Which Traitor Makes More Sense Duncun Or Royland?
I picked Royland as my sentinel, so Duncun became my traitor which didn't make a lot of sense but I think it makes more sense than Royland as sentinel, because it seems like Royland really care about the Forresters he is always standing up for them when Gryff is being and ass and Duncun never was around so while he was gone I my save game he could have been with the whitehills, althought that might just be because he wasn't my sentinel so he didn't show up as much. Tell me if you pick Duncun as your sentinel does he fill the role of Royland and stands up for the Forrester when Gryff is forcing Rodrik to stay down. Sorry if I did a poor job explaining what I mean, I'd be happy to answer any questions about what I said.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
hmm, let me think...
none
lady elissa forrester
but she makes even less sense
Neither
she makes sense imo bc she would be following a catelyn type role (i.e. her setting free jaime lannister despite robb's specific orders because she thought it would save arya and sansa) - doing something traitorous and betraying the family to try to save her kids (i.e. ludd could have been blackmailing her for info in order to ensure ryon gets home unharmed)
The one you never follows as Rodrik on your playthrough.
I have to say Duncan. Mind you I had Ethan choose Royland so I may be a little biased but here's why I say that. Duncan unilaterally sent Gared to The Wall when it wasn't his place, showing he has no qualms with overstepping his superiors and thinks he knows best. I get he was setting Gared up to go find the North Grove theoretically but why not tell him that was his intention until after the poor kid took his vows and started getting used to his new life? Also he kept the North Grove's existence a secret from Ethan and you'd think the new lord would probably benefit from knowing something like that. Rodrik seemed to know about it already but Duncan never mentioned it to him either. My point is Duncan demonstrates on various occasions that he will go all kinds of rogue even knowing it will harm people whereas Royland is basically our pitbull. He'd take on 80 Whitehills by himself and personally beat the snot out of Gryff if you let him. He's always trying to fight someone for us even when he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, and as my sentinel even when he disagrees with me he's grumpy but respects my choice and goes along. Duncan, however, has shown us quite a few times he's going to do whatever he wants to do anyway. Which is kinda exactly what the traitor did, so. I mean a huge part of why I chose Royland is at least I knew he hadn't a) circumvented my authority or b) lied to me by omission, and yeah Ethan didn't know that but I did and those two things made me not trust Duncan from the first.
The traitor probably really thought he was doing what was best for the house but that only gets you so much credit, in my book basically none because it's the outcomes that matter more than intentions. But a traitor's still a traitor and put us in mad danger and TL;DR I'm with Talia on this one. I stabbed him mid-sentence about Asher.
Duncan's reason for treason: Rodrik, you are too reckless, so I worked behind your back to ensure peace with the Whitehills via providing them information.
Royland's reason for treason: Rodrik, you are too weak, so I worked behind your back to make you even weaker because I don't want to see House Forrester destroyed.
I'll let you work out on your own which makes more sense :P
Let me think...
Between these two I would say Duncan.
Royland. Duncan was chosen Sentinel in more playthroughs, so he'd be more often the traitor. Plus, Lord Forrester trusted Duncan with the North Grove. Royland is just an edgy warrior who got sour when he wasn't chosen sentinel.
Depends on how you've been playing this game.
Nah, she would have told Rodrik and they could have used it to their advantage. Also that would make the Forresters even MORE like the starks which everyone would've complained about.
It should have been the Maester.
Royland
Well, to be fair, Royland throws an axe into his head exactly the same.
The Maester or Lady Forrester are the ones that would make sense being a traitor. They tell us to give Ludd/Ramsay whatever they want, which was exactly the opposite of what Duncan/Royland had in mind.
A serious plot twist would've been if Talia was the traitor.
I was thinking that the maester was going to be the traitor, b\c he wasn't around that often and I think Duncun even says that he shouldn't be trusted. Or lady Forrester I thought she would have been the traitor, kind of like how Catelyn betrayed Robb when she let Jaime go free. I thought she would do it to protect her family, I think that would have been more interesting than the traitor that we got. Although I don't hate the traitor sub plot ending as much a other people, because I got Duncun as my traitor which makes more sense than Royland, so I was fine with it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think having the Maester as the traitor would've made more sense, as Duncan and Royland were both fiercely loyal to the house and their reasoning seemed kind of counter intuitive. However, I still liked the episode as a whole and I don't see why that one thing makes people dislike the episode.
Fair point.
her being like catelyn isn't necessarily a bad thing and i still would have loved to see that storyline in her unfold but i agree that the maester would have been a good choice of traitor as well - especially with the ebbert = ortegryn discussion going on elsewhere in the threads
Not only that thing. Many things.
...and many, MANY more things.
Umm... okay? That wasn't a deliberate choice and was pretty minor.
