Who killed Otto?

[Dysterus]

Honestly I think it is either Hanna or Guy but I can't put my finger on which one, but I am pretty sure Martin didn't do it. What are your thoughts?

[Psyringe]

First off: I think the game is deliberately written in a way that there is no canonical murderer for the first two cases. For the in-game reality, every choice is as good (or bad) as any other, and the differences that make some suspect more or less likely to be the culprit are probably just unintended weaknesses in the storytelling, rather than intended meaningful clues. But that said, it's still fun to discuss the evidence and see to which conclusions that will lead. ;)

I'll go through the suspects ordered by how much information I found about them:

A) Guy

I think I explored the "Guy" path pretty thoroughly (7 pieces of evidence collected), and while he's definitely a scoundrel, I doubt that he would have resorted to murder when "run away with the money" was clearly also an option.

To elaborate: He systematically embezzled money from the abbey, most of which already got transferred to a Fugger bank account. He's generally a callous, arrogant character to whom the life of a peasant doesn't mean much, but he's also a coward. Let's say he does believe that Otto would expose his crimes. In that situation, Guy has two options: silence Otto, or simply flee. I don't see why he would choose murder when he could just get away, grab all the money from the bank account, and start a new life as a rich man in some other state where nobody knows him.

B) Martin/Jobst

Like you, I got the impression that Martin is a decent guy. While he obviously is an impostor, and probably has a dark past as a highwayman, he's depicted as a godsend for his entire family. He works hard and treats his wife with respect.

That said, in a later act I got information that raised some doubts. He apparently still resorts to violence against townspeople who "don't leave him in peace", and he says something like "some people just need their teeth kicked in" (or similar). He's also trying to sell a part of this farm. So he has a history of reacting violently to rumors about his identity, and he _could_ be preparing a getaway. I still don't believe he would murder Otto, especially since Otto got what he wanted (public support for his ideas) and probably wouldn't blackmail "Martin" further in this situation. But "Martin"'s case is less clear-cut than I initially thought, imo.

C) Hannah

This is the path that I explored least. But from what information I gathered, she had a strong motive (protection of her family's livelihood), she seems capable of harsh decisions (in her family, she's described as the one who makes the tough ones), she seems unscrupulous (e.g. in her affair with the miller, where she also overestimates her chances of keeping it secret), and evades Lenhard's question as to whether she murdered Otto in a pretty suspicious way (she says "Why would you ask such a question?").

So to me, Hannah seems to be the most likely candidate, but I didn't gather much information about her. Funnily enough, if you spare her, she seems transformed after the revolt.

Curious as to what others think. :)

[Dysterus]

To elaborate on Guy, the day of the murder, or day before, Father Thomas asked him to come into the Church to talk about 'private matters' which is very suspicious.

Guy has a lot of evidence of him embezzling money from the abbey, but not so much for him killing Otto. He spoke with Andreas telling him the demands are stupid, and Margarette remembers a tall, young figure in the convent garden hiding money on the day of the murder. However that is not evidence of him carrying out the murder.

The only evidence you get about Hanna potentially killing Otto is eavesdropping in the aqueduct, and also talking to her family at the Golden Hand.

In my playthroughs, I have not convinced her husband to admit that she is wearing a persona :( so I don't know if there is more to the truth.

Martin is a possible candidate as you said, since his replacement is actually better than his predecessor, but if this was exposed by Otto, he would be in danger. There is a motive, and he is still quite vicious, but I don't know if he would do that.

[archilock]

If you accuse Hannah, there's a scene in act 3 where she (as a weird apparition that might be a figment of a character's imagination) basically confesses. Not a reliable confession, but it might be meaningful anyway. Don't know what the Guy and Martin say in that spot, I haven't replayed Act 2.

I went with Hannah for lying about her motive, opportunity (why did she go to the Rathaus so often?), red herring alibi (you see a couple kissing at the waterfall and might assume it's her and her lover, but if you find the right dialog, it's revealed that it's not). Her choice of lover also says something about her character. Plus the flowers from the murderer's costume are found just outside her inn.

Another note about Hannah is the fact that if you go hunting with the miller, he suggests you accuse Martin. The only likely reason I can think of would be that he strongly suspects that she did it and wants to divert suspicion away from her. Don't know if the Miller has ties to Guy.

Alternative theory : Niko did it, wanting to show his wife that he's not so weak after all.

When you explore Guy and Martin's sides all the way, neither of them feels right as the murderer.

If you find every clue about Guy, you can get him to tell you that he is actually stealing money to help jewish people who are persecuted all over Europe (you find out his family is jewish). With a business background you also find out he still keeps some of that money for himself when he runs away. Bad, but not as bad as it initially looked. He's already responsible for the tax increases and ensuing revolt and bloodbath - but straight murder feels wrong, considering his dialog.

