The Maester HAS to be the traitor(unless bad writing)
Trying to pinpoint the traitor by finding things that make them suspicious is counter-productive considering Telltale hints and instills suspicion within every character to keep us guessing. So we must look at every character and ask ourselves why they wouldn't betray House Forrester.
Why would Lady Forrester tell Ludd about Asher coming back? It's understandable why she would reveal the plan to expel Gryff or rescure Ryon because it would put Ryon in precarious situation but she wouldn't give the Whitehills a heads up about her exiled son possibly returning with an army of sellswords. It contradicts her character as she would be putting Asher at risk when he returns, and she would be giving incentive for Ludd to build his army in order to prepare for war.
Ser Royland is a straightforward-blunt man who would rather die than submit especially to his sworn enemies. He has no incentive to betray House Forrester as he values honor and loyalty above anything else. If they make him the traitor it would be bad writing and completely out of character.
Duncan is the only one Lord Forrester trusted. Duncan is sending his nephew (who he views as his son) to find the North Grove and risk his life to the point where I don't see how Gared will survive by the end of the game. If he were with the Whitehills why would he passionately seek the North Grove? Why doesn't Gwyn know about the North Grove and why would he set up a meeting with her in the first place knowing that she's willing to cooperate with Rodrik and possibly reveal his secret. From the codex " The two grew close, sharing food, drink, and women; when Gregor became lord he named Duncan his castellan. Many eyebrows were raised, but Duncan proved himself worthy and has served the House well in the many years since". On top of all that Whitehill men killed his brother and his niece, teaming up with whitehills....doesn't make sense.
That leaves the Maester which many are writing off because it's too obvious of a choice. But he's the only one who always disappears when Ethan is killed, Maesters are known to be sly, and he had a suspicious look when plans were being made in EP3.
The maester gives bad advice and literally tells Ethan to bargain the ironwood for "self-preservation" and "to live to fight another day" showcasing his self-interested/coward like tendencies. Some say why didn't the Maester just kill Rodrik? Well...Lady Forrester and Duncan both came in the room. It's also possible that he's not working with the Whitehills by choice, rather he's being threatened with his life which makes more sense alluding to everything I mentioned earlier and because he tells Gryff to go easy on Rodrik. Or he could just be self-interested and pragmatic either scenario is possible.
Even though every scenario for the maester is speculation it's at least conceivable, whereas any other character betraying Rodrik just doesn't make sense and would defy the logic within the stories boundaries.
Comments
You make a very good argument and I like how you analyse and evaluate each characters, potential, motivation behind betraying the house.
As someone who's been in the "Lady Forrester is guilty" camp, I never even considered using Gwyn's knowledge of Asher's return as evidence (and strong evidence at that) of Lady Forresters innocence.
What worries me is that TT will defy logic and just choose lets say Duncan just for shock factor. But otherwise even Lady Forrester (who was originally who i saw as the traitor) and anyone but the Maester simply lacks sense.
I completely agree. Yes, Ortengryn might be too obvious, but maesters are generally a shady bunch of people. There are exceptions, like Luwin and Aemon, but the most we see throughout the series almost always have ulterior motives running counter to the goals of their sworn house. Ortengryn may not be involved in those shady Citadel theories, but as an addendum to your point, let's look at his origin.
He's from the Vale, which means he follows the Faith of the Seven rather than the Old Gods of the Forest. Who else follows the Seven? Why, one of the few Northern houses aside from the Manderlys - the Whitehills.
Some time ago I read a theory by some user which stated that Asher and Gwyn are actually related due to Lady Forrester having an affair. If this is true, it does make more * sense* that Lady Forrester would tell Ludd as it would be his son.
But the theory is speculation and going based on the assumption that it isn't true, the maester is still the prime suspect in my eyes. But it's definitely an interesting theory that should be considered.
I personally think the traitor will be determinant depending on whether you chose to try and save Ryon or oust Gryff.
Lady Forrester if you choose to try and oust Gryff, Ortengryn if you choose Ryon.
Choosing to oust Gryff over Ryon's rescue is definitely a choice Lady Forrester wouldn't look kindly upon, and might even turn traitor to try and ensure her son's safety by feeding information to the Whitehills.
Ortengryn may be similarly motivated if Rodrick chooses to save Ryon, even if it means losing control of the house.
The Maester lives under the Forrester's roof, and knowing that the roof he lives under would likely be coming under control of a rival house, I could definitely see him switching sides in order to ensure his own safety.
This all just a theory of course.
Okay, I like your argument, but Lady Forrester is still my top pick. This is some of my analysis just based on episode three about her being inconsistent in dialogue. (Copying and pasting from one of my previous posts because it's still valid).
I watched the gameplay for if you tell Lady Forrester about the traitor, and she says a couple of things that seem strange to me.
