Long Game 2: The Devil's Den

[princess]

Cessie's head was throbbing when she woke the next morning.  She had, in an attempt to ignore her father's pet Terrisman, had more to drink than she intended.  However, the sound from the room below her prevented her from sleeping long enough to get through the worst of the pain.  Groaning, she got ready for the day.

 

As she decended the stairs, the first thing to hit her was the smell.  Grabbing a hankercheif she placed it over her mouth and nose to cover the stench.  The next thing she noticed was the bloody body, and it took all of her will power to quell her rolling stomach.

 

She had tried her entire life to rebell against her parents, but they had been able to keep her safe from the worst.  And yet, in a small way she felt a thrill of excitement.  Someone had been killed, and no one was around to shuffle her away, or tell her it wasn't right for a young lady of her station to see.  Of course, as she averted her eyes, a part of wished that someone would do just that.

 

She was suddenly glad for the amount of wine she had consumed.  She was normally a light sleeper, and being in the rooms just above the Inn's main room, would have woken from the screams had her sleep not been aided.  A bile rose in her throat again, and this time she simply ran for a corner of the room.

[Claincy]

 

To aide you in quest, Ruin has granted you [X] number of special abilities. The number of these abilities will depend on how many players are in the game.

Under the inquisitor rules. I think we can assume that the inquisitor has many abilities and at least 1 vote effecting one. I haven't decided who to guess yet but I do think we should vote for someone.

 

I wonder who is going to kill me first, the inquisitor or the crew....

[Swimmingly]

I read that as each ruin-granted ability being one opportunity to make a Spiked

[Peng the Just]

Sorry, I'm still confused about the rules. If ten people vote to kill no one and three people vote to kill bob, does bob die?

[Claincy]

I was under the impression that he started like a more limited mistborn but had to sacrifice one everytime he spiked someone. As the spiked person gains the ability of the dead misting, not the sacrificed power. I think we need some Meta clarification here.

 

I could, of course, be completely wrong.

 

Edit: @Jason, yeah, Bob still dies. It is abstaining to vote rather than voting to not kill.

Edited January 27, 2014 by lord Claincy Ffnord

[Swimmingly]

Yeah, I'm surprised I wasn't confused by this sooner

Also, I think a nokill vote just means that you're saying, I'm not voting.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Swimmingly

[Kurkistan]

Meta has clarified that "no kill" is a valid vote, meaning that 39 "no kills" against 1 "Bob" means that no one dies.

 

EDIT: I was incorrect in my interpretation.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Kurkistan

[Swimmingly]

The issue is, does a vote of "no kill" count as a vote towards no deaths or just abstaining from voting?

Ok, I'll gladly accept that, though his wording was a little ambiguous

Edited January 27, 2014 by Swimmingly

[Gamma Fiend]

Alright, looks like "no kill" is a valid option.

I'll go with that for now.

(Although, I personally think they should only count as 'abstained' votes. I am new to all of this (only second game ever) but it seemed to me the point of Mafia was killing people and facing the consequences of our actions. We have to kill to move forward in the game. But I will gladly accept the current rulings, as that gives the Regulars a slight advantage, I think.)

 

Edit: Thanks, Meta, for the clarifications! At least we're getting around to asking for rule clarifications before three days in to the massacre this time!
I'll still have my vote as abstained for now, though. There's still plenty of time to figure out who to kill.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Gamma Fiend

[Metacognition]

It is a valid vote, but if someone were to get two or more votes for them, they would die. I'm sorry for the confusion. It is more of an abstaining from voting than it is a vote for no one to die. It is more for clarification purposes. If you don't want anyone to die, say so in red and it will be recorded as such, that way it is easier for me to keep a tally. 

 

Also, the Inquisitor does indeed have some unique abilities. They can use these abilities until they use it up in the process to convert someone. They can only use one of the abilities at a time, but if one is a day action and one is a night action, they will be able to use them both within the same cycle.

[Claincy]

Ok, that being the case, I'm still on the fence as to whether we should hold off voting. If we all vote not to kill anyone then we won't really learn anything from who is killed. Leaving us at square 1 with one less player.

 

In my defence I would hope that the inquisitor would be more subtle than I am being.

 

Edit: Ninja'd by the rule clarification. SO normal voting it is, good

My points in favour of killing someone still stand.

