219 replies to this topic

[TinyPiesRUs]

After a hard night's drinking, the hall of the slain had finally fallen quiet. Everyone had retired to their beds for a few hours sleep.


Everyone except Hervi Pudding-Head (Hinckley), who'd opted to sleep in the hall for the night.


Knowing that there were all manner of killers roaming the area however, this was not his best idea. the floor creaked as a strange figure crept into the room.


The figure creeped closer and closer. Hervi woke up just in time to see it looming above him...


But it was only Pernilla the Pig, in need of a midnight snuggle.


Hervi happily obliged.
"Oink oink," he said.


Meanwhile, Steinvior Meat-Shield (Shadows) was having a pleasant sleep. He had never truly wanted to live this life. He dreamed of giving up his life as a warrior and becoming a door-to-door preacher.
"Have you heard the news? Tohstre is risen..." he mumbled in his sleep.


The room was suddenly filled with light, waking Steinvior up. A shadowy figure had snuck through his bedroom door!


Before Steinvior could grab his axe, the figure was already upon him, plunging their sword deep into the Varangian's chest.



Along the coast of Asgard, Jormund (JimButcher) was having fun sailing on his trusty old boat.


Jormund had spent far too much time on dry land lately, and needed to get away from it all.


He was so engrossed in sloshing sounds of the waves, he didn't hear the figure that had just climbed aboard.


He didn't hear the figure creep behind him and raise their sword either...


But he did hear the sword as it sunk into his spine.


Jormund slumped to the deck.


The sun shone through the windows of Valhalla. The einherjar stumbled into the room, hungover from the night before. They had all drunk so much mead, they could barely remember what had happened the day before.


After much fumbling, everyone finally managed to find a seat. They looked at Ragnar, hoping his speech wasn't going to be too long.


"Listen up, everyone!" Ragnar shouted, much to the chagrin of his audience, "I've got some good news and some bad news.

"The bad news is that that after investigating the matter, I have discovered that Danr the Dragon-Slayer (Dannylonglegs) was a Loyal Einherjar.

"The good news is that we just got a fresh stock of mead in!


"Oh, and we also discovered two bodies this morning. Steinvior Meat-Shield (Shadows) was found dead in his bedroom, stabbed through the heart. He was a Loyal Einherjar too.


"And Jormund (JimButcher)'s body washed up on our perfectly-straight shoreline. He was a Servant of Loki."


The company erupted in cheers at this last piece of news. But they all quickly stopped when they remembered they had horrible headaches.

---

Non-Playable Characters


Ragnar the Great


Harald


Living Players (22):


Bergulf (badboytje88)


Beorn Ale-Lover (Bob)


Dragmall (Dragonator)


Finn the Squinter (fhomess)


Chief Mursi (CorneliusMurdock)


Stemid the Pale (Sandy)


Sveinn the Uninspired (Scouty)


Petrus Fire-Starter (Pandora)


Gerrid (Captain Genaro)


Sigmund (Sisco)


Erik the Boneless (Etzel)


Hervi Pudding-Head (Hinckley)


Canute Grey-Bush (CallMePie)


Wary the Black (Waterbrick Down)


Patrekr the Red (Palathadric)

Cranebeinn (Chromeknight)


Wilhalm Bloodaxe (WhiteFang)


Dagrun (Darkdragon)


Rurik the Bastard (Rick)


Snotra Carrotface (Scubacarrot)


Gofraid the Foog (Fugazi)


Carl Poem-Piece (Capt. Redblade)

The Dead (again):


