Lady Forrester being the traitor makes no logical sense.
So quite a few people are keen to brand Elissa as the traitor. Here's why that doesn't quite work.
The logic behind the accusation seems to be that they think the Whitehills might be blackmailing her so that Ryon stays safe. Indeed, outright treachery makes little sense at all - she expressed a desire to kill all Whitehill children in a previous episode, and this was clearly a request to be taken as a genuine desire from its position in the narrative and its speech style, so she wouldn't betray the Forresters just because she prefers the Whitehills - this means if it is Lady Forrester, it HAS to be blackmail related.
A minor point - Gwyn refers to the person distinctly as a traitor, and giving secrets due to blackmail isn't really betrayal of any kind. But people could handwave this as 'gwyn wouldn't know anything abut the nature of the situation'. But she seemed pretty confident there was a betrayal.
If it's blackmail, then why wouldn't Lady Forrester tell anyone else about it? It's not like if she mentions it to Rodrik then Gryff will hear it, then order his father to kill Ryon. She would lose literally nothing from telling her family of the situation.
Comments
So, on the contrary, I think it makes plenty of logical sense... if you're capable of critical thinking.
Whoa whoa...
While I do agree with you on the subject (as we established in the other thread), I think adding "if you're capable of critical thinking" is a bit much. You may not mean it as an insult, but it can definitely be construed as such.
You're entitled to your opinion but you shouldn't be basically telling everyone that they're wrong if they hold a different opinion. There's a possibility of Elissa being the traitor just like it's a possibility that she isn't.
Not meant as an insult, I just think it's important to weigh all factors before declaring something makes "no logical sense." I respect your comment though, I can't stand it when people on forums are toxic.
Why would she think Roderick would do that? Unless she thinks he like hates her.
Rodrick isn't an idiot, and he wants Ryon to survive. If Lady Forrester told him, they'd have a tactical advantage, as the two of them could feed false info to the Whitehills easily.
People are free to hold unsubstantiated opinions, but there's no need for me to never ever raise any questions about the integrity of anyone's opinons.
Someone may have the opinion that vaccines cause Autism, but I don't see anything wrong with showing them that that isn't possible.
In a previous thread I stated the possibility of it being someone else, particularly that Ortengryn would be my second suspect(but I find him unlikely). I don't think anyone is right or wrong, I simply said that it makes plenty of logical sense.
Rodrick isn't an idiot and nor is his mother. The fact that they're blackmailing Elissa could easily be turned to their advantage - the two of them could feed false info, and use this as a positive.
On the other hand, if the traitor is malicious, then everything makes sense far more easily.
[removed]
[removed]
I'm not saying 'YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG' - i'm giving actual evidence as to why I think it would be nonsensical if she turns out to be the traitor.
And there's nothing wrong with telling someone their opinion is wrong. If someone has the opinion that vaccines cause Autism, with no scientific basis, then there's nothing immoral about showing them that this definitely isn't the case.
[removed]
please remove
Sorry for the above, my internet completely screwed up and every time I wrote the comments so had to start from scratch each time..
He's talking to me Mr Critical Thinking.
Agreed, but the point is that she is not thinking clearly and acting out of fear. Of course, if she was thinking clearly she could use her deal with the Whitehills to her advantage and feed them falsified information... but that said, it's very possible that the Whitehills told her that if she lies/tells anyone/plays any tricks that they will KILL HER SON.
That said, I think anyone in her situation would be reluctant to tell anyone or try anything drastic, nor do I think they'd be completely capable of clear decision making. She just watched her son get stabbed in the throat, on top of getting news that her husband was killed. Rodericks not an idiot, but he's the Lord of their House and he'd be pissed to learn that she was going behind his back. Perhaps she's in over her head now and thinks it's too late to say anything, or perhaps she's simply unwilling to take any risk if it means losing yet another person she loves.
Snide comment unnecessary. It was noted that he replied to you, I simply added my comment as a side note in case you thought I was completely discrediting your statement that it's not Lady Forrester.
I have a hard time believing (figure of speech) my own mother would betray her own family. If she turns out to be the traitor, I am REALLY going to be disappointed in her.
Indeed, but I don't think it'd be so much "betrayal" as it would be a mistake made out of fear for her sons life. That said, it'd still be a disappointment, but not something to rule out. One thing I noticed, when you tell her that you met with Gwyn she seems startled and immediately asks what she told you, as if she's something to be worried about.
Well, yeah, it could be her or it might not be her. The big problem I see with it is how they pushed her being the traitor. People keep saying that Ortengryn would be too obvious but she also practically wears a t-shirt saying "I'M THE TRAITOR". Much like the Maester, we get the chance to tell her about the North Grove in the first episode. And then in the third episode, she's the only one we get to inform of the traitor's existence. Personally, they're either going with her being guilty or her going mad and attempting to murder whoever the traitor is out of spite.
Also, I find it pretty funny how no one in this thread is spelling Rodrik's name correctly.
you mean rodrick????
