Geralt killed with cold blood. “The Witcher” story proves it best: those drunkards in the inn *JUST TO SHOW OFF*; the courtier (Ostrir) who wanted to bribe Geralt to leave his task turning into a bait for the monster… In Witcher 1 there was no hesitation when it came to confrontation with Jacques de Aldersberg – most probably the very same boy that Geralt had saved in Chapter 1 and then guarded for the whole time. Hey, in Grande Finale of W3 Geralt is willing to kill Avallac’h, even though there are still hardly any proves of the elf acting ill…

Oh may, where to begin. Those drunks, just to show off? Seriously? They (he and Vesemir) were attacked. They weren't going to get out of that inn without a scratch. They had to end it. If Geralt were so cold-blooded, he would have killed those three idiots who challenged him earlier just outside the inn instead of just punching their lights out.

Well, I mean bar patrons from "The Witcher" story by Sapkowski. In the story Geralt was alone, and he killed three guys just like a true slasher does: mercilessly. He was certainly able to spare all of them, and actually they gave him little reason to kill them (they were just rude to him). It is then implied that he did it to show off, and he never declines.

But he never shared with her the research and experiements he'd been doing for a couple of centuries in trying to produce a pureblood elven heir to the Elder Blood. Remember how the revelation of those secrets affected Ciri? How angry Yen and Geralt were to learn the truth? Geralt felt he could not trust Avallac'h and he certainly had good cause to doubt his fealty.

And now You are saying that being lied to – or actually not hearing the whole truth – is good enough reason to kill? Even if those secrets are absolutely private, and are not endangering anybody?

Yes, they got angry, which I actually do not understand. So Avallac'h has an agenda? That is hardly surprising. That he hates humans? Now, that is something (that is: *if* this is true). Still he acted civilized, helped Ciri, and Ciri – even if angry with him – seemed to trust him. And then Geralt lashes out and is eager to kill him outright.

Seriously, that is much worse reason to kill than Lambert had to pursuit Karadin.

I guess it is easy to be noble when it is "bad-boy" Lambert’s grieve loss, yet Geralt’s imagined loss cannot go unpunished…

So guessing what “real” Geralt would do seems to be quite difficult – and a bit pointless. In my book both options for “Following the thread” quest are valid – and both are quite interesting to follow.

Except that we, as the player, get to do just that, based on our own morality and ethics.

Well… Somehow.

The thing is that this is a game, and we can act however we wish in games. I guess that many gamers are using own morality and ethics in games – that is probably one good reason why Witcher 3 is so highly rated – still the truth is that we are not making real decisions in games. Real decisions are much more difficult and they have much more serious consequences.

I guess that if Witcher 3 was for real then I would not like to be Geralt. I would never wish to be faced with similar decisions as Geralt is. And I seriously do not know what decisions I would take.

[s]

i killed her and her elven boyfriends to get their swords and sell them

[Tiar]

I couldn't decide, came here, read comments and used two-face/improbable method. Tossed a coin to spare or kill Karadin. Tails for killing and head for sparing him. It was tails. But didn't fight, just watched. Karadin tried to attack me so Lambert hit him from behind. It wasn't a honest fight after all.

[Gabriel Angelos]

I don't get why people kill him. Its clear that he is done with that life and he is doing some good with his new enterprise. Plus he has a wife and daughter who rely on him, by slaughtering him you might as well stick them with your blade on the way out the door.

[Go0lden_Archer]

Mumm-Ra eredeti hozzászólása:

I don't get why people kill him. Its clear that he is done with that life and he is doing some good with his new enterprise. Plus he has a wife and daughter who rely on him, by slaughtering him you might as well stick them with your blade on the way out the door.

Killing him isn't the same as taking all that he owns. And hey, that wife did get along just fine, and kids were adopted.

As for the rest, I don't get why some people let tree spirit go, only to save bunch of kids, dooming the entire village and who knows what else. It's rpg, with some heavy moral choices, and as far as it goes, to each their own means alot.

[Gabriel Angelos]

Go0lden_Archer eredeti hozzászólása:

Mumm-Ra eredeti hozzászólása:

I don't get why people kill him. Its clear that he is done with that life and he is doing some good with his new enterprise. Plus he has a wife and daughter who rely on him, by slaughtering him you might as well stick them with your blade on the way out the door.

Killing him isn't the same as taking all that he owns. And hey, that wife did get along just fine, and kids were adopted.

As for the rest, I don't get why some people let tree spirit go, only to save bunch of kids, dooming the entire village and who knows what else. It's rpg, with some heavy moral choices, and as far as it goes, to each their own means alot.

