Thanks Rawrkinjd - Tumblr Posts

Hi, I was wondering if you had any tips about writing Lambert? I have a story idea I want to write but I'm worried about not getting his character right. I really love the way you write him.

Hi, Anon. I’ll do my best to break down some of my main thoughts on Lambert. I’d like to write a disclaimer first: everyone is entitled to their interpretations of characters. No two people read a text or consume media in the same way, so these are my personal reflections based on the evidence I’ve seen.

TW: canonical child abuse; personal headcanons based on interpretation of media you may disagree with. Spoilers for games and books.

TLDR: Lambert is a prickly asshole with a heart. That heart is loyal and wants a place to belong (a literal place, or with a person), but said heart is covered in scars and open wounds from how the world has treated it. His main defence mechanism is sarcasm. He has a complex relationship with both Vesemir and Kaer Morhen. He will step up to defend those he loves without a second thought. He shows affection by teasing/rudeness/insults; this is generally on a scale of brutal to gentle with no real logic or predictability (and he expects it back). ‘Lambert, Lambert, what a prick’ = aww, Geralt loves me. 

Lambert is a man that suffers from trauma and has never had a chance to heal from it. His prickliness isn’t unfounded.

“Along the way all the differences between Geralt and his younger comrade were exposed in sharp contrast. Sparks flew between them more than once, and biting commentary and barbed remarks were the order of the day. Geralt tolerated Lambert's prickliness with admirable stoicism, for he knew that the younger witcher's famous sarcasm served only to cover his many deeply-felt, never-healed wounds.” - Journal Entry, Witcher 3.

This was my initial framework for Lambert. Lambert was abused physically by his father and witnessed the abuse of his mother. His formative years taught him that people are cruel and not to be trusted. Just when he thought he was free - his father fell into a nest of Nekkers - he was then seized by witchers and made to suffer more. So, not only are people cruel, but life is cruel too. 

I always write him with a certain level of cynicism/pessimism. If you expect life to fuck you over, then you’ll never be disappointed when it inevitably does. - Rawr.

If you choose the right dialogue options, you learn that he returned to exact his revenge upon being released from Kaer Morhen (Geralt doesn’t ask for any details). 

There are other facets to his personality that can originate from his background: he doesn’t trust easily, he plays the class clown because it’s a way for him to feel like he belongs without showing weakness/his heart (e.g. the hat), and...

His view of the world can seem a bit ‘black and white’. He doesn’t share Geralt’s hero complex and can come across as callous. 

During ‘No Place Like Home’, the witchers discuss contracts. Lambert talks about a contract where he was hired to kill a monster that was attacking freight. It ended up being a forest troll chilling in a forest and bandits attacking the wagons. He killed the bandits and the troll (sentient and relatively intelligent). Why? He needed the coin to survive and that’s what he got hired for.

He’s also quick to resort to killing, i.e. the people involved (even if not directly) with Aiden’s murder (perhaps forgivable), and the mountain trolls on the way to the Circle of Elements (less forgivable). He clearly views being a witcher more like mercenary work than a ‘knightly’ calling with rules and morals. 

I believe his views on ‘witcher neutrality’ would be quite complex. I don’t think Lambert would have hesitated in killing Stregobor (”The sorcerer did what, Renfri? Let’s fuck him up”), but I also don’t think he would have had qualms killing the Sylvan outright. It was his contract, after all.

Just because he’s an asshole, doesn’t mean he’ll tolerate injustice/other people being dickheads. He will make sure you pay for your fuckery. He doesn't suffer fools.

I love this about Lambert. He will call people out on their bullshit and, if he can, they will be punished. I’ve pulled out my two favourite examples.

Yennefer was an asshole when she arrived at Kaer Morhen, so he messed with her telescope by planting some crates of dimeritium bombs nearby. 

[The gadget beeps like crazy near a crate stack.]

Geralt: Ahh. There you are. Disturbance is coming from there. What's in these crates?

