[Game On] Kingdoms of Phallacia - Day 4 (There is no Day 3)

191012141517

Posts

  • GrimmyTOAGrimmyTOA Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I'm not sure where Smasher is (and I feel like we could use some guidance -- or at least co-ordination) but if he says that he has reason to trust ArrBeeBee then I'll go along with it. For now.

    The other trendy pick at the moment, obviously, is DarkPrimus. I'm not sold on this though.

    I feel like he's been a bit too high-profile for too long to have not tripped himself up somehow. Bah!

    I'm not sure what to do at this point. Smasher! Tell us whom to smite and they shall be smoten!

    GrimmyTOA on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I !vote for Abysmal Lynx

    I have no proof or concrete reasoning, so don't read too much into this. Vote as you will.

    Smasher on
  • Abysmal LynxAbysmal Lynx Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Looks like I might die, if not today then tomorrow, and I really thought I'd be taken out by a rogue too.

    Abysmal Lynx on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Looks like I might die, if not today then tomorrow, and I really thought I'd be taken out by a rogue too.

    This is a very strange reaction, considering you only have two votes, when there are other people with three or two votes themselves. If you truly think you're going to die, why not defend yourself or question the reasoning of those who vote for you? I can understand fearing looking even more suspicious, but such resignation is also rather strange.

    Today has been pretty surreal, to be honest. Apparently we learn there are more specials than we thought (?) and few people really question the confusion that erupts, instead just tossing votes out and disappearing back into the void (not that I'm helping any). I've been re-reading the thread, checking for suspicious behavior, so I should have a vote a little later tonight.

    Navoc on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    I guess I !vote for AbysmalLynx. There's no real evidence against DarkPrimus whatsoever, yet people keep voting for him, which suggests to me that we're being manipulated.

    Aroused Bull on
  • GrimmyTOAGrimmyTOA Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Yeah. This whole thing's starting to look a bit like we're flailing around blindly.

    I'm going to trust to Smasher's judgment, however, and !vote for Abysmal Lynx.

    Hope it works out.

    GrimmyTOA on
  • Abysmal LynxAbysmal Lynx Registered User
    edited February 2007
    So it looks like tonight I will probably die. The reason I don't defend myself is because the votes against me are just as valid as the votes against DarkPrimus; DarkPrimus was acting suspicious near the beginning while I'm a guy who managed to write a theory that got a guy killed.

    Personally I find ArrBeeBee the most suspicious of us all. He's been slightly off this whole time, I don't really think he's the rogue councilor, but I do think he's at least a special. If I had to pick a person as rogue councilor, I would choose either GrimmyTOA or Navoc because their blending in very cleanly, the perfect thing to do at this point in the game.

    Also, I have no idea why ArrBeeBee would think I'm behind this DarkPrimus thing, I think this very well might be the first, maybe second thing I've said about him.

    Abysmal Lynx on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Also, I have no idea why ArrBeeBee would think I'm behind this DarkPrimus thing, I think this very well might be the first, maybe second thing I've said about him.

    I don't think you're behind it, I just think someone might be behind it and I don't want to stake anyone the rogues want us to stake.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Abysmal LynxAbysmal Lynx Registered User
    edited February 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    Also, I have no idea why ArrBeeBee would think I'm behind this DarkPrimus thing, I think this very well might be the first, maybe second thing I've said about him.

    I don't think you're behind it, I just think someone might be behind it and I don't want to stake anyone the rogues want us to stake.

    Fair enough.

    Well, I suppose getting executed is going to be a relief, the stress of anticipating my death by random rogue assassination was really getting to me.

    Edit: As I count it, thats 4 votes for me and 3 votes for DarkPrimus. Congratulations on living another day.

    Abysmal Lynx on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    There's no real evidence against DarkPrimus whatsoever, yet people keep voting for him, which suggests to me that we're being manipulated.

    Actually, he's been voted for relatively little. Before today, he had a total of four votes cast for him, three of those by precisionk. Funnily enough, it does seem like he's always been a target of suspicion, which I imagine originates from all of the claims of him "overreacting." I never really saw his response as out of the ordinary, though I also never saw any humour in it (as he and others claim it was a joke).

    Regardless, Abysmal Lynx currently leads by one vote, and I don't know if I suspect DarkPrimus enough to tie the vote and create a lot of drama. I'm not sure how certain I am in my suspicion of Abysmal Lynx, but I also strongly doubt I could offer a better alternative. Everyone is about equally suspicious at this point, not least due to the decrease in activity we've experienced.

