安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
4 
举报此帖
A case could be made that Wojslav murdered Lorenz for her (he loves Matilda, is in the vicinity, and has access to kitchen tools that could work as blunt weapons). But that is purely speculative since we don't know if he even knew about the rape (it was kept secret according to Mother Cecilia), and there's no indication that Matilda and Wojslav even met to exchange information between the placement of the note and the murder.
- He had complete control of the time and place of the attack, and it would be very stupid to choose the chapter house (a wide open space from which it's difficult to flee without being seen).
- It would be incredibly stupid to invite 4 people to the place where you're considering to murder someone. Thomas would run a completely unnecessary risk of being witnessed by someone he invited but who'd just come a little late. If Thomas just wanted to make sure that the other suspects were in the vicinity and without an alibi, then the obvious course of action would have been to lure them to a place close to the crime site (but not the site itself), so that they wouldn't have an alibi, but also wouldn't be able to spot Thomas committing the murder.
- If the notes were just meant to implicate the other suspects, then Thomas did an unbelievably bad job writing them. The details on them that implicate the other suspects are very vague with regard to the motives, they would be useless to an investigator without unveiling other secrets - even though Thomas could have easily put clear, irrefutable information in the text. (If you can read the German on the notes, then these details become more obvious.)
So, considering all the details, do you really think that the case for Thomas as the murderer is particularly strong? I don't. The way how Thomas planned the event (choice of location, choice of inviting 4 other people to the site, choice of the information he put on the notes) simply makes no sense under the premise that he was willing to commit the murders himself.
i'm pretty sure Thomas was not expecting all 4 people to show up at the crime site and maybe because he knows them so well (he is their confessor), he knew they would not have the guts to do it, after all relying on other people to kill the baron would be super risky and if none of them would do it the secret would spill out, he would be the failsafe
yes, it makes more sense to be Lucky or the monk but the lack of confirmation bothers me, i can see that the way the game is invites players to make multiple playthroughs, but i would like the game to give us some hint in Act 2 or by the end for whom actually did the murder instead of letting us especulate and never have a confirmation
Let's say he was sure that none of the other suspects would show up - so sure that he felt safe committing the murders himself. In that case:
- Why would he choose a time and place that was difficult to get away from, and that at least two of the people who he hoped to frame for the murder (Matilda, Ottilia) had absolutely no reason to be? Thomas has complete control over the time and location of the meeting, and there are better options.
- Why would he send notes to 4 different people? If he's sure that no one will show up for the murder, and only places the notes to frame somebody, then that's a completely stupid course of action. As soon as an investigator finds at least two notes, it would be crystal clear that more is going on than just one person murdering another - and such evidence of a "thread puller" would actually make the recipients of any notes _less_ suspicious. If Thomas wanted to frame someone for the murder, it would have made much more sense (and been much easier) to pick a single person to frame.
- Why would he write the notes in a way that makes them useless without further research? Let's say he wanted to frame Ferenc for the murder. He goes all the way to place a note as Ferenc's place, even though he's sure that Ferenc, as you say, doesn't have the guts to commit a murder. So he places the note there solely to give a clue to a future investigator. But he places the note in a way that Ferenc sees it and would have been able to destroy it before an investigator could even find it. And he only puts vague information about Ferenc's supposed motive on the note, information that reveals the motive only if the investigator finds further evidence like the letter from Ferenc to Lorenz. Thomas wouldn't even know that such a letter exists. None of those details support the hypothesis that the notes were written to frame the suspects.
- Would he really take the risk that he perhaps misjudged one of the 4 people and one of them shows up anyway? Why wouldn't he just lure someone to a place in the vicinity, but not the crime site itself? That would be enough to frame the other person for the murder, without Thomas running the unnecessary risk of getting spotted.
It just doesn't add up. Put yourself in Thomas' shoes, think the planning of the murders through from his perspective, and you'll realize how little sense his decisions make under the premise that he actually considered himself to commit the murders himself (even just as a "failsafe").
I understand that, but this lack of confirmation extends to the "Thomas murdered Lorenz" hypothesis as well. So, while "lack of confirmation" is a good reason to be skeptical of theories like "Lucky murdered Lorenz" or "Ferenc murdered Lorenz", it's _not_ a good reason to subscribe to the "Thomas murdered Lorenz" theory, right?
If anything, "lack of confirmation" should make us more skeptical about the "Thomas murdered Lorenz" theory. Because contrary to every other accused person in the game, Thomas is the only person in the game who actually admits the alleged crimes. He admits to injuring Claus. He admits to planning the other murders and even (needlessly) explains how he manipulated Amalie to write the notes. But he doesn't admit to directly killing Lorenz and Otto.
Thomas is basically doing a confession at the end of the game. At this point he's already decided to commit suicide. He has nothing to hide, he has no reason to lie, he knows that God will be his judge. Why would he lie in that situation? He wouldn't gain anything from doing so, in fact he'd just add another sin to the pile that God will judge him for.
Hmm, what makes you think that there is someone who "actually did the murder"?