Vesemir: Dimeritium bombs. Lambert made 'em.

Geralt: No wonder the megascope doesn't work. All right, gotta get 'em outta here.

This was confirmed by Yennefer when Geralt returned.

Geralt: You know... Lambert’s not exactly an expert on megascopes, so...

Yennefer: Please. Lambert is mean, not stupid.

He calls Triss out on her arrogance in Blood of Elves when she spends her stay treating the witchers as incompetent and belittling their meagre contributions to the world. Notably, he often calls Triss by her second name, ‘Merigold’,  an indication of his disdain.

“Me, too,” Lambert grimaced. “And it’s not surprising—it’s a popular saying of late. It’s what kings say when it turns out that a modicum of brains is necessary to rule after all. It’s what merchants say when greed and stupidity have led them to bankruptcy. It’s what wizards say when they start to lose their influence on politics or income. And the person they’re speaking to should expect some sort of proposal straight away. So cut the introduction short, Triss, and present us with your proposition.” Blood of Elves, pg. 110.

His sense of justice is swift and brutal. He, of course, seeks vengeance for Aiden’s death in ‘Follow the Thread’, which we all know intimately well. Also, notably, he punishes some bandits using Axii.

Lambert shows affection with teasing/insults, and he enjoys it when it’s returned. However, he’s also capable of more ‘traditional’ affection, and it’s genuine. He is doggedly loyal to those he loves - Aiden, Ciri, Geralt and Eskel, particularly.

The young witcher is quarrelsome and has a biting tongue, though at times he uses rudeness to express his fondness for someone. - Price of Neutrality, Premium Module.

He’s a sarcastic guy. He’s also rude and abrasive, but he treats everyone equally. I like his relationship with Ciri the most (although I’ve seen a lot of people interpret this less generously), but I think @childoffantasy summarised my thoughts more concisely than I: he’s the fun uncle that will be a bit of a dick, tease you, but actually talk to you, not just awkwardly ask you how school is and shuffle off. He genuinely cares for Ciri (he's the one who corrects her table manners, tries to tell Triss that she’s just another orphan of war and thus not of interest to the Chapter).

“You’re a girl. Girls don’t have brains.”

“Lambert! If Triss heard that!”

“If ifs and ands were pots and pans. All right, that’s enough. Come down. We’ll take a break.”

“I’m not tired!”

“But I am. I said, a break. Come down from the comb.”

“Turning a somersault?”

“What do you think? Like a hen off its roost? Go on, jump. Don’t be afraid, I’m here for you.”

“Haaaa!”

“Nice. Very good - for a girl. You can take off the blindfold now.”

He stepped up to fight for Ciri against the Wild Hunt without question (expecting to die; we see him brewing his ‘farewell feast’ before we head off to the Circle of Elements).

While drinking with Geralt, Lambert calls him a blowhard but tells him he’d go to hell and back for him. He means it.

Other fun things:

I love the headcanon that Lambert likes to dress up, and he finds it hot when others do too.

He is intelligent. Like, really intelligent (enough to earn Yennefer’s respect). I always have him as good with the more scientific part of being a witcher; bombs, alchemy. It’s fun to think that he improved some of the decoction and potion formulae. 

Linked to the above, Lambert has to survive as a witcher through his wits and skill. He’s not twice-grassed like Geralt, or gifted with Signs like Eskel. He is competent, hardworking, cunning and intelligent. With thanks to @cassandrasartworld.

He likes animals, but he has issues with getting attached to things because nothing’s permanent and life is cruel.

He uses bombs to fish, because he’s just so feckin’ extra.

Common Pitfalls:

[Disclaimer: these are things I dislike seeing/have done in the past and developed beyond, but I must reiterate - write characters how you want/view them; it is your story].

Writing him as just an asshole. This doesn’t really show appreciation for the reasons why Lambert is the way he is nor the nuance behind the way he interacts with different people.

Too much swearing. I’m guilty of this, and sometimes it’s fun to write! But don’t lose his intelligence amongst the ‘fucks’. He is a clever fucking bloke, alright?

