![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
#11 | |
|
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
The problem of course is that both Mac and Lommy could be seen to pick that kind of style: take first down those independent minded and involved players who might be able to make the right decisions but who are not the "highest profile" -ones, and then, when it's safe enough and the game is "old" enough, start killing those loudmouths influencing the village against your wishes... Then you could say you were good sports giving the addicted players a chance to play but finish them off before they got too dangerous. But it means one of them probably is a mutineer (or then Mith is?) as that kind of tactics suits certain people better and not so well others... So which one of you speaks the truth? I can see why Mac the innocent would do what he did - and I can see why Mac the mutineer would have done that. And the same goes with Lommy: her actions are understandable both ways as well. Although looking at how it all played out I'd be a bit more confident with Lommy speaking the truth here - and there we should check those who lynched her at the last minutes thus saving Mac. But I must admit - and as a ghost I can do it freely - that I can see the counterwise scenario being possible: the wolves & cobblers tried to lynch Mac but the decent innocents came to rescue him in the end. The only problem with the latter interpretation is that innocents not knowing about each other - or anyone - rarely manage to make that kind of illustrious "saves" at the last moments but the mutineers have all the tools for it (eg. knowledge) - not the least in a game where nothing is revealed with the death of someone where they can quiite boldly execute those saving operations... I need to check that voting...
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|