One thing that has been buggering me since Ep1 is the meeting with Ramsay. I picked Duncan as sentinel but played both sides by using Royland's plan of meeting Ramsay at the gate. In doing so only Ramsay and Whitehill enter Ironrath while the soldiers are clearly left behind the closed gate.
Then you end up in the great hall anyway and out of nowhere the soldiers show up. While playing I was really puzzled by that and then later on Royland (who was missing as not being my sentinel) stated that he wasn't present in the room because he was watching the soldiers.. I facepalmed a bit there as it looked like a big fat plothole that means Royland let them through the gate or watched them enter and did nothing oO.
Now two people were missing from that scene The non sentinel and the Maester. If the Royland bit isn't a plothole and he simply meant Whitehills movement around the castle but not at the gate that leave the Maester to open the gate (by paying the guards there or whatever).
Furthermore, I read that if you told the maester/lady forrester about the north grove at the very beginning the whitehills daughter mentions it apparently (haven't verified myself) which would further incriminate the maester. Although this part I didn't experience myself so no idea if this is actually true.
The maester seems too obvious and i thought he was classic red herring but... ;/ That said I also haven't seen anyone talk about those guys that magically go through a closed gate, maybe this was discussed earlier in the games life as I only got it recently I didn't check any older discussion.?
EDIT: Well after reading a few posts around most claim the gate is a plothole but that's really weak writing if so .. And the posts claiming so said it wasn't mentionned later on to justify their view but Royland mentions it he just doesn't explain it .. am confused lol , but if that's a plothole it's a pretty big one and pretty disappointing -_-
You think it's Ser Royland of all people?! He would be my very last guess. He gets legitimately furious everytime a forrester is mistreated.… more Why would he do that? Do you think he's simply acting and trying to give Lord Whitehill a reason to attack?I don't think he has the acting-talent or the brains to pull that off. And why would he have gotten Rodrik help in the beginning of episode 2? If he was the traitor and truly wanted to seize power, he should've just slit his throat and make that dude on the carriage take him back or get rid of the body in another way.
I think it's very unlikely that it's him.
At the time being, the Maester is the best option when comparing it to Duncan and Royland. He's the one who has shown the least amount of emotion or interest in the whole predicament.
But based on further thinking, I now believe there is a strong chance it is Lady Forrester. She might just be doing all of this in an attempt to delay the Whitehills from hurting Ryon
Give me one motive for the Maester turning traitor. Everyone who has suggested the Maester has only mentioned why it wouldn't be others, no one has actually give a reason why it WOULD be him.
No, he was a Whitehill. Frostfinger said as much in episode 3 and when the maester was fixing Gared's leg, Gared said it was two Whitehill s… moreoldiers and a Bolton who attacked him, Ramsay probably wouldn't have gotten involved if you only killed Whitehill soldiers, meaning the Bolton had to be the first soldier you killed (with the axe or pitchfork).
That depends on how you interpret the scene. Royland is the first person to talk to Rodrik and there is like one dude in the background. And he is only a peasant. So he actually could have gotten rid of him right there. But I understand if you think the risk of getting caught was too big. That's also true. My first point still stands though.
Your first point is merely an opinion. I'll agree that Royland doesn't seem to have the mind or wit to pull something off like being a traitor but again that's an opinion against the facts that are available of what he could gain by being a traitor. My second guess would be Maester Ortengryn. If not Royland, it will be him.
That depends on how you interpret the scene. Royland is the first person to talk to Rodrik and there is like one dude in the background. And… more he is only a peasant. So he actually could have gotten rid of him right there. But I understand if you think the risk of getting caught was too big. That's also true. My first point still stands though.
Your first point is merely an opinion. I'll agree that Royland doesn't seem to have the mind or wit to pull something off like being a trait… moreor but again that's an opinion against the facts that are available of what he could gain by being a traitor. My second guess would be Maester Ortengryn. If not Royland, it will be him.