Twink No. 2. At the moment, I see him filling the gap for Jaskier in some stories and encounters, which is disappointing. Always ask: can I replace this character with someone else and would the interaction be the same? If the answer’s yes, then review the scene.

It’s nice to soften characters right up, but sometimes it’s more challenging/rewarding if the character isn’t soft. If he makes a shit decision, or he’s a bit abhorrent. Soft!Bert is really nice, but morally dubious Bert is also very fun. 

I hope this has been helpful. It’s by no means exhaustive, but these are the things I’ve hashed out as I’ve developed my understanding of the character. There are some great Lambert writers out there, and I have to thank the Cake Shop and all attached personages for helping me grow as a writer. I’m always looking to ‘write characters better’, so you’ll probably see my characterisation continue to change and evolve.

Also, it’s okay for Lambert to ‘grow as a person’ in your story. If you’re going to write something where the lad can do a bit of healing? Of course he’s going to be subtly different.

Good luck, Anon! Please feel free to tag me when you’re done. 

An addition: this thread contains lots of amazing thoughts from a huge variety of writers. It’s well worth looking through all the reblogs and comments.

Would you mind sharing some tips on writing eskel as well? I've heard people complain about how eskel is basically written as geralt with a scar, but I'm not sure how to NOT do that? How do you write him as himself and not a copy of Geralt?

Ahh, Anon. Eskel. Well, believe it or not, this was harder to pull together than the one for Lambert. Eskel’s a character quite close to my heart and I’ve used him across a wide range of stories to explore issues close to home. I’ve broken down some core principles, so I hope this is both informative, but flexible enough for you to twist and warp as you see fit. A lot of his traits are interwoven, but I’ve tried to sort them into some sensible order.

My usual disclaimer: personal interpretations; mileage may differ. Remember that everyone engages with media differently, etc.

TLDR: In the books, it’s said that he and Geralt look so similar that they could be mistaken for brothers, but for the scar on Eskel’s face and Geralt’s white hair. They’re close. Eskel’s life is governed by quiet pragmatism, whereas Geralt is governed by idealism. Eskel doesn’t involve himself like Geralt does; he’s capable of operating inside societal norms and is well aware of his emotions/needs (enough to have sound mastery of them). He prefers the life of an anonymous witcher, not because he isn’t special in his own way, but because that is the life he chooses.

Special shoutout to those in the Cake Shop who helped me answer the question “how do I talk about Eskel without showing my whole ass?” @lohrendrell, @tumbleweedtech, @frenchkey, @octinary, particularly.

Eskel knows how society works. He’s able to live within its boundaries.

“It was Eskel’s behaviour which was most unlikely; he got up, approached the enchantress, bent down low, took her hand and kissed it respectfully.”

“Vesemir hawked again. But Eskel, dear Eskel, kept his head and once more behaved as was fitting.”

Blood of Elves

Eskel is often written as the “diplomatic” one. Part of this stems from the “eldest child” syndrome he has—polite, responsible and Vesemir can “count on him”—but also because he understands society’s rules and his place within it. He doesn’t chafe against the yoke like Lambert or stumble awkwardly through like Geralt. It’s not that he’s passive, but he has accepted the world for it is and rather than rail against it (Lambert) or believe that he can change it with enough personal suffering (Geralt), he has decided to operate within its framework as best he can.

Even if he wholeheartedly disagrees with something, he will feign interest. His one big tell is the inability to maintain eye contact when something truly bores him, probably because he’s well aware that his eyes might give him away.

Eskel would have pinched the bridge of his nose in despair had been present when Geralt skewered that rodent in the dark. Triss notes that Eskel “behaves as he should” and Eskel is able to conduct himself in a manner that encourages Triss to assist with Ciri, because he knows that is what’s needed at the time. He doesn’t see himself “above” a little bit of deference if it achieves the end goal, which leads me onto the next point…

Eskel is a pragmatist, not an idealist. 