"Martin" is relatively quiet but if you accuse Lucky in act 1 you find out that, left to his own devices, he's actually a terrible father. I think you only have his word about the way Martin got killed, it's very possible that he just murdered him to take his place, à la Tom Ripley. But he's described as impulsive, not really the kind of guy that would set up such an elaborate trap for Otto.

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by archilock:

If you accuse Hannah, there's a scene in act 3 where she (as a weird apparition that might be a figment of a character's imagination) basically confesses. Not a reliable confession, but it might be meaningful anyway. Don't know what the Guy and Martin say in that spot, I haven't replayed Act 2.

I accused Guy (I didn't believe him to be the murderer, but I had considerably less evidence on the other two). While hiding in the mill, he maintained that he didn't do it, and shortly after he got silenced by peasants setting the mill on fire.

By "apparition" you probably mean the dark shapes in the tunnels toward the end of the game? I remember those, but I don't remember what Guy said. I think I _would_ have remembered it if he had confessed the murder, because that would have really surprised me.

Originally posted by archilock:

I went with Hannah (...) Plus the flowers from the murderer's costume are found just outside her inn.

Hmm, are you sure? I had thought I had clicked on every interactable flower in the game, and the only one that matched the flower from the murderer's costume was the flower in the Nymphaeum behind the shrine to St. Satia. My science-trained Andreas actually said explicitly that "this is the only place where this flower could grow" due to the humidity and one or two other factors.

I generally agree with your assessment of Hannah and, in hindsight, would have picked her too, but I'm not sure about this detail.

Originally posted by archilock:

Another note about Hannah is the fact that if you go hunting with the miller, he suggests you accuse Martin. The only likely reason I can think of would be that he strongly suspects that she did it and wants to divert suspicion away from her. Don't know if the Miller has ties to Guy.

I didn't find any ties between Lenhard and Guy, apart from the fact that they happen to die in the same mill if you accuse Guy.

I actually wondered why Lenhard wanted to point me to "Martin". I assumed that perhaps he wanted to get into Brigita's pants, but realized that an impulsive and potentially violent "Martin" could actually be dangerous for him. Given the disdain with which he treated Hannah in the conversation near the aqueduct, I'm skeptical whether he'd really do anything to protect her. But I don't think that my point is stronger than yours - just offering a different perspective.

[Malkav0]

Originally posted by archilock:

If you accuse Hannah, there's a scene in act 3 where she (as a weird apparition that might be a figment of a character's imagination) basically confesses. Not a reliable confession, but it might be meaningful anyway. Don't know what the Guy and Martin say in that spot, I haven't replayed Act 2.

I went with Hannah for lying about her motive, opportunity (why did she go to the Rathaus so often?), red herring alibi (you see a couple kissing at the waterfall and might assume it's her and her lover, but if you find the right dialog, it's revealed that it's not). Her choice of lover also says something about her character. Plus the flowers from the murderer's costume are found just outside her inn.

Another note about Hannah is the fact that if you go hunting with the miller, he suggests you accuse Martin. The only likely reason I can think of would be that he strongly suspects that she did it and wants to divert suspicion away from her. Don't know if the Miller has ties to Guy.

Alternative theory : Niko did it, wanting to show his wife that he's not so weak after all.

When you explore Guy and Martin's sides all the way, neither of them feels right as the murderer.

If you find every clue about Guy, you can get him to tell you that he is actually stealing money to help jewish people who are persecuted all over Europe (you find out his family is jewish). With a business background you also find out he still keeps some of that money for himself when he runs away. Bad, but not as bad as it initially looked. He's already responsible for the tax increases and ensuing revolt and bloodbath - but straight murder feels wrong, considering his dialog.

"Martin" is relatively quiet but if you accuse Lucky in act 1 you find out that, left to his own devices, he's actually a terrible father. I think you only have his word about the way Martin got killed, it's very possible that he just murdered him to take his place, à la Tom Ripley. But he's described as impulsive, not really the kind of guy that would set up such an elaborate trap for Otto.

I went with all leads about Guy and maximum intel about "Martin" in my second playthrough, and indeed, once Guy's actions are made clearer, many things make sense about his attitude and deeds and he feels much less likely to be a killer. Since I also went with the most solid informations for "Martin" he confesses to be a fraud, be facing accusations, he denies and says that "this is the life he wanted" and he will not runaway whatever we do ; it feels unlikely that he'd take the risk to kill someone.
I have basically not much on Hannah so I'll need a third playthrough.

[Dysterus]

Originally posted by archilock:

If you accuse Hannah, there's a scene in act 3 where she (as a weird apparition that might be a figment of a character's imagination) basically confesses. Not a reliable confession, but it might be meaningful anyway. Don't know what the Guy and Martin say in that spot, I haven't replayed Act 2.