Yeah, I guess we'll have to see. Also, on a side note. I'm betting that the game later on makes a life and death situation between Duncan and Royland. Where we have to chose. Kind of like in the Walking Dead game.
Actually...there is something that bugs me, and this very much lends credence to the possibility that the traitor might be a determinant choice:
The gate opens even if you refuse to let Lord Ramsay inside. No dialogue choice can keep him from entering your gate.
The person you don't choose as Sentinel is curiously absent when Lord Ethan is killed -- and also absent when the gate is opened.
If you tell Ramsay, "I'll bar the gate!" after he claims a garrison of Whitehill soldiers will occupy your lands, Ramsay laughs and says that you're too late. Whoever opened your gate managed to do so with nobody else around.
When I told Sir Royland he would be my Sentinel, Duncan claimed I wasn't fit to rule.
Just after I appointed Sir Royland, Duncan remained behind to express just how hurt he was that i didn't choose him. He told me how he had given everything to my House--how he'd sent his own nephew to the wall for me!--even after his entire family was murdered. That sort of thing can breed serious resentment. I'm willing to bet Royland had a few parting words, as well.
The argument against Lady Forrester falls apart as soon as you consider that the Whitehills have orders to kill Ryon if we give them any trouble. If you choose to expel Gryf (as I did), Lady Forrester begs you to choose a different path. Does anyone have evidence that she argues against an attempt to save Ryon? It would be understandable that Lady Forrester would betray her eldest out of love for her youngest, but to betray her eldest even when he puts her youngest first? And at the possible expense of Ryon's life by the very people she despises? I need more than this.
Ok, so I've been analysing all the arguments in full and I've finally come to a definite conviction on who could and couldn't be the traitor… more.
Firstly, it is definitely not the Maester: he is too obvious, and he has zero motive for turning traitor. Telltale like to surprise the player- it's part of good story telling- and if I've learnt anything from them it is never the obvious person who is the real culprit. Lots of people assume it must be him just because the arguments for and against him being the traitor are less clear, but really he has no motives for turning traitor and it's just too obvious- TT want us to think he's the traitor.
As for Royland, there's no chance he'd turn traitor either, whether or not you make him sentinel or not. He's too loyal, there's no way he'd deal with the Whitehill's or have anything to do with them. If he was the traitor, why would he start fighting the Whitehill men? Why would he try to encourage such… [view original content]
It's definitely not a plot hole. Go back and play the game! You can see it for yourself! One of the options, right before the soldiers enter is "I'll bar the gates!" Ramsay laughs and says, "I'm afraid it's a bit late for that!" He does this even if you tell him he's the only one who can enter Ironrath, and he does it while the person you don't pick as Sentinel is missing.
One thing that has been buggering me since Ep1 is the meeting with Ramsay. I picked Duncan as sentinel but played both sides by using Roylan… mored's plan of meeting Ramsay at the gate. In doing so only Ramsay and Whitehill enter Ironrath while the soldiers are clearly left behind the closed gate.
Then you end up in the great hall anyway and out of nowhere the soldiers show up. While playing I was really puzzled by that and then later on Royland (who was missing as not being my sentinel) stated that he wasn't present in the room because he was watching the soldiers.. I facepalmed a bit there as it looked like a big fat plothole that means Royland let them through the gate or watched them enter and did nothing oO.
Now two people were missing from that scene The non sentinel and the Maester. If the Royland bit isn't a plothole and he simply meant Whitehills movement around the castle but not at the gate that leave the Maester to open the gate (… [view original content]
Why would she tell the Whitehills that they were going to save her son? That contradicts her motives. She's not the traitor. As for the Maester, the only reasons I've seen that he isn't the traitor is because:
1. He only profits by getting gold from ironwood being sold.
2. He constantly is helping Forresters get healed and even freaked out on Gryff when he hurt Rodrick.
Other than that there is not much that I can remember as to why he wouldn't be a traitor. He's a likely suspect. But if you saw the video I linked in an earlier post, I think it is Royland. It would take me awhile to explain. So I'd advise you watch it instead. It'll have all the info you need about every character on the council + their motives.