Eskel and Coën bestowed a look which was entirely devoid of respect on the old man. 

Blood of Elves

Eskel: Saved this lost knight once... You know, woods, dark, wolves. The standard. Told him "Give me what you find at home" and all that... No kid this time, but his mare had just foaled.

Geralt: Eskel and Scorpion... Bound by fate. An enchanting tale.

Eskel: Mock me all you want. You're just jealous.

Dialogue, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Eskel gets a bad reputation for not picking up Deidre and leaving her to “suffer”. In reality, Eskel was pragmatic in making his decision to leave her where she was. A princess would live a far better life in a palace, surrounded by luxury, than he could ever give her. I’ve debated whether he puts much stock in “destiny” either, since he claimed law of surprise a second time—sometimes I write this as him asking the world for a second chance to get it right, because his decision bit him in the ass. There may have been a small concern at taking on the responsibility, particularly given the timing of his “acquisition”.

After the whole Deidre debacle, Eskel carried a collective work about the phenomenon of the “Black Sun”. He concluded that the Council of Wizards meddled too much in state affairs, botched it and, had they not sent Sabrina Glevissig, Ademeyn might not have been ostracised. In other words, Deidre was a victim of the machinations of the Council. Is Eskel dogged by regret and thoughts of “what could have been”? I think so. Why else would he take such great pains to find an explanation beyond something as erroneous as “fate”?

Another aspect of this pragmatism is the realistic way he views his relationship to Kaer Morhen and the witcher brotherhood. He doesn’t view Vesemir as a father figure (contrary to what our beloved fanfiction tropes would have you believe) and treats him with detachment (if not open disdain as evidenced above). This suggests he has a better grasp of the reality of his training years than Geralt—a leap, but it matches the rest of his approach to the Path (see next point). They weren’t trained as gallant knights to rescue damsels from distress, but as monster hunters that would live on the periphery of society. 

He is notably disturbed by performing the Trial of the Grasses on Uma and walks away. Like all witchers, there is certainly some residual trauma there, particularly because he almost lost Geralt during the whole process.

I think this foundational understanding of his place in the world meant that he never quite developed the sense of “unworthiness” that Geralt carries with him. This doesn’t mean that Eskel isn’t very aware of his worth and his place; he is conscious of his scars (touches them when he’s anxious or contemplative) and saves his smiles for his friends and family. He is aware of how the world views him—resigned to it, perhaps fatigued by it in some ways—and manages himself accordingly. 

As an amusing aside, he once caught a vampire by getting a woman drunk on drugged alcohol and using her as bait (with her consent, of course), but I can just imagine Geralt clutching his pearls at the very idea and it makes me grin.

Eskel chooses anonymity. He chooses the simple life of a witcher and takes a certain amount of pride in it.

Geralt: You too. How are things?

Eskel: Same ol', same ol'. Another day, another drowner.

Geralt: That it?

Eskel: I'm a simple witcher, Wolf. Don't fight dragons, don't fraternise with kings and don't sleep with sorceresses... Unlike some.

Dialogue, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

“And the lord barons and village elders,” added Eskel, “have their heads full of the war and don’t have the time to defend their subjects. They have to hire us. It’s true. But from what Triss has been telling us all these evenings, it seems the conflict with Nilfgaard is more serious than that, not just some local little war. Is that right, Triss?”

Blood of Elves 

Eskel prefers a quiet life on his own terms. He chooses to walk the Path with his own morals and chooses not to engage the way Geralt or Coën do (both intervene and find heartache and pain), whereas Geralt wants a happy family, Eskel prefers his solitude. He chooses to be an anonymous witcher, chooses simplicity instead of glory, or even a sense of grand accomplishment. He finds accomplishment in carving out the life he wants, because his early life was characterised by a lack of agency. In summary, if Geralt is high drama, then Eskel is maximum chill. 

