Taters to Taters

[Meneltarmacil]

To state the obvious, Tol-in-Gaurhoth is the worst possible choice if you're looking for honesty.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Meneltarmacil

To state the obvious, Tol-in-Gaurhoth is the worst possible choice if you're looking for honesty.

But I like it best.

[the phantom]

Hmmmm....

I think we can toss out the Hobbits for not being the genuine article. As Nog pointed out, Hobbits have this appearance of adorable goodness but they are massive liars. I mean- there's a chapter in Lord of the Rings entitled "A Conspiracy Unmasked" that is all about how Hobbits are lying to one another.

With the same reasoning Huan is supposed to be good but turns on his master. Bad dog!

The Witch King and Tol-In-Gaurhoth on the other hand- I don't penalize them quite so much because at least they're a known quantity. Our Tol-In-Gaurhoth contests are completely based upon (to quote Laura) being a lying liar that lies a lot. Thus these two answers make sense from an amusement standpoint.

Wargs are, well... wargs. I can't particularly say if they're honest or not. And Fangorn- there are good trees and bad trees, so again it's difficult to say.

Theoden I suppose would be a decent straightforward choice (I don't recall any deceit on his part), though he wasn't so good at spotting honesty seeing as he let Grima hang about all the time.

Which of course leaves Feanor as the obvious decision. He was rather straightforward, and didn't seem to care about the consequences. The guy really meant it when he said, "You guys suck- I'm leaving to kill Morgoth."

So for me it would be between Feanor (the most straightforward answer) and Tol-In-Gaurhoth (the most ridiculous answer).

[Nogrod]

I would disagree with the phantom on two cases.

Firstly Theoden doesn't become less honest by being bad in recognizing dishonesty around him. It's the Forrest Gump thing... Also if one considers the specifications, he can be said to be a most trustworthy person in the end. The only problem I see with him is then that he is a too obvious a choice - although one could argue also that he's not that trustworthy if he can be persuaded to err that easily by Grima-like creatures.

In a similar vein Fangorn Forest doesn't become more or less honest because of there being "good trees and bad trees" - which I think doesn't hold water as a statement in the first place. Anyway, Gandalf trusted the Fangorn for a reason and they proved both truthful and honest when they realized they were no outsiders to the War even if they had previously thought so and took action. One could ask Aragorn or Theoden whether Fangorn is trustworthy...

But yeah, I'd still go for Fëanor, or The Witch-King, for them being interestingly honest in their talk & deeds even if we'd disagree with their aims and actions as such. Or then Tol-In-Gaurhoth, if one can identify it with the werewolf-game (which I'm kind on unsure of): the idea of being "honestly dishonest" as lying and deceit are the defining characters of the game is actually quite nice.

[satansaloser2005]

Well, Sam is right out. Little fellow lied his fool behind off. No eaves indeed. And hobbits are tricksy little creatures, so Frodo is likewise eliminated, as is the Shire.

Theoden might fit the bill, but I tend to think of his situation first rather than the character himself, which leads me to think he is a poor choice.

As for wargs and the forest and the pup in question, I don't think this much applies to them. With the exception of a few notable trees, I don't believe I've found many trees to be either good or evil. Dogs are normally good, but that doesn't make Huan honest, and as for wargs....well, I could make a joke about Eomer, but I'll keep it to myself and simply comment no further on these options.

I could pick Feanor, but I'd only be catering to the phantom's interests, and we can never have that, can we?

The Witch-King (which king?) then. As some others have mentioned, he never tried to hide his evilness. I can appreciate that in a villain. Of course there was deceit involved in other ways, but the Witch-King himself was always pure, honest, downright dirty evil. Definitely something to consider.

And Tol-in-Gaurhoth? Well, you know, there is always deceit in that game. However, I must put forward the following for review:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Also, did you have to say such a painfully honest-sounding thing? Meh.

Now let us also consider this:

I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for.

True words, all. It is the most seemingly trustworthy, the most forthcoming that are the most successful werewolves. They don't lie, they mislead. They tell the truth but conform it to their desires. The best werewolves are not dishonest. They are, instead, the ones who put their furry arm around your fleshy shoulder, tell you they trust you, and then bite you as you're going in for the snuggle.

As such, and given how I like to play Werewolf (actually how I like to play, not just that I like to play), I believe my choice has been made.

++Tol-in-Gaurhoth

[Boromir88]

Thank you, my dear on a just and...honest...judgement. (I had Captain Jack Sparrow's quote in my head for most of the round heh...and refrained from posting it so I did not influence your decision in the most dishonest of manners ).

And the winner therefor of Round 1 is...

the phantom

May continue to discuss for a little over an hour. And then Round 2 will begin.

[satansaloser2005]

Grumble, grumble, grumble. Congratulations to Phantom for, as usual, reading my mind.