Aw damn… I saw that Clyve had posted an image, and I was excited to see a Clyve tapestry…
And pray tell - what have you discerned?
Now that I have Notes and Everything, I’ll echo what rowe and scott have argued so eloquently:
Rob got boned by being an Evil player surrounded by Good players in annie and jostly, and had to punt his Overheard Conversation (check on a neighbor’s affiliation) to a different player. For Rob to make this call, he would have to be one of the Assassin/Mordred/Morgana, and not Oberon. So let’s assume this.
Rob: Assassin/Mordred/Morgana Evil
Annie: Good
jostly: Good
Certainly the results of Annie’s successful quest support this hypothesis.
I do not see, however, why Rob would have to punt Overhead Conversation to another Evil player. He could also have chosen to give it to a Good player who was not next to an Evil one, and then cross his fingers that Oberon wasn’t one of the neighbors. Seems like a plausible risk to take. But maybe someone else has an argument toward this end?
I edited my post because I realized upon re-reading it that even Oberon doesn’t want to get dealt Overheard Conversation and give it to a neighbor.
I don’t think Rob giving the card to Kl3mnop necessarily means Kl3mnop is evil. What makes me think Kl3mnop is evil is his steadfast defense of Rob’s move, his refusal to confront the obvious implication, his failure to offer a plausible alternative, his attempts to maneuver the cards away from me, and his voting record.
Kl3mnop
508
An unsolicited soliloquy! For my benefit, no less!
Yep, you got the cards. And gave one to your best bud, jostly. Yep, that’s what happened.
Dave -
Taking your “Rob is evil and got boned” analysis above does not prevent Annie or jostly being Oberon. If I am another shade of evil then all the good and Oberon look the same to me. Just saying. But they look alrightish to me - not that I can be sure of anything.
Yeah - that’s easy for you to say.
Maybe you haven’t started drinking yet.
I agree that at some point, Good must go with their intuition. I tend to reserve that kind of judgement for later in the game, for better or worse.
rowe33
513
EC with jostly makes sense to me - if he’s Good then we’d have four ready for the next quest. If quest 2 succeeds then Blips can just put up the same 4 for quest 3 and we’re golden.
Does this mean that, at this point, you don’t care which people are named to a quest? That all choices are equally supportable in your view?
You should look up ‘unsolicited’. I don’t think you know what it means.
Kl3mnop
516
I assure you I know all about solicitation.
This should be a tapestry, with appropriate art!
Are you suggesting that given which people who are questioning the quest folks we should name at this point?
No; I’m asking Dave to elaborate on what sort of things influence his thinking about potential quest members. It’s true that we don’t know anything now, but following the last few threads it seems to me that players never really know anything until the reveal after it’s over. So the standard for judging has to be some degree of suspicion, though the degree will vary by player.
Simply put, if I think there’s reason to suspect player A, and not yet reason to suspect player B, I’d rather have B on the quest than A; and I’d argue that way to try to influence other players to see it my way. And I’d do that - prefer B to A - even if the suspicion of A is mild or slight. Why not?