He never gained Geralt’s renown—deliberately, as I’ve stated—but he has a reputation as a solid witcher; professional, reliable and competent. He has undertaken a number of notable feats, including the rescue of a young girl from the stomach of a basilisk and the slaying of a manticore (neither of which he got paid for due to the lack of contract).

We can extrapolate a little from what he doesn’t say or do. In the Blood of Elves, when Triss commented on their treatment of Ciri, he listened rather than bite back like Lambert and lament like Geralt. After they discussed what to do with Ciri, the conversation turned to the situation in the Northern Kingdoms. Eskel asked a question initially (as above) but went silent when it turned into a debate about neutrality. He’s the closest example we have of a witcher that pays more than lip service to the neutrality of the order (besides, perhaps, Vesemir).

Eskel is quiet, but he’s not “slow”.

Geralt: Something about Yen bothering you? C'mon, grow a pair, give it to me straight.

Eskel: You grow a pair and admit she tricked you. More than a few times.

Geralt: That was then. Yen's changed.

Eskel: Right. Fine, never mind... Let's go.

Dialogue, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Geralt: We shouldn't. Rather not tire out my horse for no reason.

Eskel: Ah... Honestly can't see what all those dames see in you. You're a stick in the mud.

Geralt: Pretty damn handsome stick, though.

Eskel: Debatable... Let's go.

Dialogue, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

There can be a tendency to paint Eskel as a little bit dim, because some of his rebuttals to Geralt amount to “no, you” and he has this lovely, warm accent in the game that drops the ‘g’ and uses the word ‘ain’t’. However, I propose that Eskel has a dry sense of humour, has grown up dealing with Geralt’s sass and knows the best way to shut him down is to disengage with a one-liner and move on. 

You also have one of my favourite examples of Eskel’s intelligence, which is the fact that he spent months hunting a katakan and dragged it to Kaer Morhen for an autopsy to figure out what was so special about it. I’ve gone into this in more depth in a “headcanon” post, which is more focused on what I have built Eskel as (including a love of poetry and literature). 

Other bits and pieces:

He is perturbed by Geralt’s relationship with Yennefer and points out her poor treatment of him (and her poor behaviour when she arrives at KM); he remarks that Yennefer plays Geralt like a “cheap fiddle”. Ouch.

He has a feathered bonnet he wears on special occasions. 

He has a lot of luck with the ladies when wearing a mask—don’t worry, Eskel, we love you without one—which suggests an innate charm that he can deploy effectively.

He’s infamous for sleeping with succubi and doing fisstech. While some might try to base his entire character on this, it only suggests that he knows how to have a good time and, in his own words, loves a woman with horns.

He enjoys drinking and laughing with his loved ones, and there is evidence that he has a close relationship with Lambert as well as Geralt.

He is a lightweight when it comes to alcohol.

There is still plenty of scope to explore issues of self-esteem and Eskel’s expectations of the world (and how it treats him).

My headcanon that he has an army of grannies that feed him on the Path because he is a “good young man” that helps them out.

Some random headcanons that aren’t wholly based on canon material.

He appears once with a goat.

His hands “emanate with power”, more so than Geralt. He is known for an astounding mastery of Signs.

I’ve avoided discussing anything to do with kink or NSFW; I’ll let you make up the fun bits by yourself (but I’m personally partial to Eskel any way he comes, to be honest; the lad loves to please his lovers).

Chonkskel for life. There is no other way.

In conclusion, Anon. Eskel is not Geralt Lite.  I view them as two halves of one soul, yes—even if you just view them platonically, they’re bound by the life they have lived together—but Eskel is the balance to Geralt’s chaos, the calm to his turbulence. They find effortless acceptance and love in each other (evidenced by the way they fall into each other’s arms in the Blood of Elves).  

On his own, Eskel is a simple man in that his wants in life are simple, but he has his own clear moral code of neutrality, a dry wit and an easy charm. I always advise people to drink some bourbon, listen to Tennesse Whiskey and read about sultry summer evenings before sitting down to write Eskel, because that’s how he feels to me.