1.) "What about Duncan?": She points him out because in the play-through I watched, he was the one who wasn't chosen as sentinel. That means that if Royland wasn't picked, she's going to throw Royland under the bus. In my mind, that makes it difficult to have either of them be the traitor just because it's something that will change depending on your choices and that won't be consistent enough with the later episodes. What I mean is that (unless no matter who you bring up in the discussion matters which is likely), if you chose Duncan for the sentinel than Royland would be the traitor and vice versa. That's too difficult to put in the game because for the rest of the episodes, you'd have one character gone for the rest of the season but it would change depending on who the traitor was. It has to be the same person no matter who you chose as sentinel.
2.) "It's bad enough having their soldiers in our house. But if you won't be open with me, then our problems run deeper.": This is a strange way to put it for me. Instead of outright saying, I need you to be honest with me, she brings up the influence of the soldiers. Their presence is obvious. It's literally all around you- the destruction that they've caused. Why bring it up? Why bring up multiple times throughout this conversation Gryff, the Whitehills, and then the soldiers? I personally think that it's eating her up inside. It would make it worse for her if she were the traitor, just because she'd have to submit information to them while witnessing all the things that they're doing to her family.
3.) "Then don't kneel.": Another time where she's said to stay up. Thank God in the fight (if you choose to stand no matter what), she doesn't say you made the wrong choice BUT she does say, "There will be consequences, my son. We both know that." She doesn't need to throw in that last part. All she has to say is there will be consequences. She's almost giving too much information with her dialogue, in this scene and the tell-her-there's-a-traitor scene. Perhaps it's a writer's mistake, but it's weird to me.
BUT THEN IF YOU DO SUBMIT: She says "You did the right thing, my son. You had to submit." YOU DID THE RIGHT THING! When she tells you to not kneel earlier!
I'm sorry if this all sounds stupid and I've said it multiple times, but there's plenty of evidence right there. Something doesn't add up here. Whether it's just bad character writing between decisions for her or it's that she's the traitor, something's up.
Also, it's very possible that the Whitehills threatened her with Ryon or her families' lives and said that if she didn't reveal everything (including Asher's return), they would kill whoever they needed to until she spilled. Honestly, it's very possible than someone else spilled the beans on that one, just because (as far as I remember) Asher's return to the House was openly discussed in the forest with the rest of the council.
I could be totally wrong about her, but I don't like that her speech doesn't line up with her actions. It's getting worse and worse as the episodes go by. Her being the traitor would clear some of that up more than if she weren't for me.
She could totally be the traitor, I just think Ortengryn has a pretty good chance of being a traitor too.
Hell, could be both. That would be a depressing twist.
There is no greater betrayal than to be betrayed by your own blood. If Lady Forrester turn out to be the traitor, my heart might go black...
The traitor could also be someone doing it for a good cause. IDK.
1.) I have to disagree because the prominent reason behind her suspicion is jealousy. She believes the traitor might be angry that he wasn't chosen as sentinel, and it's a keen observation considering the non-sentinel goes missing when Ethan dies. If that's the case, it makes total sense she would suspect the person who might have a grudge against the Forresters.
2.) I don't find it particularly strange it was evident Rodrik was hiding something and as a mother seeing her house fall right in front of her eyes. It's not illogical to believe that it's unhealthy not to be open with each other.
3.) I don't remember her telling Rodrik to stay up. I don't see anything suspicious with "There will be consequences, my son. We both know that." it simply seems to me she's reminding Rodrik that his bravery will come at a cost.
And lastly like I stated earlier before, there's no reason whatsoever for her to tell Ludd that Asher is coming back. It would only be detrimental to her and her family. There's no way it come up in dialogue and she has no reason to tell him this because there would be no possible scenario where Ludd could find out. It would give Ludd a heads up and an even larger reason to buff up his military strength which would only endanger the chances for a Forrester victory. For this reason if Lady Forrester is the traitor, it would truly be bad writing unless they can explain logically why Elissa would reveal this (Ludd is Asher's father, another traitor revealed this information to Ludd which lead to her having to be truthful).
You make some very good arguments and analysis of all the suspects, good job to you for that. The Maester has been my top pick since we learned there was a traitor, but I still will not rule out Lady Forrester completely.
Gwyn just states that "Asher is coming home, isn't he?" but doesn't know that Asher is planning on bringing an army with him (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, if Lady Forrester tells Ludd about just his return, she's not really giving him time to prepare an army (though from the sounds of it, he has one prepared already).
True, but I still don't understand why she would bring it up at all. I mean it would still cause bad tension between both parties considering Ludd must despise Asher for that little stint with Gwyn.
Honestly....All of this is leading me to believe in the theory I alluded earlier about Ludd's and Elissa's secret relationship. It starting to make more sense and it incriminates Lady Forrester strongly.
What exactly is the theory of Ludd and Elissa's relationship? This is the first time I'm hearing about it.
I think the maester is more than likely to be a traitor however i think telltale is going to add a shock factor by there being more than 1 traitor. I'm thinking both the maester and Lady Forrester are going behind Rodrik's back.