At the time being, the Maester is the best option when comparing it to Duncan and Royland. He's the one who has shown the least amount of em… moreotion or interest in the whole predicament.
But based on further thinking, I now believe there is a strong chance it is Lady Forrester. She might just be doing all of this in an attempt to delay the Whitehills from hurting Ryon
Ok, so I've been analysing all the arguments in full and I've finally come to a definite conviction on who could and couldn't be the traitor… more.
Firstly, it is definitely not the Maester: he is too obvious, and he has zero motive for turning traitor. Telltale like to surprise the player- it's part of good story telling- and if I've learnt anything from them it is never the obvious person who is the real culprit. Lots of people assume it must be him just because the arguments for and against him being the traitor are less clear, but really he has no motives for turning traitor and it's just too obvious- TT want us to think he's the traitor.
As for Royland, there's no chance he'd turn traitor either, whether or not you make him sentinel or not. He's too loyal, there's no way he'd deal with the Whitehill's or have anything to do with them. If he was the traitor, why would he start fighting the Whitehill men? Why would he try to encourage such… [view original content]
Telling lady Forrester that theres a traitor seems like the right choice. Because if the Whithehills find out that you know it means its lady Forrester. Of course she might not just tell...
Yeah, I guess we'll have to see. Also, on a side note. I'm betting that the game later on makes a life and death situation between Duncan and Royland. Where we have to chose. Kind of like in the Walking Dead game.
Well if you keep down when the white hill son try's to punish you and you stand down Tuttal comes to your aid and he tells everyone that his family has owned him from the start but a dog like him is steel useful
I think Lady Forrestor - she may be desperate to get Ryon back and might only be concerned with the safety of her family and not the entire house. If she can marry into the whitehills she and her family will be stable even if they give up a lot of power. It has happened to her before, why not again.
Of course, this means betraying her people and having Duncan and Royland, among others, killed. She also sent her other family member (Malcom) far away to get her other family member, in hopes this will all be settled before they return.
Well yes personnally i thought that the soldier entering wasn't a plothole and meant that someone opened the gate. Because when you walk to the hall along with ramsey you can clearly see the soldiers behind the closed gate. The part you talk about ("i'll bar the gate") comes when you are inside the great hall, so that tends to further prove that ramsey knows that he has someone "handling" the gate.
I merely stated what other people said (that it was a plothole) about that strange part of soldiers magically walking in the great hall while a few minutes before they are behind a closed gate . My opinion is that it's not a plothole (that would be a very big oversight) and it was an early indication that there was a traitor that's how I personally perceived the scene when i played it.
It's definitely not a plot hole. Go back and play the game! You can see it for yourself! One of the options, right before the soldiers enter… more is "I'll bar the gates!" Ramsay laughs and says, "I'm afraid it's a bit late for that!" He does this even if you tell him he's the only one who can enter Ironrath, and he does it while the person you don't pick as Sentinel is missing.
Well after reading all of these comments, what if it isn't A traitor, but multiple traitors who Gwyn thinks is just one traitor. As Fen_ said apparently Gwyn can mention The North Grove which can only be discovered from Lady Forrestor, the Maester and Duncan, but does anyone know if when you tell Duncan it gets out to Gwyn? If it doesn't then that leaves Lady Forrestor or the Maester, which are both obvious (though telltale doesn't stick with the obvious sometimes). Though for all we know the whole council besides Rodrik might have betrayed each other by telling even just a snippet of information and the Whitehills then pieced it together. (But I haven't even played the game so I can be extremely far off from the truth)
Ever since reading the books, I don't trust any maester that doesnt have a valerian steel link in his chain, so he is my main suspect.
Although Lady Forrester is a good second, prolly being forced to do that for Ryons sake, if she is the traitor.
