Royland makes Duncan look laughable
I remember playing episode 1, and finding the Sentinel decision so easy. House Forrester are in a weakened state, and have the young, well-read Ethan as their new lord. So who should be his wing-man? The brash, warrior guy, or the timid, supposedly wise guy? I chose the former, and felt very content in my decision. After all, Ethan is portrayed and established to be both wise and calm, though lacking any fighting abilities. So he needs someone to balance that out -- Royland. If you're ice, you need your fire. You need a ying and yang.... Ying and ying isn't an effective combo. Plus, Duncan undermined Ethan's authority by sending Gared away -- yes, I know Royland doubted Ethan's ability as a lord, but so did Duncan anyway.
Still, it wasn't any surprise of mine to find Duncan being the vast majority of people's Sentinel. However, why is that, I wondered? Well, it's clear. Because, Duncan is wise, and Royland isn't. Or so, is meant to be. Until, when you give it any real thought, whatsoever, you realize that's not the case. At all.
Let's look at their philosophy, scenario by scenario.
Ethan meets Ludd Whitehill. Royland suggests: Stand up for yourself. Don't give him any satisfication. Duncan suggests: Don't anger him. Just be diplomatic, and try to reason with him.
If you choose Duncan's suggestion, for example, shaking Lord Whitehill's hand... he will pull Ethan towards him, and mock his father's death. He will then go on a tirade, mocking the Forresters, all the while Ethan just meekly takes it, making them look weak and fallible.
If you choose Royland's suggestion, for example, ignoring Lord Whitehill's hand. He will mock his father's death, and go on a tirade, mocking the Forresters, all the while Ethan defends them, and trades back insults, making them look strong, and spirited.
So tell me. Who was right in that situation? Now then, what about towards the end of the episode? The same thing. Ethan dies no matter what, at the hands of Ramsay Snow. If you follow Royland's philosophy, Ethan goes out like Ethan the Brave, who gave Ramsay no quarter, made him wait at the gate, and grabbed Talia from his grasp. If you follow Duncan's philosophy, Ethan goes out like Ethan the Weak, who pleaded and knelt to Ramsay, let him stroll right into Ironrath, and either made no case, or a rather timid one, towards keeping Talia safe from him. Tell me again, which one is better?
Let's move on, to Episode 2. Royland's suggestion: Starve the Whitehill soldiers. Duncan's suggestion: Let them drink all the Forrester's wine. Both outcomes irritate Gryff and Ludd Whitehill in equal measure. So would you rather, do so by starving your enemy, or by allowing them a great time, by having free reign over what must be assumed Ironrath's limited, stock of wine? Once more... which is better?
But here's my favourite reason for my Royland is 101% superior to Duncan. He clearly cares for the Forresters more than Duncan. And here's my evidence for that statement. During Episode 3, when Rodrik must choose the Forresters next strategy. Duncan wants them to expel Gryff. But Royland? He wants them to save Ryon. And if you choose not to, he calls Rodrik out on it, and is very clearly hurt by the notion. Whereas Duncan is annoyed, if Rodrik's priority is saving Ryon.
At the end of Episode 3, with the Stand up to Gryff scene. If Royland is Sentinel, he praises Talia, which causes Gryff to push her to the ground. Whereas, in Duncan's case, he get's pushed instead. While it may seem, Duncan's version is "better." I actually think having Gryff push Talia makes the scene stronger, from a narrative stand-point, and it really pushes, or did push, my Rodrik to punch him. Whereas in the reverse situation, it's just sorta uncalled for.
Next, Highpoint. Same thing as I've mentioned before. Either way, it turns into a shit-show with Ludd. So what's better? Having Royland take the piss out of their castle beforehand, or having Duncan compliment it?