    With apologies, I !vote for Abysmal Lynx.

    Navoc on
  • Abysmal LynxAbysmal Lynx Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Navoc wrote: »
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    There's no real evidence against DarkPrimus whatsoever, yet people keep voting for him, which suggests to me that we're being manipulated.

    Actually, he's been voted for relatively little. Before today, he had a total of four votes cast for him, three of those by precisionk. Funnily enough, it does seem like he's always been a target of suspicion, which I imagine originates from all of the claims of him "overreacting." I never really saw his response as out of the ordinary, though I also never saw any humour in it (as he and others claim it was a joke).

    Regardless, Abysmal Lynx currently leads by one vote, and I don't know if I suspect DarkPrimus enough to tie the vote and create a lot of drama. I'm not sure how certain I am in my suspicion of Abysmal Lynx, but I also strongly doubt I could offer a better alternative. Everyone is about equally suspicious at this point, not least due to the decrease in activity we've experienced.

    With apologies, I !vote for Abysmal Lynx.

    Thats all I needed.

    I !retract my vote for DarkPrimus
    I !vote for Abysmal Lynx

    Abysmal Lynx on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • PsychoLarry1PsychoLarry1 Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Well, too late to change my vote, not that it makes any difference. Now to wait and see how things work out.

    PsychoLarry1 on
  • Hi I'm Vee!Hi I'm Vee! Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C E Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Guys, I'm really sorry, I just don't have the energy for a narration tonight.

    Here's a summary of how things went down:

    AbysmalLynx: executed; rogue councillor
    Supersuga: vigilanted; innocent

    Narration will come tomorrow.

    Hi I'm Vee! on
    How to properly greet me:
    DqCFqdL.png
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Oh wow, it didn't look like he really was a rogue. Nice.

    I guess we'll have to wait for the narration to see whether the rogues got blocked or whether there wasn't an attack last night.

    I'm worried that the game is still on though. Unless the two teams were unbalanced, that means there's two more rogues out of the seven of us, unless thorgot was a thrall after all in which case things just get complicated.

    Smasher on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Ha-hah! My hunch was correct! Man, that makes me really happy.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • PsychoLarry1PsychoLarry1 Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    These are the most hard to predict rogues I've ever dealt with. Two of them make themselves extremely apparent on the first night and get each other killed. Then they start hacking at each other. And Abysmal votes for himself, but so late in the day that it doesn't work as a sign of innocence.
    Well, now there are 7 and that means there are 4 of you I don't trust.

    PsychoLarry1 on
  • GrimmyTOAGrimmyTOA Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Yeah, it's turned into a very strange game. I feel like people are mostly hunkered down right now. Because the last few deaths have unfortunately gone to the most vocal, nobody wants to say anything.

    So. I'll get the ball rolling.

    What do we know, as a group?

    We know that Smasher's the Vigilante (or at least -- I feel like it has been proved sufficiently).
    We know that there's one (or maybe two) guardians running around out there.
    We know that there are at least two groups of rogues (or at least there were originally -- we might be down to one now).

    That's really about it, to be honest. So where do we go from here?

    Well. Lets take a look around. Smasher has asked us to trust RBB. Cantide has made under ten posts this whole round -- not much to go on. PsychoLarry and Navoc do the 'positive sensible' thing. DarkPrimus went on the defensive on day one (I know, it was a joke) and it's been dogging him ever since. Smasher's out, obviously and I know that I'm not a rogue. So.

    Where does that leave us? Has anyone got anything that's bugging them/making them suspicious?

    GrimmyTOA on
  • CantideCantide Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I'm not much for secrets, so let's just finish this, alright? ArrBeeBee has told me that he is the seer and GrimmyTOA is the guardian. I've talked with Smasher, who informed me that ArrBeeBee has also vouched for Navoc. That leaves us with two possibilities:

    1) RBB is telling the truth. I'm inclined to believe him at this point. This means that our two remaining rogues are the only two people outside this network, DarkPrimus and PsychoLarry1. We kill them and celebrate.

    2) RBB is lying. I doubt this is the case, but it's a dangerous idea. There's 7 of us right now, and if Smasher kills again we'll be down to 4 tomorrow. If RBB is lying and we trust him, we'll kill 3 innocent peopl tonight and lose.