But why would it be the mother? If you choose to save Ryon instead of kicking Gryff out, why would she be the traitor? Why would she tell Lord Whitehill that we're coming to take my son back? Godd speculating though. ;-)
At the 8:45 mark, after Gryff shoves Duncan, he says (referring to Duncan) "I like him. You thought this was your man Rodrik? He's mine, a dog to be sure, but my dog." Might be in reference to him being the traitor. My cards are still on Lady Forrester though.
At the 8:45 mark, after Gryff shoves Duncan, he says (referring to Duncan) "I like him. You thought this was your man Rodrik? He's mine, a d… moreog to be sure, but my dog." Might be in reference to him being the traitor. My cards are still on Lady Forrester though.
https://youtu.be/kpE-0O8mkZA?t=8m45s
She tells the Whitehills about her son because if the plan fails (which there was a strong chance it would), they might have killed Ryon. And I don't know what thread it is, can you link the video again?
Why would she tell the Whitehills that they were going to save her son? That contradicts her motives. She's not the traitor. As for the Maes… moreter, the only reasons I've seen that he isn't the traitor is because:
1. He only profits by getting gold from ironwood being sold.
2. He constantly is helping Forresters get healed and even freaked out on Gryff when he hurt Rodrick.
Other than that there is not much that I can remember as to why he wouldn't be a traitor. He's a likely suspect. But if you saw the video I linked in an earlier post, I think it is Royland. It would take me awhile to explain. So I'd advise you watch it instead. It'll have all the info you need about every character on the council + their motives.
She tells the Whitehills about her son because if the plan fails (which there was a strong chance it would), they might have killed Ryon. And I don't know what thread it is, can you link the video again?
I told only Duncan about the North Grove, not the Maester or Lady Forrester, and Gwyn didn't mention it to me as far as I remember. I suspect the Maester first, and Lady Forrester second. It does seem strange for her to betray the plan to rescue Ryon though.
Well after reading all of these comments, what if it isn't A traitor, but multiple traitors who Gwyn thinks is just one traitor. As Fen_ sai… mored apparently Gwyn can mention The North Grove which can only be discovered from Lady Forrestor, the Maester and Duncan, but does anyone know if when you tell Duncan it gets out to Gwyn? If it doesn't then that leaves Lady Forrestor or the Maester, which are both obvious (though telltale doesn't stick with the obvious sometimes). Though for all we know the whole council besides Rodrik might have betrayed each other by telling even just a snippet of information and the Whitehills then pieced it together. (But I haven't even played the game so I can be extremely far off from the truth)
We might be missing some vital information. I actually may be wrong, but I am not sure that all the Forester children are from Lord Forester. It may make a big difference. Especially in the motives of the mother. My guess is that Asher is the son of Lord Whithehill.
As for the maester, he is quite young. He can not be very loyal to Foresters.
What if Ryon is already dead? That would change the entire event. They could say he is safe but only use that against you. It is GoT we are talking about here. The mother could be the trader thinking her son is safe the entire time well in fact he is already dead and they are using that to their advantage. You go to save him but now you're in a worse situation because he was never there to begin with. That sounds like something TT and GoT would do.
He saved Rodrik's life. If he was the traitor, surely he wouldn't want to keep Rodrik alive. That would only aid House Forrester. No, he isn't the traitor.
But I am glad you are also thinking it is Lady Forrester . Her being the traitor makes sense as she's the only one who can be manipulated by the Whitehill's, so that Ryon is kept safe.
At the time being, the Maester is the best option when comparing it to Duncan and Royland. He's the one who has shown the least amount of em… moreotion or interest in the whole predicament.
But based on further thinking, I now believe there is a strong chance it is Lady Forrester. She might just be doing all of this in an attempt to delay the Whitehills from hurting Ryon
It's likely that Lady Forrester thought such a plan was too risky, and that if they failed it could only endanger Ryon further. I'm convinced that it's Lady Forrester, though that one point is the only inconsistency in the argument.