Magnus (Masked Builder) - Einherjar - mod-killed, Day One


Danr the Dragon-Slayer (Dannylonglegs) - Einherjar - voted out, Day One


Steinvoir Meat-Shield (Shadows) - Einherjar - murdered, Night One


Jormund (JimButcher) - Servant of Loki - murdered, Night One

Rules

1. Each player will be given a character to play, who will be aligned with either the Einherjar (Town) or the Servants of Loki. To win the game, the Einherjar must kill off all the Servants of Loki, while the Servants of Loki must outnumber the Einherjar. Neutral characters have their own win conditions as outlined in their roles.
2. Each day you will be able to vote to lynch a player. Voting should be done in the following format; Vote: Character (Player). Similarly, unvoting is to be done in the format; Unvote: Character (Player). No other format will be accepted. A majority vote is required to lynch a player.
3. A game day will last for 72 hours. You may not vote in the first 24 hours. After the day has concluded, a night stage will commence, which will last a maximum of 72 hours. Night actions must be sent to the host in the first 48 hours of the night stage.
4. The alignment of lynched players, as well as those that died during the night, will be revealed at the beginning of the next day.
5. You may not quote or pretend to quote anything sent to or from you in PM with the game host. This includes all the details of your character and role, as well as any night action results. Role claims and reporting of night action results are acceptable, but in your own words only. Do not attempt to use the structure of your role PM to your advantage.
6. Do not play the game outside the thread. Similarly, do not post out of character inside the thread; you must always play the role given to you. Game tactics and roles may only be discussed in the game thread or via PM with other players. Private discussion is done at your own risk and should be treated as part of the game.
7. If you are dead, you may not post in thread or discuss the game with any of the players. Any information you had becomes void, and may not be passed on.
8. You may not edit your posts. Editing your post on three separate occasions will result in a mod-kill.
9. You must post in every day thread. Failure to do so will result in a mod-kill.
10. If you encounter a problem or have a question, please contact the host via PM.

[Scouty]

Hurrah! A Servant of Loki is slain!  Unsurprisingly, the vile scum was among the quieter, yet active enough, folks among us.

My fears are uninspiringly confirmed in Danr's innocence. A great loss for us with the death of Steinvoir, as well. With these deaths, we will have lots to talk about this day...

[Hinckley]

Lost two good men, but a Servant of Loki has fallen on Night One! Great work broadsword killer! It's great momentum to be down one Scum already.

It really is horrible to lose Steinvoir. He had such a great little cartoon theme song.

I apologize for the loss of Danr. He was a good man. I had a big part in his lynching and I apologize to his spirit, which has died twice now, and take full responsibility for my actions. I would imagine I will be under some scrutiny today for casting the first vote against him and I welcome it. Let the discussion begin. Hopefully, his death will not be in vain and we can find something from the voting pattern and people's behavior.

Now I shall spoon with my lovely Pernilla to help soften the blow of the loss of two noble warriors.

Oink oink oink!

[Bob]

Maybe Steinvoir would still be alive if he just covered up that bare patch on his armor plating...Poor soul. In better news, we've gotten rid of Jormund, that tratorious pig.

So, I'll go ahead and say it, has anyone really discovered anything last night? People with actions shouldn't speak up, but should have a surrogate speak for them instead for their own safety. It's been such an unusually long night and I figure that somebody would have to had slipped up during private conversations.

[Hinckley]

So, does this mean that there are two killers out there? One for Scum and one for Town? And no Serial Killer? Or was there a killer that was blocked or a target protected?

Jormund was obviously (duh) not killed by the Oink Oink Servants of Loki. So he was either killed by the serial killer or the vigilante. I noticed that Jormund spoke in summaries yesterday and voted near the middle of the pack, which is what Danr told us to look for and is a typical place for a Scum to vote in a bandwagon. So, if it was a vigilante, there was a certain risk taken there as this is how Jormund tends to act in these situations. Jormund was also a good serial killer target since he didn't stand out from the pack at all, he was less likely to be protected.

Steinvoir Squeal would be a rather interesting Scum kill. I would imagine if Steinvoir was going to be metagamed, it would be by the vigilante. Did the serial killer kill Jormund? The vigilante kill Steinvoir? and the Scum were blocked? Or did the Town kill the Scum and Scum killed the Town? Those who protected and blocked last night, I imagine, will certainly take note if a third killer shows up tonight.

I certainly hope that there are only two killers to deal with and that one is on our side. I'm happy to see no Oink Oink Squeal beautiful pigges were killed last night.

[CallMePie]

Alas! Steinvor, Danr, and the Almond Guy will be remembered by those that continue to live on.....again.

But I applaud the vig/SK, a Servant down on Day Two is pretty good. Like Sveinn says, we'll have a decent bit of info to go off of today, what with Danr's innocence and the scummery of Jormund. The memory of yesterday's rather fuzzy, but I remember Jormund being rather middle-of-the-road, feeling conflicted about voting for Danr and waiting for something else to pop up (odds of that are quite low on Day One). Unfortunately, that personality can be applied to many others yesterday, myself no exception.   I did, however, notice a small note about Carl in his intial statement, saying his manner of speaking was weird, but that's hardly conclusive.