    So here's my plan. We choose one person to kill tonight, DarkPrimus or PsychoLarry1. Smasher does not kill anyone tonight. If RBB is a real seer, the staking will reveal our victim as a rogue, and we can finish this easily enough tomorrow. If RBB is lying, our victim will show up as innocent, and we'll have time left to turn on RBB and figure out who his last ally is.

    Cantide on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    That's fucking brilliant, Cantide. Reveal all the specials in one go. If anything goes wrong, we are totally boned now.

    Aroused Bull on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Well, I guess since all that's out in the open there's no point being quiet in the thread anymore. Hopefully this should make things more interesting for you onlooking dead people. :P

    Grimmy is the guardian. I'm as certain as that as I can be without me being the seer, as he's saved my ass twice now (It should show in the narration once visible posts it, but I was attacked last night too. Not really sure why, but that's another story).

    ArrBeeBee (RBB henceforth) is indeed claiming to be the seer, and if so he's seered Grimmy, Cantide, and Novac.

    It seems very likely that there are exactly six rogues. I've never seen a game where thrall are included in the monsters' body count, and so if there were four rogues and two thrall the game should be over by now. Since it's not, and since there are two teams, it seems unlikely that one has more rogues than the other. Hence, six rogues. Any game with more than six people working against the village (even if split into two teams) would be hideously unbalanced, and so I also conclude that there are no thrall.

    There are two possibilities that we can base scenarios on: RBB is a rogue, or he is the seer. If he is the seer, then neither Cantide nor Navoc are rogues. If we accept my hypothesis that there are no thrall, then they are on our side.

    If there were only five rogues I would suggest taking out DarkPrimus and PsychoLarry tonight. Then if the game were still going, we would stake RBB and that should be the end of it. Unfortunately, with six rogues that doesn't work so nicely. If both RBB and one of Navoc or Cantide are rogues, then we end up with four people, two being rogues and two being two of the other three of myself, Grimmy, and whichever of Navoc and Cantide was innocent. Although the rules say that should be the end of the game, it might be salvagable if I'm one of the living and a) The rogues are opposing sides and kill one or the other or b) they're on the same side but only get a kill once every other day. In those cases my vig kill would prove a tiebreaker, but those flirt dangerously close to losing the game, and might actually do so if visiblehowl sticks with the equal numbers rule.

    So, let's avoid that situation.

    Instead, I propose that we stake RBB today, and I'll kill one of PsychoLarry1 or DarkPrimus tonight (not sure who yet). With six rogues that guarantees that we get at least one rogue, as neither Cantide nor Navoc can be rogues if RBB is innocent, and if he is innocent then both larry and dark will be rogues. If RBB is innocent, we stake the other of larry and dark and that should be the game. If RBB is a rogue then things get kinda complicated, and what we do after that will depend on who the rogues kill tonight.

    While I suspect (and hope) that RBB really is the seer, I'd rather not lose the game after doing so well if it turns out he's been playing us. So, on that note, I !vote for ArrBeeBee.

    Smasher on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    You know, I still have a vision left, Smasher. Couldn't you do something else to prove my innocence that doesn't involve killing me? Say, off Navoc and Cantide (sorry guys)? Then I can seer one of the two still unknown, and we'll know for sure who the rogue/s are, at which point we'll have won the game.
    Or, kill both the unknowns - that'll end the game if I'm innocent, but if I'm lying it will prove it at which point you can kill me next turn.

    Aroused Bull on
  • PsychoLarry1PsychoLarry1 Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Alright, I've known who both the guardian and the vigilante were since night 1. If I were a rogue you guys would probably be dead right now. Beyond the fact that I've done nothing but help the village, why would I just leave you guys alone and help set up this network so quickly? Killing me is just going to bring the rogues closer to victory.

    PsychoLarry1 on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Unfortunately, we could kill both of them and it still wouldn't prove your innocence. Plus it would cost us two potentially verified innocents. Also, and if you're innocent either one of them you seer should show up as guilty, so we don't get any new information from that.

    While the idea of killing the seer doesn't exactly thrill me, in this case I think it's the best course of action.

    Smasher on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    I am extremely opposed to this course of action.

    Hold on, look. If you kill Psycho and DarkPrimus both, and I'm telling the truth, it will end the game, right? If I'm not telling the truth, then I'm the last rogue, and you'll be able to kill me the next day. We have five rogues dead, meaning there's only one rogue left. It's either me, or one of those two. I really wish you'd kill those two first.

