The Gentlemen's Mafia II - Hunter's Chance

[ReZourceman]

and just refuses to even entertain the idea I might be town[/b]

 

Lolz. Wha? I said I suspect you dudeth. I'm nowhere near certain.

[Diageo]

You keep claiming Dazz is a naive cop just because I can't be town.

[Ellmeister]

Well we'll tell who a killer is if either Nintendohnut or Dannyboy kill. Unless they are both mafia, we shall see.

[Diageo]

 

 

 

I think this may be the case. Diageo as good I (well I couldn't stomach it) by jove. But Diageo and the oft-discussed Sméagol? Hmmmm.

 

The evidence that we have on Dazz is that he targeted me and nothing bad happened to me, (and...well I know I'm good) and all his results have showed good. Whilst not out of the question that he's only targeted good (probability supports this theory) there have been question marks over Sméagol and Diageo so naive cop sounds....plausible.

Like right here. There have been no question marks above me, only the ones you think should be there.

[Tales]

 

Yes, to help the town. Why is this so hard to believe? Vigilantes are a common mafia role.

Because we got two, not just one, vigilantes that appearently helps the town.

 

Would it have helped my case if I had come out with my role before Dohnut did?

Probably not. You know very well I don't like either of you.

[Ellmeister]

I find it weird that you both are apparently vigilante killers yet only Angus has been killing. So you've both done practically nothing the rest of the nights?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Because we got two, not just one, vigilantes that appearently helps the town.

 

 

Probably not. You know very well I don't like either of you.

 

I find it weird that you both are apparently vigilante killers yet only Angus has been killing. So you've both done practically nothing the rest of the nights?

 

Get your facts straight, people! I fully accept the suspiciousness of my role, but I won't be suspected on false grounds.

 

1) Dohnut is NOT a vigilante, he is neutral. He has his own win condition: to kill Angus himself. There's no saying the town will win alongside him if he does, nor are we even certain that Angus is the mafia (to be honest, we're very much in the dark on that front).

 

2) I have only been a vigilante for ONE night! And I decided not to kill because I have no clue who's mafia!

[ReZourceman]

Like right here. There have been no question marks above me, only the ones you think should be there.

 

*Sigh* I agreed that it was a reasonable theory.

[Diageo]

I was referring to the (I couldn't stomach it) comment.

[Beast]

I'll be the first to admit that I had reasons for targeting my targets, although you may see this as absolutely stupid, I still had my reasons...

 

I targeted Diageo because, as ReZ said, he sounded a little like his Mafia self, like he did in the Heroes game.

 

I targeted ReZ because I trusted him in the Disney Mafia and it turned out he was that bastard, Maleficent, the leader, so I would not be sure of his style so I don't trust what I'm not familiar with, as I'm sure nobody else would.

 

I targeted Smeagol because of this game. He was voted by a lot of people, myself included so I decided to find out once and for all.

 

ALL were good on my reports. Although now I'm questioning whether I am a naive cop. I guess we'll find out tonight. But guys, I really ask anybody to protect me and Nintendohnut! He's the only one to my knowledge who has outed himself as neutral and so I will target him tonight. If my reports come up as Nintendohnut being good, then this will not only prove I'm quite useless but will also put my mind at rest of whether I'm a useful character or not.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Discussion has died down. Is there nothing else that needs to be discussed today?

[Diageo]

I have nothing. Everyone else seems to have nothing. There will be no way of convincing majority with the info we currently hold. Might as well end the day.

[Jonnas]

If the town finds no new leads by tonight, I'll end it by then.

[Nintendohnut]

Just to say Dannyboy, vigilantes are almost always neutral. Killers simply are not members of the town; they cannot be 'good' because by nature they kill, which is an evil act. I can remember serveral games in which vigilantes have been present as neutrals, but I cannot remember one game in which a player who had the ability to kill was good. Just something to consider.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Just to say Dannyboy, vigilantes are almost always neutral. Killers simply are not members of the town; they cannot be 'good' because by nature they kill, which is an evil act. I can remember serveral games in which vigilantes have been present as neutrals, but I cannot remember one game in which a player who had the ability to kill was good. Just something to consider.

 

I'm afraid this is incorrect. A player's alignment is determined by their win condition. Townies win when all threats to the town have been eliminated. A vigilante is a killer on the town's side. A serial killer is a neutral killer with his own win condition, often to kill a specific player or a certain number of players.

 

A player's ability to kill does not determine their alignment.

[Sméagol]

I agree with Dannyboy.

The vigilante in my game was "good". I don't mind you not remembering it, ReZ wasn't exactly tactful about it . He himself had plenty of vigilantes in his games too. I think at least Chair was one in one of the Pokémafias.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Of course, I'm not saying people wouldn't call vigilantes neutral, but if they win with the town and have no other win conditions, it defies the logic of the game to call them neutral.

[Nintendohnut]

No, I'm afraid that is incorrect. There have been a number of games in which there have been neutral killers whose win condition is to eliminate the mafia. Of course, if you can find a few examples of when your situation was the case I'll concede, but I'm pretty sure others who have been playing these games for a while will back me up here.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

No, I'm afraid that is incorrect. There have been a number of games in which there have been neutral killers whose win condition is to eliminate the mafia. Of course, if you can find a few examples of when your situation was the case I'll concede, but I'm pretty sure others who have been playing these games for a while will back me up here.