The swine-lover's got a point about Steinvor. He had quite a reputation as a mortal, but didn't do much noteworthy yesterday. They likely either wanted him out of the way early, or they're just trying to mess with our heads.

[Captain Genaro]

Gosh, getting killed once was bad enough, I can't imagine having to go through it twice! May Odin have mercy on the souls of Danr and Steinvor .

[CorneliusMurdock]

Dude, I'm severely disappointed to have been wrong about Danr.  Not that I liked the guy, but this comes down to a numbers game after all.

Great that we got one of the scum, though.  I wonder if Loki bribed the scum to be evil by getting them boats...  Everyone empty your pockets!  We should lynch anyone with boat keys or memberships to the Loki Yachting Club.

It is interesting that Jormund was picked last night.  As Hervi said, he didn't really stand out.  I'd like to think that we have some super-awesome vigilante at our disposal but it is perhaps more likely that there's a serial killer that just doesn't care about who is who.  Even so, it's lucky for us that he got a scum last night so we have some information to work from.

I know that yesterday seems like forever ago but I'd encourage everyone to really search their memories to remember what Jormund said.  Don't rely on others to do it for you.  I'm all for relaxation but laziness is inexcusable.  Now I'm gonna go se up some more special blend to see if I can go follow my own advice there.

[badboytje88]

Wow, what a long night. I am glad one of us managed to kill one of the servants of Loki.  It's too bad we had to loose two of our friends too. I played a part in lynching Danr and I am sorry he didn't turn out to be a servant of Loki. I can't help but somehow feel responsible for his death.

[Chromeknight]

Boats? No. I'm on a horse. And I have that thing you wanted...

Ehem. I'd like to apologise for my less than full engagement on day one.
Meanwhile, from what I remember of yesterday, the first finger that Jormund pointed was indeed Carl's way.

The question is, is that just appearing to be helpful or setting up an alibi for Carl if Jormund died later. I did not know Jormund well in the lives he lived before Valhalla, how is he likely to have acted?

[Captain Genaro]

CorneliusMurdock, on 14 October 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Great that we got one of the scum, though.  I wonder if Loki bribed the scum to be evil by getting them boats...  Everyone empty your pockets!  We should lynch anyone with boat keys or memberships to the Loki Yachting Club.

I thought that death would relieve me from the level of stupidity you could only find in my crew and here you go rambling on about "boat keys". What the hell are "boat keys" ? I've never seen a boat that needed, much less had keys. Must be one of Loki's vile tricks .

[Darkdragon]

Well that's quite a good break we already got a scum! I will have a look at the records from yesterday, this should prove very excellent for analyzing things today. It's surprising that Danr was loyal, but we really didn't have much to go on yesterday. Now we have so much to look back at, I'm confident we'll catch another scum today.

[Capt. Redblade]

CallMePie, on 14 October 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

  I did, however, notice a small note about Carl in his intial statement, saying his manner of speaking was weird, but that's hardly conclusive.

Carl has a serious speech impediment. He cannot help talking like this.

Hinckley, on 14 October 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Steinvoir Squeal would be a rather interesting Scum kill. I would imagine if Steinvoir was going to be metagamed, it would be by the vigilante. Did the serial killer kill Jormund? The vigilante kill Steinvoir? and the Scum were blocked? Or did the Town kill the Scum and Scum killed the Town? Those who protected and blocked last night, I imagine, will certainly take note if a third killer shows up tonight.

Or perhaps the Scum did kill Steinvoir, knowing his dark past and setting up the vig for suspicion of metagaming, hiding their actions behind him/her, then either the vig or the SK would have killed Jormund, and the third (if he exists) was blocked. If there is a third killer, we shall certainly know soon enough.

[Hinckley]

Capt. Redblade, on 14 October 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Or perhaps the Scum did kill Steinvoir, knowing his dark past and setting up the vig for suspicion of metagaming, hiding their actions behind him/her, then either the vig or the SK would have killed Jormund, and the third (if he exists) was blocked. If there is a third killer, we shall certainly know soon enough.

Yeah, that's what my last sentence says though I kind of ran over it all. Oink!

[fhomess]

Ah hah!  Excellent work to our night killer, who killed the loco Servant of Loki.  It's quite a shame to lose our Meat-Shield, but an eye for an eye seems a reasonable trade here... hmm... maybe that's not the best analogy...