Edited January 27, 2014 by lord Claincy Ffnord

[Swimmingly]

But the coinshot(s), inquisitor, and maybe mistborn are goin' to be huntin' tonight, good sirs... we must be careful

I guess we probably should vote to kill someone anyway, then, so we can tell who's vote was targeted.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Swimmingly

[Grayv]

Grave was panting when he finally entered the inn and saw everyone surrounding Modeft, who was laying on the floor underneath an extremely bloody hook. "Oh My!" he said, face going pale at the site of so much blood, "I think i am going to be sick. How in the name of Ja could this have happened." Grave walked over to an empty chair, sitting in it while trying to keep his upset stomach under control.

 

I believe that we should wait on voting on someone. I will cast my vote to not kill anyone.

[Peng the Just]

So now the only question is who. I lean towards bartbug, as has already established himself as an excellent liar in the previous game and we have nothing else to go on. Note that this not yet a vote

[Swimmingly]

I notice something

Fnord, here... he assumed that Inquisitors were powerful

We argue, validly, that killing will hurt the crew worse than the inquisitor.

He argues for a lynch, though it would be bad for us

I say, kill Fnord!

He's an Inquisitor!

Of course, calling to lynch a guy because he argued for a lynch despite a valid argument against a lynch is kinda messed up.

How about, it was a trap the whole time!

Edited January 27, 2014 by Swimmingly

[Gamma Fiend]

Ah, yes. The former spiked from the previous game They did indeed prove themselves to be tricky last game.
So now we need to ask: How cruel would Meta be to make one of them Spiked this time through again? (Unless it's all randomly rolled, of course)

Obviously they will all be immediately suspected. But maybe that'd be too obvious? So we don't target them. But that's what they wanted us to think the entire time!

See? We could run in circles of logic around it, never getting a guaranteed answer

And oh, snap! We got our first full-fledged accusation! that didn't take long.


 

[Shivertongue]

There was a corpse hanging in the bar.

 

Shiv approached the body, slipping through the growing crowd, for a closer look. He didn't recognize the man, but that didn't mean anything. He'd never been good with faces to begin with, especially men. From the murmurs of those around him, he surmised that the man must have been someone important, at least to the local crew fodder.

 

"Having the have of knowing to this?" he asked, turning his eye toward the nearest person, then shifted it back a moment later.

 

It was a rather gruesome scene, truth be told, but Shiv had seen corpses before. Granted, none had ever been hanging on hooks, but life was full of new and interesting experience. The hook through the mouth was certainly interesting, but wouldn't have been enough to kill the man. "Wasing is display on the have," he murmured, stroking his chin as he circled the body. "Always is wasing intent the having for threat? Notting the how of the how for the other, showing of hook to look on the catching..."

 

He only just stopped himself from making a bad pun about 'casting' doubt. He was very proud of himself. "Wasing the missing the found on the now?" Excepting, of course, the pair of coins he slipped from the deceased's pockets during his inspection.

 

Translations

 

"I take it you know who this is?"

 

"This is meant as a display."

 

"Is it meant to be a threat? Some kind of message someone here is supposed to understand, with the way he's hooked like a  caught fish..."

 

"Was anything missing when you found him?"

[Claincy]

Heh, I'm being accused already? That's a shock! No, no it isn't.

 

There is an argument for not killing anyone but truthfully if we don't try to kill someone then tomorrow we will be just as clueless as we were today. (except for whoever the seeker is, however they are rather unlikely to reveal themselves at this point.) If we start flinging around accusations then we can probably get some idea of who the inquisitor might be based on who died.

 

So I support swimmingly in his decision to vote, though I would rather he picked a different target. Do you really think the inquisitor would come out with an unpopular opinion on his/her very first post?

[Aether]

I think it would be better not to kill anyone the first day, for the various reasons as mentioned in the posts above. In addition, this gives the Seeker some extra time to start building his alliance.

 

And just to be clear, I find that the Seeker's (or Seekers') job is to scan random villagers, and if they prove to be clean, include them into their ring(s) of trusted villagers. Of course, these could be converted at a later time, but it should still be the safer way to go. Survivor willing, (s)he'll find a nice Allomancer at the first try.

 

EDIT: Claincy, you forgot to add the hidden message!

Edited January 27, 2014 by Aether

[Claincy]

It will take rather some time for the seeker to build up a decent sized alliance in a game this size, the rest of us shouldn't be twiddling our thumbs in the meantime.

 

@Aether, Did I? I don't think so. I'm not always going to make it obvious....