Coming from someone who was fairly vocal about not liking how Telltale very arbitrarily limited all their episodes to 90 minutes during Wolf/Dead Season 2 just so people could play the game in one sitting (even though they still can with longer episodes), episode length is not synonymous with quality as long as the episode length is not shortened or extended just to reach a certain timelength. Cry Wolf is one of my favorite modern Telltale episodes, and it's only 60 minutes. A longer episode would've been cool, sure, but in that episode, it didn't matter as they managed to reach all the big beats of the story without sacrificing or removing any plot elements just so they could arbitrarily shorten the episode. Every act in that episode was vital to the story, and was delivered in a satisfying way despite the 60 minute length. It didn't have the same problem as other episodes from Wolf or Dead, where the plot was good but they had rushed through various plot elements just to meet that arbitrary 90 minute episode length.
Similarly, A Nest of Vipers wasn't bad just because it was short as Rodrik and Asher still had some incredible scenes.
I agree that Mira could've had more screen time and I also agree that Gared's storyline didn't really go anywhere this episode, but each episode of the series so far has focused mainly on one or two characters and this isn't exclusive to this episode. Asher didn't get a lot of screentime until Episode 4, but you didn't see people writing off the Game of Thrones Season as a whole just because Asher had like 15 minutes of screentime before Episode 4.
Yeah, but these are the reasons why people hate this episode.
But I'm the one of the people who don't hate the episode. It is my second favorite episode in the series.
I really didn't care about Gryff's glitched eye, I didn't mind if the episode was short, but this episode could had a few more Gared and Mira scenes.
BTW not sure if you know what I said about Gryff's eye being glitched but I mean that if you at least destroyed Gryff's eye in episode 4, his eye is completely fine in episode 5. Okay, about the rest of his wounds, they could be healed but Gryff's eye...? I kinda don't think so.
I think Rodrik destroyed it (at least in my playthrough).
And I have to agree. Rodrik and Asher's scenes were amazing.
That distracted me too, but TelltaleMike from Support said it was a glitch they would fix (over in another thread a while back).
Ah, gotcha. In part, I just kinda wrote that as a general rebuttal towards all the people who actually do feel that way.
Pretty minor, you say? What about all the suggestions to be merciful (and those were floating in the air since Gryff first stepped inside Ironrath walls) or pay for the damage with Ryon's well being? What about multi-step process of maiming with an opportunity to gather your wits and stop before every hit? Ramsay's accusation of being cruel? And what happened with Ryon if Gryff returned one-eyed, i wonder?
Ugh... just give Telltale some time. They said that they are going to fix the glitch.
I meant "minor" in the context of it being an unintentional glitch that Telltale hopes to fix as opposed to an oversight from the writers forgetting to add Gryff being maimed as a consequence of player choice. I didn't mean minor in the actual context of the story.
Well, Duncan would make more sense if you say it like that.
Duncan. His need for diplomacy has always blinded him to the reality of the situation
I didn't like Royland at all but I picked him because he might've been useful for the battle.
But there was no battle because it's the same outcome lel.
Royland was too loyal for his own good but from what I have seen Duncan had a much more emotional dialogue than him (if he was the traitor).
Honestly thought the maester made more sense. I mean, when you think one of these two are the likely suspects, the third guy who's playing the passive affiliate role in this group is usually the traitor.
Neither make sense to be the traitor, everything we find out about them through their words, actions, past deeds don't add up to either of them becoming the traitor. As others have said and as I've speculated in the past, it just makes most sense for the traitor to have been the Maester and it would have worked very well I thought. I was really hoping that if it was either Duncan/Royland that that would have been nothing but a red herring to buy the true traitor (the Maester) more time.
Maybe it is?
Well that's just it, it can't be a red herring in this case of how it played out. If it were, when we approached either man with the evidence and Talia's eye-witness account, they should have immediately gone off saying they know nothing about that and would say they'd never betray our house. Basically, it should have had either man pleading with you trying to convince you that he was innocent and it be revealed later in the episode or the final that it was the Maester (for example) and you would realize whether or not you killed the wrong man.
Instead, the traitor coughed up everything once we confronted them so there's no way it could have all been a ruse unfortunately.
A maester may serve a Lord but it doesn't mean they necessarily believe in what the Lord's beliefs are; and they serve the realm, they're supposed to be passive.
But there was mention by Gwyn that one of her brothers was sent to the Citadel, so I thought for a moment he must be secretly Whitehill blood. IDK seeing whoever wasn't picked as Sentinel as a traitor really threw a wrench in my "It was the butler/maester who did it" theory.
Then again, I'm not that deep into the Game of Thrones tv/novel series to know what ethnics maesters actually practice. P:
The general ethos of a maester is to serve the Lord and serve the realm, and if you look at the codex, you'll see that Maester Ortengryn came from a minor House in the Vale and was only sent to Ironrath due to the issues surrounding Jon Arryn's mysterious death.
Personally, I think Duncan makes the most sense as traitor. He's the Machiavellian, scheming one. Royland is pure aggression and wears his heart on his sleeve and it seems a bit illogical for him to be running around sending secret messages.
I only just realized that Royland is voiced by the actor who played Babu Bhatt in Seinfeld. The traitor is very, very bad man.
I think Royland because Duncan is the castellan, he is Gared's uncle and he was friends with Gregor who trusts him to protect North Grove, whatever that is.
What about Gared?