I'm missing out on so many other examples here, but I'll get to the chase on some final points. The traitor scene with Duncan is far more powerful, than Royland's. It feels more sincere, more real, whereas with Royland, it feels more artificial. Rodrik actually sounds and appears hurt with Duncan as the traitor, and Duncan actually comes across as severely desperate, and a tragic figure. Whereas, in the Royland scene, it just comes off as anti-climatic. But perhaps, this particular example is more an opinion, than a fact. Even still, I think this also counts towards making Royland the ideal sentinel, since Duncan, narratively speaking, makes the ideal traitor (if there is such a one, other than Lady Forrester or the Maester).
Lastly, the ending scene of Episode 5. If Rodrik stays behind (and watch if you don't believe me, watch a Rodrik stays behind video with Royland as Sentinel, and then with Duncan, and you'll see what I'm about to say) Royland is far more distraught by his sacrifice than Duncan is. Which also feeds into my point, Royland cares about the family more. (And in this example, I'm taking about Sentinel-Royland vs Sentinel-Duncan, not Sentinel-Royland Vs Non-Sentinel Duncan). Royland's dialogue and voice is far more upset than Duncan's.
And when Rodrik is at the gate, both Sentinels say. "But my lord, you can't!" Difference is, once Rodrik replies "Asher is your new lord." Here their differences come into play. Duncan just sorta accepts, and goes, almost casually, "Yes my lord." Whereas Royland almost tearfully forces out, yes... my lord And when Royland goes off, he shouts back, "Take as many of them as you can with you!" What does Duncan shout back? Nothing.
So there's just a sprinkle of my thought process on the whole situation. I felt it was about time I shared them, and heard what others have to say. 
Comments
Completely agree. I just love Royland as my sentinel, he may be a hothead, but he show far more honest emotions and a clearer loyalty toward the Forresters.
I would rather have a warrior and a commander by my side who can keep order with a firm hand, rather than the diplomatic adviser, who suggest advises that I can easily make on my own.
I dsagree with some points, but overall - yes. I played twice and felt better with Royland as sentinel. I also felt like Duncan being the traitor seemed to 'make more sense' than when it occured with Royland.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you, that's what i'm thinking too. I love Royland as the Sentinel and i'm glad i picked him. I just... admire his loyality, his courage. He's strong, he's not afraid of fight, he cares about House Forrester and... and you just can see this.
TeamRoyland!
Very nice thread.
Troughout the game it may seem that Duncan wishes for the Forresters to survive. While that maybe true, he doesn't care if the Forresters are respected, he doesn't care that other houses see them as weak, he doesn't care if the Forresters survive by killing eachother, he only cares that they live. In shame. Broken. It doen't matter to him as long as they breathe. Royland on the other hand wants the Forresters to be respected, he wants them to be happy and he would die for them.
That makes Royland to be more likable and fit to be the Sentinel in my book.
I love Royland. Great post.
w
Yeah, you got that right! I like this point of view.
Royland>Duncan
If Royland is so good, why is he dead? Checkmate.
Cause you made terrible decisions? Maybe?
Because someone failed to see his value, and chose a bearded weasel over him? :P
Anyway, MY Royland is loyal, alive and well... MY Duncan, however...
Maybe he wasnt good enough.
I only kept Duncan the Betrayer alive cause i want to tell him "You are Not my uncle." as Gared
That would be awesome, to have a scene like that.
"I'm the last family you have," says Duncan.
"My last family died on our farm." Gared answers and leaves him in his cell. Duncan, having betrayed the Forresters and lost their love, has now lost the care of his last true relative. He then kills himself in his cell. (Which would help Telltale, close the branch for those who let him, well either traitor, live).
Unfortunately, I extremely doubt Gared will ever make it back to Ironrath... still, an awesome idea nonetheless
I agree. Royland has always struck me as being the most compassionate and loyal of the two men. Not just to the Forresters, but he was also kind to Gared, and disgusted at the idea of Duncan sending him away. Plus, he's a warrior. Ethan and pre-recovery Rodrik need that far more than a diplomat at their side. (Especially one who, as your topic establishes, gives poor advice anyway. It basically all amounts to, 'let's bend over and hope for the best'.)