    Aroused Bull on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Psycho:

    I've been attacked twice, once on night 2 and once on night 4 (last night). If you were a rogue, it would make perfect sense for you to attack me on night 2, as the plans you heard all involved either thorgot or Grimmy being protected. Last night would be harder to explain, as you knew Grimmy was the guardian, but perhaps you figured he was guarding ArrBeeBee and that I was a more important target than Grimmy.

    I'm not saying I believe you're a rogue; I'm just saying it's not inconceivable.

    Smasher on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ArrBeeBee, I'm counting four rogues dead: AcidSerra, AbysmalLynx, Squashua, and TehSpectre. Am I missing one?

    Smasher on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    No, apparently I am. In that case, it only makes sense for both Psycho and DarkPrimus to be rogues, unless there's an invisible faction. Killing either of them should prove me right.
    On the other hand, there was no rogue kill last night, which should indicate that one of the groups is dead. What's going on?

    Aroused Bull on
  • GrimmyTOAGrimmyTOA Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I can answer that one: There was a rogue kill attempt last night. It didn't work out.

    We still either have two factions -- or one faction that gets a kill every night.

    GrimmyTOA on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    It didn't get into the summary visiblehowl put up, but I got attacked last night.

    Basically, my reasoning for staking you is that if you're innocent, we know who's guilty and we win tomorrow night. If you're guilty and we don't stake you, things get very, very bad for us.

    Smasher on
  • PsychoLarry1PsychoLarry1 Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    You're right that I only knew of the plans to protect Grimmy or Thorgot. I don't have anyway to defend that I guess. All I can say is that I've been completely forthcoming at all times about everything I know, telling Grimmy all about the plan to have you attack him as soon as thor mentioned it etc. Also, I've done my best to conceal everyone's identities.
    As far as RBB, I was unaware until cantide's post that he was claiming to be a seer. I thought that he was just some sort of pseudo-guardian.

    PsychoLarry1 on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I'd like to believe everybody, but the fact is that at least one somebody and more likely two somebodies are doing their best to stab everyone else in the back. The only person I trust is Grimmy, as I can't conceive of a way he could be a rogue given past events.

    Smasher on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    It didn't get into the summary visiblehowl put up, but I got attacked last night.

    Basically, my reasoning for staking you is that if you're innocent, we know who's guilty and we win tomorrow night. If you're guilty and we don't stake you, things get very, very bad for us.

    Look, if I were a rogue, I would have killed Grimmy as soon as I found out about him - and how did I find out about him, if not through a vision? If I were a rogue, I would not have hooked you up with verified villagers - that would be setting you up to have a voting majority to kill me later. It makes no sense for me to be a rogue.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    I just realised something. We know that there's at least one other guardian and two rogues out there, but there are only two unverified people. One of Navoc or Cantide has to be either a special or a rogue - it's the only way to fit the roles into the number of people we have. We've been overlooking the possibility of misdirection roles, that seer as one thing but are in fact another.
    Specials seering as villagers doesn't make sense, but rogues seering as villagers do - thralls. Either two thralls, in which case it's Navoc and Cantide, or a thrall and a rogue, in which case it's one of DarkPrimus and PsychoLarry and one of the other two. That means we have four people with one special and two monsters amongst them.
    Here's what I propose: we kill Navoc and Cantide, and I seer DarkPrimus or PsychoLarry. If I'm correct, we're certain to get one thrall amongst Navoc and Cantide, and we'll know who the last one is by the outcome of my vision (since I'll be seering either a villager special or a rogue, and whoever's not one is the other) and will have a voting majority to kill him.
    On the other hand, if I'm correct and you kill me instead, you have four people with two rogues amongst them, and you won't know who is who. We'll basically be fucked.

    Aroused Bull on
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    The problem with that is what if you and one of the two outsiders are rogues? Then we kill two villagers and you then kill the other outsider and it's 2v2.

    I'm not sure if there is one, but I'm trying to come up with a plan that works no matter who's what or what happens. It's rather hard.

    Smasher on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    The problem with that is what if you and one of the two outsiders are rogues? Then we kill two villagers and you then kill the other outsider and it's 2v2.

    I'm not sure if there is one, but I'm trying to come up with a plan that works no matter who's what or what happens. It's rather hard.