The only other alternative for me is that it's Duncan, who's working with Gwyn Whitehill to try and make peace but is actually being tricked by her into giving information. That seems more far fetched, so that's why I'm still sure it's Lady Forrester.
As for Royland, he's constantly flinging himself into conflict with the Whitehill's. Some might see this as him wanting to start a war and give the Whitehill's and excuse to kill the Forresters, but whether you make him Sentinel or not he is far too loyal in my opinion to turn traitor, especially since he hates the Whitehill's so much. There's no way he would work with them.
Why would she tell the Whitehills that they were going to save her son? That contradicts her motives. She's not the traitor. As for the Maes… moreter, the only reasons I've seen that he isn't the traitor is because:
1. He only profits by getting gold from ironwood being sold.
2. He constantly is helping Forresters get healed and even freaked out on Gryff when he hurt Rodrick.
Other than that there is not much that I can remember as to why he wouldn't be a traitor. He's a likely suspect. But if you saw the video I linked in an earlier post, I think it is Royland. It would take me awhile to explain. So I'd advise you watch it instead. It'll have all the info you need about every character on the council + their motives.
About your 6th point, I'll admit it is the one sticking point in the whole Lady Forrester argument. I can only explain that in two possible ways:
1. She thought such a plan was too risky and would endanger Ryon further
2. It was a writing inconsistency on TT's behalf
Also, Royland pretty much does the same as Duncan if you choose Duncan as Sentinel, criticising Duncan and telling you your too young to rule. So, I don't really think the traitor is based on who you choose as Sentinel- the whole Sentinel thing in my opinion was just to fill game time, and to make you feel more settled as Ethan just before they shockingly killed him off.
As for the whole Ramsey thing, that just seems to be to advance the storyline. I think your going into too much detail their (but that's not neccesarily a bad thing:) )
Actually...there is something that bugs me, and this very much lends credence to the possibility that the traitor might be a determinant cho… moreice:
* The gate opens even if you refuse to let Lord Ramsay inside. No dialogue choice can keep him from entering your gate.
* The person you don't choose as Sentinel is curiously absent when Lord Ethan is killed -- and also absent when the gate is opened.
* If you tell Ramsay, "I'll bar the gate!" after he claims a garrison of Whitehill soldiers will occupy your lands, Ramsay laughs and says that you're too late. Whoever opened your gate managed to do so with nobody else around.
* When I told Sir Royland he would be my Sentinel, Duncan claimed I wasn't fit to rule.
* Just after I appointed Sir Royland, Duncan remained behind to express just how hurt he was that i didn't choose him. He told me how he had given everything to my House--how he'd sent his own nephew to the wall for me!--even after hi… [view original content]
We might be missing some vital information. I actually may be wrong, but I am not sure that all the Forester children are from Lord Forester… more. It may make a big difference. Especially in the motives of the mother. My guess is that Asher is the son of Lord Whithehill.
As for the maester, he is quite young. He can not be very loyal to Foresters.
What if Ryon is already dead? That would change the entire event. They could say he is safe but only use that against you. It is GoT we are … moretalking about here. The mother could be the trader thinking her son is safe the entire time well in fact he is already dead and they are using that to their advantage. You go to save him but now you're in a worse situation because he was never there to begin with. That sounds like something TT and GoT would do.
But the thing is that he may not want the overall destruction of House Forrester, he (much like Lady Forrester) just wants to keep the House safe and he may feel that feeding information to the Whitehills is the best way to do that. He's probably hoping that they can end the war one day, and when that happens Ironrath will still need a capable ruler (why he keeps Rodrik alive).
He saved Rodrik's life. If he was the traitor, surely he wouldn't want to keep Rodrik alive. That would only aid House Forrester. No, he isn… more't the traitor.
But I am glad you are also thinking it is Lady Forrester . Her being the traitor makes sense as she's the only one who can be manipulated by the Whitehill's, so that Ryon is kept safe.