TeamRoyland
HouseDegoreOnTheIronThrone
That's the main reason I chose Royland.
I don't need a Sentinel whose going to tell me stuff I already know, I need a Sentinel whose going to have my back in a fight.
TeamRoyland
I think some of your points are valid, however I preferred Duncan.
Your first point is valid, not shaking Ludd's hand is the best option. I also think that they could have used one more sword for episode six... but I disagree with some of your other points. Take your second point, for example, where you were proud with Ramsay (and had Royland as sentinel) and were seen as brave. Well, I met Ramsay in the Great Hall, was polite to him and bent the knee but I was not Ethan the Weak because I pulled Talia away. That decision alone determines if you are weak or bold/brave.
I disagree with your third point, too, because if I am remembering correctly, if you try to starve them out then the Whitehill soldiers are meaner towards the smallfolk than if you have them drunk most of the time. I know they are meaner if Rodrick does not submit to Gryff after Talia bites that guy's hand.
Why? Because although it may seem weak, I don't think fighting the Whitehills in most instances was a good idea. Why? You don't have the forces to actually succeed. I wish we knew what happened to Norren and Bowen, but we don't. Most of the Forrester men died at Red Wedding. They only had the Glenmores as allies and they weren't always bringing their elite guards around. Those same guards that vanished when Ramsay showed up. Plus, Elaena's father seems rather weak and fickle, as per needs of the plot.Why start a war when you are bound to lose? Until episode five the Boltons were supporting the Whitehills so even if they managed a victory here or there, chances are the Boltons would have lent the Whitehills enough forces to crush the Forrester rebellion. Fabulous. Take and stand only to become even weaker than you already are.
I think Duncan's decision to send Gared to the wall was the right one. If Gared had stayed then the Whitehills or Boltons probably would have executed him. If the Forresters tried to prevent that, it would have brought punishment on the whole house. By going to the wall, Gared got to live. It might not have been the most comfortable or enjoyable life, but it was still life. Also, Gregor exiled Asher for his relationship with Gwynn. We don't know why he made that decision, but that did set a precedent for how to deal with some kinds of problems. Oh, and just to be clear, of course Gared was in the right to kill those soldiers. Damn bastards killed his dad and eight-year-old sister. Why'd they have to go and kill the sister for?
One of the things that turned me of from Royland from the start was how he treated that thief. He kept kicking the man. I thought he was violent and cruel. I didn't like Duncan's suggestion of sending him to the wall because I thought that was too harsh of a punishment. Then again, I don't like taking people's fingers for doing something I can sympathize with. I wanted the smallfolk to understand that I appreciated how difficult their lives had gotten and that I cared about them.
Lastly, Duncan had Gregor's trust and seemed to know things that Royland didn't. We don't know what else Duncan knows about running the finances of the house. A house is a bit like a business and I think Duncan had more business savvy than Royland, and the house needed that.
If both are dead how is that checkmate
Duncan's a great choice for Sentinel as well I do prefer Royland though. I believe they both care deeply about the House Royland is just a more emotional man. The way I see it Duncan uses his head while Royland uses his heart.
There are no terrible decisions!
Yeah, i'm not gonna read that, there's really no need for so much text.
Anyways...
The irony of someone who favours the "wise" Sentinel, refusing to read a topic about him because it's too much text... wow lol.
Well, shows the level of their fans, doesn't it?
Royland's fans: Constructs lengthy well-reasoned arguments with multiple points.
Duncan's fans: Says can't be bothered for that. And posts a meme.
Brilliant.
Your post is reminiscent of the TWD section.
[removed]
That scene barely makes any sense for duncan anyway, man of peace suddenly throws an axe in the opposing lords head
Especially when, even if Royland is Sentinel and he is the traitor, he still does it...
No. Duncan says: "Now is not the time to anger Lord Whitehill more than he already is." And then he says why: "He's got five times as many men and the backing of the Bolton" Obviusly you should anger this men. The "Just be diplomatic, and try to reason with him." just don't exist.
