Pardon me,
Lady Solifuge. I seem to have missed your response in my previous readings.
You propose there's someone here against her will, who doesn't wish for the Prince's hand? It's plausible, I suppose... but what harm is there in keeping them around? They're as likely to aid those with honest intentions as not, no? Moreover, unless they are actively trying to ruin others, I should think it'd be a simple enough matter to come to an agreement that met their ends, as well as ours. Such are not our adversaries.
The actual question seems to have escaped you. I ask not about one who is confirmed as a jester, but rather one who has
claimed such, and when/why you would lynch them. Assume, if you please, that lynching an actual jester will end the game, with only said jester winning, as per classic rules concerning the role.
Princess LeafsnailI misread his first answer as something that wasn't completely stupid.
Insult my intellect, will she? She'll be sorry when I'm Queen.ONR: there are two claimed cops. Would you lynch anybody who isn't one of those two cops, and how do you think that relates to the first scenario
Unless it's an open setup like a BM, who's to say there can't be two cops in a game, and one of them is an unaware miller? Anyway, I see what you're getting at now. From my scenario, town would prefer killing one of the two cops, since there's a 50/50 chance between hitting scum for a three-man LYLO, and hitting town for a scum win, as opposed to a 40/60 chance if they vote randomly.
However, from the perspective of a town player in such a situation (five-man LYLO with two claimed cops, Player A calling scum on Player B, Player B counter-claiming and calling scum on Player C), I could conceivably be convinced to lynch Player C, on the grounds that, iff my read of Player B was fairly solid Town, I'd assume that scum are sacrificing their least valuable player as the first cop claim, making Player C slightly more desirable as a lynch candidate.
So, normally I wouldn't, but I won't rule out the possibility entirely.
Princess Okami
I'd almost forgotten you were playing. Do you have a compelling case on anyone yet?
I fear I have no case of my own, though I must admit that the one on you,
Princess notquitethere, is rather compelling.
To follow up, what is your wincon?
Getting that particular trap out of the way, are you?
even when I deeply distrust someone I still tend to view their actions charitably until given overwhelming reason not to. That might not gel with your own mafia philosophy.
Do you think this philosophy is beneficial to your play? Why can't/won't you adopt a more cynical attitude while playing?
Okami: Having it a one-shot would not change my decision. I still find Day powers more useful than Night powers in a lot of cases. And I would not kill on a hunch and I would gather evidence, but the likeliest outcome to me for how I think, would it would be a case against the player who I thought the least likeliest to get lynched on my scum list, despite evidence I found to support it. I have a confidence issue with things like that, I want to use the power correctly, but how can I justify it if I'm wrong when the person had less scummy activity than others, but wasn't holding up for me? To answer your question fully, killing on a hunch is not beneficial to Town in most, if not all cases. Those cases where its not, I have no idea.
Interesting.
Princess Cado, the others are accusing you of being scum simply because you're apparently afraid of getting lynched. You say you're playing paranoid, but you never explained why you're playing paranoid. Please do so.
Why the least likely to get lynched out of your scumpicks, rather than your number two most likely pick for scum (assuming you're a vigilante, and your most likely choice for scum just got lynched)?
Yeah, Toaster is definitely scum. I don't buy his faux aggression. But if you wait long enough, he'll turn on his buddy.
So, you think he's scum, but you also want to keep him around to see what he'll do? Should we not lynch him now? Surely you've reached this decision based on more than just 'faux aggression'?