It is not that I am sure about it.I just thought that this kind of a twist might be in place. Probably if someone who has time, can make portraits of Forester and WhiteHill children, and may be their parents, just to compare them.
Also the timeline was messy, and that what brought my thoughts in a first place. I guess the time line mistake is a confirmed bug now.
Well, Lord Whitehill could be threatening her by telling her that he will harm Ryon/ kill him, no matter what, unless she tells him about Rodrik's plans.
But why would it be the mother? If you choose to save Ryon instead of kicking Gryff out, why would she be the traitor? Why would she tell Lord Whitehill that we're coming to take my son back? Godd speculating though. ;-)
If they did know about it, Britt wouldn't try to kill Gared as he knows that if he had success in his atempt he would end up with his head on a pike. He probably was like "fuck this shit, I am on the wall. I am already dead. At least I will kill this pig farmer)
That's actually quite a suggestion. Then again though, Britt was quite open that he didn't want to be there and he was intent on killing Gar… moreid whether you confront him or not, so if he was sent to spy on Garid and find the North Grove he wasn't told. Also, Britt being sent to the Wall means Lord Whitehill must know about the North Grove (I guess through Duncan, if what you suggest is true), but what motives would Duncan have for his actions?
Comments
One thing that has been buggering me since Ep1 is the meeting with Ramsay. I picked Duncan as sentinel but played both sides by using Royland's plan of meeting Ramsay at the gate. In doing so only Ramsay and Whitehill enter Ironrath while the soldiers are clearly left behind the closed gate.
Then you end up in the great hall anyway and out of nowhere the soldiers show up. While playing I was really puzzled by that and then later on Royland (who was missing as not being my sentinel) stated that he wasn't present in the room because he was watching the soldiers.. I facepalmed a bit there as it looked like a big fat plothole that means Royland let them through the gate or watched them enter and did nothing oO.
Now two people were missing from that scene The non sentinel and the Maester. If the Royland bit isn't a plothole and he simply meant Whitehills movement around the castle but not at the gate that leave the Maester to open the gate (by paying the guards there or whatever).
Furthermore, I read that if you told the maester/lady forrester about the north grove at the very beginning the whitehills daughter mentions it apparently (haven't verified myself) which would further incriminate the maester. Although this part I didn't experience myself so no idea if this is actually true.
The maester seems too obvious and i thought he was classic red herring but... ;/ That said I also haven't seen anyone talk about those guys that magically go through a closed gate, maybe this was discussed earlier in the games life as I only got it recently I didn't check any older discussion.?
EDIT: Well after reading a few posts around most claim the gate is a plothole but that's really weak writing if so .. And the posts claiming so said it wasn't mentionned later on to justify their view but Royland mentions it he just doesn't explain it .. am confused lol , but if that's a plothole it's a pretty big one and pretty disappointing -_-
Other people would have seen Rodrick in the yard, Royland had no choice but to help him.
At the time being, the Maester is the best option when comparing it to Duncan and Royland. He's the one who has shown the least amount of emotion or interest in the whole predicament.
But based on further thinking, I now believe there is a strong chance it is Lady Forrester. She might just be doing all of this in an attempt to delay the Whitehills from hurting Ryon
Thank you for the info. I was mistaken.
My vote is now for plain and simple, he was sent to kill Gared.
That depends on how you interpret the scene. Royland is the first person to talk to Rodrik and there is like one dude in the background. And he is only a peasant. So he actually could have gotten rid of him right there. But I understand if you think the risk of getting caught was too big. That's also true. My first point still stands though.
Your first point is merely an opinion. I'll agree that Royland doesn't seem to have the mind or wit to pull something off like being a traitor but again that's an opinion against the facts that are available of what he could gain by being a traitor. My second guess would be Maester Ortengryn. If not Royland, it will be him.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Yeah, I guess we'll have to see. Also, on a side note. I'm betting that the game later on makes a life and death situation between Duncan and Royland. Where we have to chose. Kind of like in the Walking Dead game.