I went with Hannah for lying about her motive, opportunity (why did she go to the Rathaus so often?), red herring alibi (you see a couple kissing at the waterfall and might assume it's her and her lover, but if you find the right dialog, it's revealed that it's not). Her choice of lover also says something about her character. Plus the flowers from the murderer's costume are found just outside her inn.

Another note about Hannah is the fact that if you go hunting with the miller, he suggests you accuse Martin. The only likely reason I can think of would be that he strongly suspects that she did it and wants to divert suspicion away from her. Don't know if the Miller has ties to Guy.

Alternative theory : Niko did it, wanting to show his wife that he's not so weak after all.

When you explore Guy and Martin's sides all the way, neither of them feels right as the murderer.

If you find every clue about Guy, you can get him to tell you that he is actually stealing money to help Jewish people who are persecuted all over Europe (you find out his family is Jewish). With a business background you also find out he still keeps some of that money for himself when he runs away. Bad, but not as bad as it initially looked. He's already responsible for the tax increases and ensuing revolt and bloodbath - but straight murder feels wrong, considering his dialog.

"Martin" is relatively quiet but if you accuse Lucky in act 1 you find out that, left to his own devices, he's actually a terrible father. I think you only have his word about the way Martin got killed, it's very possible that he just murdered him to take his place, à la Tom Ripley. But he's described as impulsive, not really the kind of guy that would set up such an elaborate trap for Otto.

I had no idea that Guy was helping out Jews in Europe, although in the beginning of Act 2 he shows how he cares about Jewish persecution across Europe, wherever you pick the location of where you spent much of the years you were gone.

I also didn't know that the same flowers of the murderer were outside the Inn. During the scene with Gernot, I believed that the runaway was very tall and suspected Florian, however that may just be the distance away from the camera.

[Diogo]

Just another 2 cents for Hanna (as murderer) - when you get a round of drinks in the tavern, it is said multiple times how she always hangs around the Rathaus feeding the workers, how she's been absent more often in the past few days/weeks, and also that she wasn't at the Inn when the murder was committed.

Not clear cut, of course, but she seemed the most likely case, to me.

Martin, for the most part, seemed very innocent, though there are also a couple of points where he loses his temper (still, seems more of an impulsive thing rather something that would lead to a premeditated murder due to blackmail). Strangely, I was never given the opportunity to confront him about anything, despite having 5 clues gathered about him.

[Dysterus]

When you speak with Werner's friends in the Inn, when they went up to the Golden Inn, the father and his son came out confused. Notice how Hanna is not mentioned? She is highly suspicious

[ahueonao]

Don't forget the black magic spell in Guy's handwriting (you find it in the butchery, by the abbey's animal pens). I didn't have an occult background so I couldn't glean much information from it, but it was directed at Otto. At the very least that'd hint that Guy was willing to go beyond embezzling, and might have had murderous intent. He might have grown more desperate as he saw that the spell did not work, and might have chosen to take a more active role in Otto's unaliving.

Also, even if the ultimate goal for his theft was sympathetic, you can learn from dining with the abbot that it was Guy's own suggestion that the abbey's "financial hardship" be solved by piling more taxes on the people of Tassig. He knew what he was doing, and was not above causing others misery for his own misdeeds.

The one argument against Guy would be the method of murder itself - he rarely went into town, so I can't see him having a good enough feel of the Rathaus building site to drop a load on Otto. Martin worked there (I think?) and Hanna was always snooping in the area, so they were the most likely to know their way around the place well enough to carry out the murder.

But the comments about the individual murders being open-ended are right - I think the lack of clear-cut answers is designed so that, no matter how you pick, you always have to carry on with the weight that you might have condemned an innocent (or two! or none!) to death.

I still went with Guy, though, since I had to keep my "pin a murder on whichever monk was meanest to me yesterday" streak. I was sad to find no trial in Act 3. If there had been, I swear to 𝕲𝖔𝖉 I would have found a way to pin the whole thing on Father Mathieu. His letter was not polite enough.

[Lieska]

Guy's embezzlement was bad, but for a decent cause. I couldn't suspect him at all of the murder.

I went with Hanna, the first playthrough. I still maintain she is the most likely. I was going to try and pin it on Lenhardt the second time, but I didn't gather enough evidence to bring him up and had to throw Martin under the bus, though I don't think it was him.

[Malkav]

I explored the three options thoroughly in my first playthrough. I got hannah to admit that she was at rauthouse at the time of the murder, got "Martin" to admit that he's not really martin, found out about guy's embezzling. Hannah had both a motive and an opportunity, but I still accused guy.

[Krosis Priest]

I really disliked Hanna and think she *might* be the one, but imo Guy is by far the best candidate because while I think the actual murder is 50/50 it was him, he's done so many other awful things (including his stealing essentially igniting the unrest and all the violence afterwards) that whether you're right or wrong, it's still relatively fair.

(and he does himself no favours, so it's easy to think he's lying because well, he's a borderline pathological liar anyway)