    If I'm a rogue and you do what I say, you're right, we're screwed. But if I'm right, and you kill me, we're also screwed. So I guess it comes down to whether you think I'm a rogue.

    Aroused Bull on
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Quick question: Doesn't RBB's idea rely entirely on the existence of a thrall? As in, if there are no thralls, his plan ensures our failure? I think I might be misunderstanding though, so clarification would be appreciated.

    Also, there is still a "guardian" unaccounted for, correct? If so, isn't it possible that the rogues have, in some capacity, a power similar to the guardian? This would answer the question of why the guardian never contacted the other specials, no? Once more, I feel I'm missing some information though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

    Navoc on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Navoc wrote: »
    Quick question: Doesn't RBB's idea rely entirely on the existence of a thrall? As in, if there are no thralls, his plan ensures our failure? I think I might be misunderstanding though, so clarification would be appreciated.
    We know there's a guardian unaccounted for, and we also know that there are at least two rogues, but everybody's role has been verified save two. That means we have three roles amongst two people, which doesn't make sense, unless either you or Cantide gave me a faulty reading (i.e. is a thrall).
    Also, there is still a "guardian" unaccounted for, correct? If so, isn't it possible that the rogues have, in some capacity, a power similar to the guardian? This would answer the question of why the guardian never contacted the other specials, no? Once more, I feel I'm missing some information though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
    That's possible. I've never seen a rogue with the full powers of a guardian, though (the illuminati just deflected votes off of themselves), while I have seen thralls. We basically only have one turn to act here, and since I know I'm not a rogue, I really think this is the most likely case. I'm actually thinking Cantide is a thrall and you're probably innocent, since as soon as I contacted Cantide, he spilled my identity and that of the guardian, but you kept quiet for a long time. The safest way is to kill both of you, though, unfortunately, since seering you is useless.

    I !vote Cantide.

    Aroused Bull on
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    We know there's a guardian unaccounted for

    For there to be two true guardian specials, it would pretty much mean it had to be DarkPrimus who was the anonymous guardian, as I cannot see PyschoLarry1 being the guardian and not revealing it to the other specials. Regardless of who it is, though, I cannot fathom a reason they would never have got in contact with the other specials. And even then, why would the guardian have protected you instead of themselves? The circumstances necessary for there to be another guardian just don't seem likely, to me. Which leads me to believe that the rogues might have the ability of a guardian, to whatever degree.

    I don't know, I'm going to continue thinking about this. It seems the result of the game will pretty much be decided tonight.

    Navoc on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    DarkPrimus actually claimed to be a patriot (can protect someone, but dies in their place). It's possible he modified his role out of misplaced suspicion.

    Aroused Bull on
  • CantideCantide Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    Navoc wrote: »
    Quick question: Doesn't RBB's idea rely entirely on the existence of a thrall? As in, if there are no thralls, his plan ensures our failure? I think I might be misunderstanding though, so clarification would be appreciated.
    We know there's a guardian unaccounted for, and we also know that there are at least two rogues, but everybody's role has been verified save two. That means we have three roles amongst two people, which doesn't make sense, unless either you or Cantide gave me a faulty reading (i.e. is a thrall).
    Also, there is still a "guardian" unaccounted for, correct? If so, isn't it possible that the rogues have, in some capacity, a power similar to the guardian? This would answer the question of why the guardian never contacted the other specials, no? Once more, I feel I'm missing some information though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
    That's possible. I've never seen a rogue with the full powers of a guardian, though (the illuminati just deflected votes off of themselves), while I have seen thralls. We basically only have one turn to act here, and since I know I'm not a rogue, I really think this is the most likely case. I'm actually thinking Cantide is a thrall and you're probably innocent, since as soon as I contacted Cantide, he spilled my identity and that of the guardian, but you kept quiet for a long time. The safest way is to kill both of you, though, unfortunately, since seering you is useless.

    I !vote Cantide.


    Obviously there's no way for me to prove that I'm not a thrall, so here's what I propose. We go with the plan I suggested earlier.

    If our target is guilty, target both myself and the remaining unseered person tomorrow. Whether I'm a thrall or not, that should take of the remaining monsters.

    If our target is not guilty, then there's an excellent chance either me or you are bad guys, so we'll target the both of us. How's that sound?

    Cantide on
Sign In or Register to comment.