Actually...there is something that bugs me, and this very much lends credence to the possibility that the traitor might be a determinant choice:
It's definitely not a plot hole. Go back and play the game! You can see it for yourself! One of the options, right before the soldiers enter is "I'll bar the gates!" Ramsay laughs and says, "I'm afraid it's a bit late for that!" He does this even if you tell him he's the only one who can enter Ironrath, and he does it while the person you don't pick as Sentinel is missing.
Why would she tell the Whitehills that they were going to save her son? That contradicts her motives. She's not the traitor. As for the Maester, the only reasons I've seen that he isn't the traitor is because:
1. He only profits by getting gold from ironwood being sold.
2. He constantly is helping Forresters get healed and even freaked out on Gryff when he hurt Rodrick.
Other than that there is not much that I can remember as to why he wouldn't be a traitor. He's a likely suspect. But if you saw the video I linked in an earlier post, I think it is Royland. It would take me awhile to explain. So I'd advise you watch it instead. It'll have all the info you need about every character on the council + their motives.
As long as its not Royland i'm happy
Telling lady Forrester that theres a traitor seems like the right choice. Because if the Whithehills find out that you know it means its lady Forrester. Of course she might not just tell...
Probably.
Well if you keep down when the white hill son try's to punish you and you stand down Tuttal comes to your aid and he tells everyone that his family has owned him from the start but a dog like him is steel useful
Everyone in the council know about Asher's purposes. Wy Gwyn didn't knew wy Asher is coming?
I think Lady Forrestor - she may be desperate to get Ryon back and might only be concerned with the safety of her family and not the entire house. If she can marry into the whitehills she and her family will be stable even if they give up a lot of power. It has happened to her before, why not again.
Of course, this means betraying her people and having Duncan and Royland, among others, killed. She also sent her other family member (Malcom) far away to get her other family member, in hopes this will all be settled before they return.
Well yes personnally i thought that the soldier entering wasn't a plothole and meant that someone opened the gate. Because when you walk to the hall along with ramsey you can clearly see the soldiers behind the closed gate. The part you talk about ("i'll bar the gate") comes when you are inside the great hall, so that tends to further prove that ramsey knows that he has someone "handling" the gate.
I merely stated what other people said (that it was a plothole) about that strange part of soldiers magically walking in the great hall while a few minutes before they are behind a closed gate
. My opinion is that it's not a plothole (that would be a very big oversight) and it was an early indication that there was a traitor that's how I personally perceived the scene when i played it.
Well after reading all of these comments, what if it isn't A traitor, but multiple traitors who Gwyn thinks is just one traitor. As Fen_ said apparently Gwyn can mention The North Grove which can only be discovered from Lady Forrestor, the Maester and Duncan, but does anyone know if when you tell Duncan it gets out to Gwyn? If it doesn't then that leaves Lady Forrestor or the Maester, which are both obvious (though telltale doesn't stick with the obvious sometimes). Though for all we know the whole council besides Rodrik might have betrayed each other by telling even just a snippet of information and the Whitehills then pieced it together. (But I haven't even played the game so I can be extremely far off from the truth)
Ever since reading the books, I don't trust any maester that doesnt have a valerian steel link in his chain, so he is my main suspect.
Although Lady Forrester is a good second, prolly being forced to do that for Ryons sake, if she is the traitor.
But why would it be the mother? If you choose to save Ryon instead of kicking Gryff out, why would she be the traitor? Why would she tell Lord Whitehill that we're coming to take my son back? Godd speculating though. ;-)
At the 8:45 mark, after Gryff shoves Duncan, he says (referring to Duncan) "I like him. You thought this was your man Rodrik? He's mine, a dog to be sure, but my dog." Might be in reference to him being the traitor. My cards are still on Lady Forrester though.
https://youtu.be/kpE-0O8mkZA?t=8m45s
It's probably a red herring.
Not even Gryff could be dumb enough to reveal the identity of the traitor to Rodrik.