 

I'm not denying that, I'm just saying it makes absolutely no sense. Win condition determines alignment. It's as simple as that.

 

A couple of examples being the two mafias I have run, The Nintendo Mafia and The Colour Mafia. I know there have been others.

[Nintendohnut]

Hmm, well fine then. I remember several games (that were admittedly a while ago) in which the neutral vig had the same win condition as the town. I remember them because people questioned whether the vigilantes were telling the truth when they said that was their win condition, but when they were lynched they were shown to be neutral but telling the truth.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Of course, if the killer's objective was to kill the mafia by himself and win by himself that way, it would make sense that he's neutral, but that's because his win condition differs from that of the town.

 

Hmm, well fine then. I remember several games (that were admittedly a while ago) in which the neutral vig had the same win condition as the town. I remember them because people questioned whether the vigilantes were telling the truth when they said that was their win condition, but when they were lynched they were shown to be neutral but telling the truth.

 

I'd say that's a logical mistake on the part of the GM, then. Of course, people can appear with a "wrong" alignment when investigated, and the alignment revealed at death may not actually be correct, either (or even present at all), but then we're back at the "How much can you trust the GM?" debate.

[Nintendohnut]

I'm not denying that, I'm just saying it makes absolutely no sense. Win condition determines alignment. It's as simple as that.

 

A couple of examples being the two mafias I have run, The Nintendo Mafia and The Colour Mafia. I know there have been others.

 

Right, so I'll admit there have been examples, however this is simply not the case. I know, for a 100% fact, that there have been several games in which neutrals have had the same win condition as the town. I know because I was one once - a 'good' player, but who was neutral due to the way in which I carried out my night power. I won with the town, nevertheless.

 

Fine, you may have run games in which the win condition decided the alignment, but to say that this is always the case is both incorrect and foolish. You cannot be so sure what the GM would do in the game, so saying it is simple is just no true.

 

Anyway, if there is a kill tonight from Angus, when you are laying your traps and I am targeting you, I will believe you 100%. If there is no kill I will be almost 100% convinced you are Angus.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Right, so I'll admit there have been examples, however this is simply not the case. I know, for a 100% fact, that there have been several games in which neutrals have had the same win condition as the town. I know because I was one once - a 'good' player, but who was neutral due to the way in which I carried out my night power. I won with the town, nevertheless.

 

Fine, you may have run games in which the win condition decided the alignment, but to say that this is always the case is both incorrect and foolish. You cannot be so sure what the GM would do in the game, so saying it is simple is just no true.

 

Be aware that I've ever only argued that my point is true logically. I'm not saying what GMs would and wouldn't do, I'm saying what makes sense from a logical point of view.

 

The only reason I even begun arguing about this was to make sure that no one was suspicious of the two of us on a false basis. What matters is that you have your own win condition separate to that of the town while I simply win alongside the town when all threats to it have been eliminated. I am labelled good in my role PM while you are labelled neutral.

 

Anyway, if there is a kill tonight from Angus, when you are laying your traps and I am targeting you, I will believe you 100%. If there is no kill I will be almost 100% convinced you are Angus.

 

I'll just pray that the mafia doesn't decide to play tactically and refrain from killing tonight, then.

[Nintendohnut]

Of course, if the killer's objective was to kill the mafia by himself and win by himself that way, it would make sense that he's neutral, but that's because his win condition differs from that of the town.

 

Im afraid you don't understand. The neutral killer, in those games, was neutral as they were a killer, but their win condition was the same as the rest of the town - 'you will win when the mafia has been eliminated'. The only reason they were neutral was because they were a killer.

 

I'd say that's a logical mistake on the part of the GM, then. Of course, people can appear with a "wrong" alignment when investigated, and the alignment revealed at death may not actually be correct, either (or even present at all), but then we're back at the "How much can you trust the GM?" debate.

 

It wasn't a mistake, it was the decision of the GM. This is what I mean - saying that it is ALWAYS the case that a win condition denotes an alignment is simply not the case. The GM can do whatever they like with a game - there are no rules about alignments, and if a GM decides to make a neutral killer with a town-like win condition, that's their choice. It's not a mistake.

 

And of course, I wouldn't have been referring to these examples if the alignment had appeared wrongly during the game. At the end of the game, when a list of roles was posted, there was a neutral killer with a town-like win condition. I wish I could find the game to show you, but having played in around 30 or something, it's rather difficult.

 

I think the point is not whether we can trust the GM, but whether we can predict what they want to do with their game. The answer is that we cannot predict how a GM will organise his game, so assuming anything about alignments, or anything else, is foolish as it may certainly not be the case.

 

Anyway, as I said, we will find out tonight. If there is any messing about on your part I will take it as confirmation that you are evil :p

 

Win condition determines alignment. It's as simple as that.

 

This is the point at which it stops being logic and starts being you making shit up :p Sorry, but to me it is logical that a killer cannot be called good, no matter what his win condition is. If someone can kill, they are not good, and to me that is entirely logical, by the simple statement of killing = bad.

[Sméagol]

Haha, you two. You're both right.