While it's fun to consider the available evidence and discuss who'd be the most likely "true" murderer, the game gives me pretty clear indications that there was never meant to be a "true" murderer for the first two cases. The story is designed in a way that it works regardless of whom you accuse, and every suspect _could_ have done it - the only difference is that some seem more likely than others.
For the story that the game wants to tell, it's completely irrelevant who "really" committed the murders - right? So why would the devs settle on one or two "canonical" murderers when they could leave that open?
Lucky, and later Hanna, make more sense from both an objective, and sort of meta, storytelling standpoint.
But if Tugasan or others want to imagine funny, out-of-the-box suspects, have you considered Wojslav for Lorenz, and Niko for Otto ?
In my playthrough, I focused on Matilda. Wanted to investigate the nuns, since they were the closest to the cloister and collectively ran off upon the Baron's arrival. That's why I completely failed to pursue the Lucky lead.
Contrary to some of the statements by other posters above, Matilda was the one who never got over the trauma the Baron had caused her. As confirmed by her superior, she still screamed at night and had nightmares.
Several people implored me not to accuse her, which somehow mimicked the collective huddling of the nuns. And there was Wojslav who voiced a similar concern.
With an unhealed trauma and nightmares, considerable physical strength and close access to the cloister, with a circle of protective friends spreading the "killing rabbits" alibi, she seemed a likely perpetrator.
The shovel can also deliver blunt damage. The human head is round, the shovel is doesn't have to be flat, so the point of contact can be quite small. Also the tool has a narrow section that attached the blade to she shaft. A strong but imprecise strike? [far fetched, I admit....]
Matilda gave me the thread-puller's note with a shrug. In the same dismissive manner as she answerd about the shovel - there was blood, so back to dirt. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Business as usual.
When facing the Archdeacon, I remained silent and polite, did not try to pass judgement or undermine the Baron's virtues. My way was the "tell the truth" approach: Ferenc's awkward behaviour and dabbing in the occult, Martin's escape and theft, ALL the evidence about Matilda and ALL the evidence about the old widow.
In the end, I was offered the skillcheck chance to offer my advice and convince my interlocutor as to who the murderer was.
Choosing between Matilda and the old deranged widow, I pointed at the widow. A lesser evil for everyone at the abbey and in the town, and very much easier for the church authorities.
It was duly accepted.
Later in the game (act 2?), after several bried encounters, I met Matilda again near the monastery. She said she finally could get a proper chance to express her gratitude for not accusing her. With a wink, I said that I had merely presented all the evidence for the Archdeacon to judge. Somehow I felt admitted to that secret circle of Matilda's friends and supporters.
--------------------------
Not being Andreas, as a player, I would still go for the Lucky scenario. I love the evidence behind it in the posts above. It was only that my Andreas was too busy at the abbey to even follow the Lucky lead. He did his moral best, I suppose.
I utterly love the level of the discussion on this forum. Completely unlike the Internet these days. Seems the game is attracting the right sort of crowd. Thank you for the fascinating reading.
------------
PS
tried a playthrough in which I failed to indicate any culprits. Lucky got executed. Might've been random, because when sb above tried the same, it was the widow who got garroted.
Also it was probably lucky, there was never a murder weapon, he simply grabbed the barons head and smashed it against the wall.
It's clear that Andreas doesn't have enough time or information to come to a convincing answer, so why should our speculation be limited to his list of suspects?
I think it was Brother Wojslav, taking revenge on his lover Matilda's account.
I don't think there's any reference to wounds on his hands but it could be older blood or even animal blood instead to explain the presence of the bloody weapon.
We never saw the head of the cane so we do not know its form. Could have been some heavy metal and it would not need strength. There is no explanation why it is broken.
I think psychology makes her the murderess too.
I think you all forget psychology.
- Remember, the murderer hit Lorenzo twice. Lucky is the strongest man in town. He definitely would kill Lorenzo from the first hit.
- Lucky couldn't write these elegant notes. He worked with stones, not with books.
- The blind sister told that she smelled some incense and smoke. Like devil came to the church.
The only suspect is prior Ferenz.
- He is strong enough to kill but not strong enough to kill from the first hit.
- He had all access to the abbey territory
- He worked in scriptorium and could write any note he wanted. More of that: he tried to burn his note, but it could be just some draft note in which he just made a mistake.
- The smell from him was the smell which is has after some magic rituals.
It's definitely should be Ferenz
Ya, I really want to know who can smell like that. (I forgot how she described, what she smelled.)
If incense and smoke was smelled by the blind sister, it could also raise the possibility of Matilda (maybe helped by Wojslav) and Ferenc.
The four suspects represent the four elements, and four ways of persuasion (rational, wisdom, authority, honesty) and manipulation (truth, lies, faith in providence, hope) and who we choose to believe is the murderer is more enlightening on ourselves than it is on the culprit.
None of them have an alibi... and you all make the false video game deduction that the information presented to us is complete. e.g.: the murder weapon may not be the one we found, but they might have used another... how hard is it to bury something in the woods never to be found in the 15th century?
Do you believe fear can cause murder? resentment? trauma? ... ?
PS: in the end I chose who dies based on who I can blame, minus who I didn't want to die. I couldn't blame lucky, and I don't think Matilda should be executed even if she did murder the baron.