No. Duncan doesn't sugest that you try to be friendly neither believe what Lord Whitehill has to say, he only suggests that you don'tt anger him (with good reason). And remember, is YOU making the choice not Duncan so blaming this on him is just unfair.
Happens regardless.
Again, is YOU making the choice and even if you follow Duncan's advice Ethan don't "meekly takes it" he has always options to defend his father without angering Lord Whitehill (an example is "My father died a hero").
No. You can ignore his hand and be submissive as you can shake is hand and be defiant, you're acting like the hand choice determins the diaougue between them, which is not true.
I must say that both were, you should try not to anger Lord Whitehill but you can't let him say everything he pleases, if you follow both advices you will probably get the best outcome.
Yes! You are Ethan the brave! YAAAAAY! I bet the name will prove to be very usefull while Ethan is dead ;D
Yes, pissing off our Wardener. Great idea.
Ethan the Weak doen't exist. And the last choice to grab Talia is what determins Ethan's name after his death, who you chose as Sentinel doesn't affect that.
Kneel to Ramsey is one of the very few things that both Duncan and Royland agree, and do you really think that refusing to show respect to your Wardener is a good idea?
If you do this you are not followig Ducan's advice, you are following Ortengryn's.
Duncan's. Trying to "show strenght" to your Wardener is a terrible idea. You should try to get on his good side, not to piss him.
The wine was to keep the soldiers out of guard, and to try to make them less agressive. Starving them out would make them agressive and believe me if Ludd hadn't came to stop it the Whitehills would've probably start to kill people.
I don't think either of them was right this time. Going to save Ryon would let your people defenceless and at the mercy of the Whitehills. Expelling Gryff would result on Ryon being hurt. Remember the smallfolk are also Forresters and as Lord you shoud care about them too. And saying that Duncan doesn't care about Ryon when we've already seen that we'd kill Ludd in order to keep Ryon safe.
Neither of them advices you on how to act with Lord Whitehill. They only advice you in the choice of bringing/ don't bring the Glenmores.
Yes obviusly letting your sister get dragged to the mudd is the better option. This even enforces that Duncan also cares for the Forresters: he got the punishment just to keep Talia from getting it.
lol
I cannot wait for that glorious day soon, where he and Rodrik burn Highpoint down to the fookin' ground! ^_^
TeamRoyland #EstEpisode1
Seriously, Duncan is craycray. Thinking you could "talk" to Ramsay is just about as productive as trying to stitch poor Arthur back up. ;_;
Rodrik/Royland 2016
Bro, Royland was determined to declare war with a really poor army, how could you pick someone so fucking stupid, he is a kamikaze.
Royland was right about about keeping Ramsay freezing outside the gate. Duncan wanted to let Ramsay right in the Great Hall (really?).
Er... Stalemate?
Okay so this seems to simply come down to who you prefer, you obviously seem to side with Rodrik where as myself I side with Duncan's line of thinking more. I like both guys but Royland was too war hungry for my taste, where as Duncan kept things realistic and tried to hold the peace. It's all good and fine if you like Royland more, but any argument to be made in his favor versus Duncan can always be counter-argued vice versa.
I think Royland makes the best Sentinel. The Maester explains to Ethan that the Sentinel is man he should trust over all others and the next person you see is Royland, bringing a thief/deserter straight to the Lord. Just one example of many, but Royland just has this unwavering sense of discipline and honor that makes him the ideal Sentinel.
I also think Duncan makes a more tragic and believable traitor. Being a traitor sticks to his pre-established tendency to go behind the Lord's back to do what he thinks is best. It is even more tragic when he tells that, despite everything, he never betrayed the secret of the North Grove.
that is why royland was the one who trained me in sword fighting
RIP Arthur
It would have infuriate Ramsey if he had to be outside the gate, and something more, he wolud have seen our pathetic little army.
I liked Rodrik the most, but I saved Asher owing to the fact that he is going to be the only one capable of leading the pit fighters. And I like Duncan more.