[Swimmingly]

Aether, your argument has swayed me. Let the guillotine stay sharp-'n-clean

[Aonar]

Aonar entered, but stopped back a short distance from the crowd. He didn't need to look at Modeft's body. He'd seen more than enough death before, and he could infer enough from the blood and the whispering crowd to know what had happened.

 

An Inquisitor, hidden right under our noses...

 

He didn't know how it was possible, yet the truth lay just a few metres away. 

 

If the Inquisitor knows about our crew, why didn't they kill us all?

 

It seemed that the Inquisitor was fallible; whoever he or she was, they were letting their need to frighten the crew get in the way of practicality. 

 

Or was it only to let us think we actually have a chance?

 

I have to say that I'm with the people who think we shouldn't kill anyone today, there's no point in killing anyone based on really unlikely guesses, especially when the death could let the Inquisitor create a new Spiked.

[luckat]

Lucy stared at the horrible scene before her. A similar scene rose in her memory. Her old crew leader in an identical position. Dena, her sister, lying lifeless in her own blood. Fear rose in the pit of her stomach. Of course there was an Inquisitor here. He would come for her. She tore her eyes away from the body and instead gazed with suspicion at the gathering crowd around her, gauging each person's reaction. Was there one who wasn't surprised?

 

Along with the fear came anger. They were doing it again. Destroying a crew that Lucy had hoped perhaps would be safe for once. She had to find a way to stop it. One of these people had shattered the fragile hope that had been slowly building within her. She would find them and make them regret what they had done.

 

She took a deep breath. Calmly, she thought. It was best to approach the situation rationally, no matter her feelings. It only took one traitor to ruin everything, and the more everyone turned on one another, the more likely it was that everyone would fail. Quick accusations were no way to go. No, it was best to watch and wait for now. Perhaps she would be able to notice someone acting suspicious.

 

For now, I am voting to kill no one. I agree with what has already been said that we don't have enough to go off of.

[Aether]

It will take rather some time for the seeker to build up a decent sized alliance in a game this size, the rest of us shouldn't be twiddling our thumbs in the meantime.

I realise that it might seem useless and time consuming, but (s)he needs all the time (s)he can get. Last game was lost largely because the Spiked got to the Seeker (or rather, we sicked the villagers on him) before he could do anything at all. And the chance of getting the Inquisitor is so minuscule that it really is better to not risk giving him dead Mistings to feed on.

 

With the Survivor as my witness, I vote to kill no one today.

@Aether, Did I? I don't think so. I'm not always going to make it obvious....

Pardon me. I didn't notice.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Aether

[Claincy]

Why is everyone staring at me? Fnord thought. I should probably shut up before I get myself killed.

 

Thing is, the only advantage we have in waiting is to give the seeker more time to build an alliance. If the seeker gets killed and we have spent the last 5-6 days doing nothing we will be in trouble.

 

I get not killing anyone, I really do. It's what I was thinking to start with. But I'm still not sure that it is our best bet. Let's ignore the seeker for the moment (just a moment) and examine the situation where we don't kill or accuse anyone compared to the situation where we do.

 

A: We kill no-one. The inquisitor kills someone that night and we drop from 28 to 27 and that next day we have no more clue who is the inquisitor than we did to start with. On the other hand if..

 

B: We toss accusations around and someone fairly inevitably dies. We can then start to guess from who was killed that night, who the spiked might be. It isn't hard evidence, but it gives us something to work from. We can start applying psychology instead of spinning round with our eyes shut and seeing who we end up pointing at.

 

But really the biggest problem I have with waiting, is that someone will almost certainly die anyway. With 29 players the inquisitor will almost certainly have soothing or rioting powers and if we try to kill no-one they will just completely anonymously adjust the vote to kill whoever they want. So instead of a 1/29 chance of hitting the inquisitor and potentially gaining some useful info even if we don't get him, we will have a 100% chance of one of us getting killed during the day cycle as well as the night. This is not exactly a desirable outcome. Even taking the seeker building its squad into account. We won't actually be giving them more time this way.

 

So, because we have to start somewhere, I will vote for Aonar at this time as the only sensible thing for the inquisitor to do publicly at this point is join the "kill no-one" club and I doubt they would be the first to post (sorry Aonar, my vote may well change anyway). I also chose Aonar because I didn't feel like going for anyone I murdered last game ; )

Edited January 27, 2014 by lord Claincy Ffnord