Lets face it the maestor is the only one that makes sense.... MAYBE Duncan but even that's a stretch.
I will say Royland is less likely that Lady forrester however.
A pragmatic approach that a lady of the middle ages would be compelled to follow, would be to offer to marry the Whitehill lord (or his son) since her husband has been killed, thus ending the war by uniting the two houses.
Of course, this does not work until there are male sons alive which can challenge the title. Planning to send Rodrik to the Wall might be enough to keep him safe from any Whitehill revenge. Thus, she would get: a safe family (at least, alive), Ryon returned to her, she'd have ended the war, and she'd hope to influence her new house internally saving the Ironwood. Whitehill has more than one son, maybe they're not all unreasonable pricks like him.
Knowing an attempt to save Ryon implies putting him (and the rescuers) at danger, and it risks also to enrage the Boltons... it's comprehensible that she might be working under the table. But she looked a tad bit too pissed off in the main hall to be the traitor.
So yeah, at the end, Duncan or the Maester are easier to sway or corrupt. And Duncan already has sent his nephew to the Wall, so doing it twice for Rodrik is not unthinkable.
Of course, how could I misspell it so badly? It's obviously Roadric.
I think you should try looking at things from Lady Forresters perspective. She lost Gregor and Ethan within the space of a few weeks (Ethan being killed right in front of her), Mira is in, arguably, the most dangerous place in Westeros and Asher is dealing with mercenaries and various other dangerous types in Essos. They have no allies and they've lost their main source of income. Not to mention their opponents outnumber them 5-1 (probably by a greater amount considering some of the troops deserted them in episode 2). Things look bleak and the only thing Lady Forrester probably cares about is keeping her entire family safe.
My main issue with this thread is everyone spelling RODRIK's name incorrectly. Anyway, bye.
ok so idk if to think that she is really a traitor or not but here is what I got:
anyway too lazy to write everything now.
I can't say that i think Lady Forrester is being a very logical person right now. So her being an illogical option as to who the traitor is doesn't phase me much.
IMO she is losing her shit, just look at her. Also, her family background could give credence to the fact that she would do Anything to prevent the complete destruction of her family, this time around. Even give info to the Whitehills for assurances of Ryon's safety. She has already sent letters to Ludd Whitehill without informing us or even aknowledging that she should, she didn't tell us about Eleana Glenmore coming until the day of her arrival, as well as attempting to send Malcom to Essos without our permission or knowledge.
Seems to me like she does whatever she wants, whenever she wants, and doesn't much care to inform anyone about any of it until she gets busted. Seems like a good candidate for a Leak of Information to me.
I don't think it's very logical to throw out an option on an interpretation of one word.
Hey, I mentioned that first. THERE IS ONLY ONE GRAMMAR SHERIFF AROUND THESE PARTS AND THAT IS ME, YA HEAR ME?!
Better title would be "Here's why i think Lady Forrester isn't the traitor"
Lady Forrester can't be the traitor it just doesn't make any sense
There are two big flaws in your conclusion:
There is one strong piece of information that can be used to argue that Lady Forrester is not the traitor.
Remember how at the end of Episode 1, the Whitehill soldiers managed to get inside the hall despite being left outside? How they got in has always been a question but the presence of a traitor can answer this. However Lady Forrester had no reason to let the Whitehill soldiers in at the end of Episode 1 (they didn't have Ryon to blackmail her back then). Thus the traitor can't be Lady Forrester. It has to be someone else. Someone who, at the end of Episode 1, was willing to let all the Whitehill soldiers and endanger Ethan and the others.
However this proposition only holds true based on the assumption that the Whitehill soldiers got inside due to the actions of the traitor. It's possible they just got inside because of plot and nothing to do with the traitor (although I think this is probably one of the worst decisions that Telltale could make).
I agree, and she knows a lot of what's going on around the world. That's why when you tell her there is a traitor, she thinks it's Royland, given the fact that the Boltons are attacking his sworn enemy.
I think that the soldiers being let in is just a lazy plot hole, just like when Margaery say's she'll help you with the proposal in episode 2. I'd have thought one of the characters would have mentioned it if it was a big deal. Plus at that moment, House Forrester was still quite strong so nobody had any reason to turn on the House.
To be honest, the only logical person being the traitor is Maester Ortengryn, only 4 people to suspect, and all the others are trustworthy. This Lady Forrester theory is stupid as hell, if it's really true, I will be disappointed. George R. R. Martin always has something to shock the reader, but all his twists can be explained and fits with the story. If Lady Forrester is really a traitor, this twist for "shock effect" is not worth it, because contains zero logic.
It depends on who is chosen as the sentinel. On a non-serious playthough, I told her about the traitor and she thinks it is Duncan.
Yea, it is total crap lady forrester begin the traitor,plus, my Best bet it could be Duncan or that "maester"
Still strong after having 98-99.8% of their soldiers killed? That's ridiculous.