Not killing the tree is just silly, since there is a book that reveals its identity. In that case the crones are the lesser evil.

[Gabriel Angelos]

Karadin however seems to genuinely show remorse for his past. He donates to charity, is trying to live a better life.

His Cat School brother, we meet later on has no such feeling after butchering an entire village. (Gaetan ).

[Nara]

Spared Karadin. The slave trade that lambert talks about, where does he get his information? I doubt it's up to date. Hearsay seldom is. Meanwhile, you got written proof that Karadin refused to be a part of the slave trade. Yes he does say that there are other merchants, but maybe he's trying to help a friend? Could it be that simple? Maybe. He also donates to charity and is a philanthropist. Does this absolve him of all that he did? No. But he has changed and is trying to turn over a new leaf. He also have a family. You have to consider them.
Finally, Geralt is not a diving judge of right and wrong. At the end of the day, he's a paid killer.
A sword for hire, albeit not without some morals. Why should he hold the fate of an entire family like that? Karadin would lose so much more than Lambert ever did.

So yeah, I decided that the humane thing to do is to let bybones be bybones and spare him.
Also, his voice and facial expression contained no lies that I could detect.

[Xegethra]

HoJu eredeti hozzászólása:

Also spared them. I'm not an assassin and I don't like going after people to kill them in cold blood without provocation, even if they're bad people. Same reason I don't like to go out of my way to slaughter a bandit camp (I do it because it's there and there's loot but I don't feel it fits with the story or character).

I tend not to be too bothered when Geralt kills somebody who has killed innocent people themselves, as far as I remember Geralt hasn't killed an innocent or somebody outside of self defence. Nor do I really provoke anyone if I can avoid it (Least not story wise, bandits...ehh, part of the wildlife they run after him at the end of it, if looking at you is enough to provoke them then I won't mourn them).

But then this series has you make messy decisions, be the lesser evil if I am to be that, I mean I try to help....but if I wanted a nicey nice world to play in all the while, I wouldn't be playing these games.

Then there are those with genuine regret, accident or not. It is of course deliberate that Karadin is meant to make the player doubt either way, the success of this varies from person to person and he could very well be trying to make up for misdeeds...without turning himself in. Or he is using it as a cover to save his own skin. A lot of people will think punishment for what he has done should be enforced, whether he has turned a new leaf or not....whether that should be death or not is up to the individual.

I think this one is up to the player, he is or isn't still a criminal/ does or doesn't have remorse for his actions until you decide. If the game doesn't come back to confirm or deny your choice then maybe you're right every time as it's it feels like a choice that shapes to what you envision.

(As a nod to earlier posts, yeah he has bombs on him, you can loot them after the fight).

HoJu eredeti hozzászólása:

Geralt has worked and struck deals with questionable characters before, he's not some avenging spirit who judges and cleanses the world of all evil.

Certainly isn't is he? I guess the player has to choose if they want to be as little or big of a contradictory jerk as they want him to be.

*Edit*

Oh wow a necro, didn't absorb the date sorry. I just did this quest and so was wondering about it.

*Edit Edit*

Apparently on further reading there is a missable quest called "Flesh for Sale". You find it in Skellige and it tells you that Karadin is still in the slave trade, his denial, cutting ties seems to be a cover. I missed this quest, you have to do it before you meet Lambert for the first time in the Seven Cats Tavern otherwise it goes away. Having not done it, I don't know how much info there is on his still criminal activities or how reliable it is. I also don't know if you do this quest if you get the option to confront him about it when you meet him, or if further he will try to deny or admit it.

*Edit Edit Edit*

Well, I dealt with Karadin and went back to where you get the Flesh for Sale quest from in Trottheim, no slave driver there. I do however remember the village from a while back and got immediately attacked there, no Flesh for Sale quest activated....maybe I had already started Following the Thread and missed the opportunity so no quest triggered and thus no slaves to free.

So perhaps then, whether or not Karadin truly has changed his ways or not depends on which quest you trigger off first. Either way if you kill him, he pays for his past.

[Heri]

Lambert is a brother, so no matter right or wrong, I'm just there to support him while does his thing. Geralt could be the main character of the game but this is about Lambert, his show, his stage, his revenge. So I believe Geralt should remain neutral and just make sure to support Lambert and he is okay. I know you might say "Geralt tells him to kill or spare him and this is not being neutral" but think like this; remove Geralt from the entire scene, put Lambert in a room with Karadin, what would hapen? Lambert would kill Karadin or get killed trying it, right? So letting Lambert kill Karadin is the neutral choice. And this is where Geralt comes in; instead of stealing the show, stays neutral, letting Lambert do his thing but just making sure a brother is safe and he doesn't get killed by Karadin.