She tells the Whitehills about her son because if the plan fails (which there was a strong chance it would), they might have killed Ryon. And I don't know what thread it is, can you link the video again?
Sure thing, I hope it helps you out.
I told only Duncan about the North Grove, not the Maester or Lady Forrester, and Gwyn didn't mention it to me as far as I remember. I suspect the Maester first, and Lady Forrester second. It does seem strange for her to betray the plan to rescue Ryon though.
We might be missing some vital information. I actually may be wrong, but I am not sure that all the Forester children are from Lord Forester. It may make a big difference. Especially in the motives of the mother. My guess is that Asher is the son of Lord Whithehill.
As for the maester, he is quite young. He can not be very loyal to Foresters.
What if Ryon is already dead? That would change the entire event. They could say he is safe but only use that against you. It is GoT we are talking about here. The mother could be the trader thinking her son is safe the entire time well in fact he is already dead and they are using that to their advantage. You go to save him but now you're in a worse situation because he was never there to begin with. That sounds like something TT and GoT would do.
He saved Rodrik's life. If he was the traitor, surely he wouldn't want to keep Rodrik alive. That would only aid House Forrester. No, he isn't the traitor.
But I am glad you are also thinking it is Lady Forrester
. Her being the traitor makes sense as she's the only one who can be manipulated by the Whitehill's, so that Ryon is kept safe.
It's likely that Lady Forrester thought such a plan was too risky, and that if they failed it could only endanger Ryon further. I'm convinced that it's Lady Forrester, though that one point is the only inconsistency in the argument.
The only other alternative for me is that it's Duncan, who's working with Gwyn Whitehill to try and make peace but is actually being tricked by her into giving information. That seems more far fetched, so that's why I'm still sure it's Lady Forrester.
As for Royland, he's constantly flinging himself into conflict with the Whitehill's. Some might see this as him wanting to start a war and give the Whitehill's and excuse to kill the Forresters, but whether you make him Sentinel or not he is far too loyal in my opinion to turn traitor, especially since he hates the Whitehill's so much. There's no way he would work with them.
About your 6th point, I'll admit it is the one sticking point in the whole Lady Forrester argument. I can only explain that in two possible ways:
1. She thought such a plan was too risky and would endanger Ryon further
2. It was a writing inconsistency on TT's behalf
Also, Royland pretty much does the same as Duncan if you choose Duncan as Sentinel, criticising Duncan and telling you your too young to rule. So, I don't really think the traitor is based on who you choose as Sentinel- the whole Sentinel thing in my opinion was just to fill game time, and to make you feel more settled as Ethan just before they shockingly killed him off.
As for the whole Ramsey thing, that just seems to be to advance the storyline. I think your going into too much detail their (but that's not neccesarily a bad thing:) )
Agreed. And it won't be him.
Why do you think they're not the Forrester children?
That is a possibility, though it wouldn't really effect who the traitor was.
But the thing is that he may not want the overall destruction of House Forrester, he (much like Lady Forrester) just wants to keep the House safe and he may feel that feeding information to the Whitehills is the best way to do that. He's probably hoping that they can end the war one day, and when that happens Ironrath will still need a capable ruler (why he keeps Rodrik alive).
It is not that I am sure about it.I just thought that this kind of a twist might be in place. Probably if someone who has time, can make portraits of Forester and WhiteHill children, and may be their parents, just to compare them.
Also the timeline was messy, and that what brought my thoughts in a first place. I guess the time line mistake is a confirmed bug now.
Well, Lord Whitehill could be threatening her by telling her that he will harm Ryon/ kill him, no matter what, unless she tells him about Rodrik's plans.
If they did know about it, Britt wouldn't try to kill Gared as he knows that if he had success in his atempt he would end up with his head on a pike. He probably was like "fuck this shit, I am on the wall. I am already dead. At least I will kill this pig farmer)
I'm leaning towards the mother, quite honestly.
Did anyone else think at first that the title of this thread was a rude word?