Hinckley, on 14 October 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Jormund was obviously (duh) not killed by the Oink Oink Servants of Loki. So he was either killed by the serial killer or the vigilante. I noticed that Jormund spoke in summaries yesterday and voted near the middle of the pack, which is what Danr told us to look for and is a typical place for a Scum to vote in a bandwagon. So, if it was a vigilante, there was a certain risk taken there as this is how Jormund tends to act in these situations. Jormund was also a good serial killer target since he didn't stand out from the pack at all, he was less likely to be protected.

The conclusion to me here is that either we got lucky or the vigilante saw something in Jormund's behavior that tipped him off.  I don't have a clue which it is, but looking back at the discussion from Day 1, it strikes me that we have simply been lucky.

Hinckley, on 14 October 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Steinvoir Squeal would be a rather interesting Scum kill. I would imagine if Steinvoir was going to be metagamed, it would be by the vigilante. Did the serial killer kill Jormund? The vigilante kill Steinvoir? and the Scum were blocked? Or did the Town kill the Scum and Scum killed the Town? Those who protected and blocked last night, I imagine, will certainly take note if a third killer shows up tonight.

I could see the scum killing him as he's a challenging foe in battle and I would imagine they would rather do their work against him at night.  Some of these latter suggestions just strike me as trying to confuse the issue.  Yes, those are possibilities, but the simplest conclusion at this point is that the scum killed him.  I see no reason to focus too much on alternative theories until there is evidence to suggest it.  If we see three kills in a subsequent night, or find other evidence to suggest that three individuals posses killing powers, then it makes sense.

DarkDragon, on 14 October 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Well that's quite a good break we already got a scum! I will have a look at the records from yesterday, this should prove very excellent for analyzing things today. It's surprising that Danr was loyal, but we really didn't have much to go on yesterday. Now we have so much to look back at, I'm confident we'll catch another scum today.

I must say that I'm a bit surprised at how unanimous the vote for Danr was given "we really didn't have much to go on yesterday".

At the moment, one of my suspicions is Gerrid.  Gerrid joined in on the vote for Wilhalm Bloodaxe, but then voted to a "symbolic" vote for Danr when it was pointed out the reasons for Bloodaxe's absence to that point.  Yesterday I called CraneBeinn out for the same thing, but he gave a reasonable response.  So I'll call Gerrid out for it today.

It's is also worth pointing out that the two to not cast a vote were Bloodaxe and Wary the Black.

[Palathadric]

My suspicions are still with Bergulf. It is just like a Servant of Loki to do disappear when they are accused and let one of us defend them and suffer the consequences for it. Methinks that if he were a loyal Einherjar he would have felt a little more indebted to Danr. Sure, there was no way of knowing whether Danr was a Servant of Loki or a Loyal Einherjar, but still Danr gave a fairly convincing argument, so Bergulf, obviously knowing his own affiliation, would, if he is a Loyal Einherjar, have probably realized that Danr was too.
That said, Piggyboy has also raised my eyebrows for certain reasons, but Danr's coming up town has possibly allayed those fears (surprisingly, maybe). Too bad we had three loyalist killed over the space of yesterday, but bah, they were, for the most part, useless anyway!

[Waterbrick Down]

Danr, may your name always be remembered as one who fought to the end against both dragons and wrong accusations.

I agree with the squinter that from recalling the conversations of yesterday, the the votes against Bloodaxe were somewhat peculiar. While some have explained it away as they were speaking at the same time as Ragnar, it troubles me that the later one specifically may not have been paying attention. I also affirm that we should stick to the simplest explanation and not try and muddy up the ocean needlessly for the time being.

It is however, of good cheer that the scum Jormund has been dealt with. Reflecting on the events of yesterday, it would seem he was rather wishy washy, the only two things I noted were his pointing out of Carl during the early hours of the day (a statement I found too short and given too early to deem accusatory or possibly misleading) and a guess as to whether we had to worry about conversions, that again neither supported nor denied their existence.

If you should seek an answer as to why I did not throw the stone, it is simply that I did not think Danr worthy of it and up until that point neither did I of anyone else.

[Scubacarrot]

Hmpf, the best we can do for Danr now is do what is said: follow up on the leads that his death brought. And there actuallt are leads, so that's good!

Danr himself suspected Chief Mursi. The main reason from what I gotten from it was that he made a very sudden change when Danr was initially voted for, and also that Mursi was twisting Danr's words to make him more suspicious. Should we follow Danr's almost last words? I kinda think we should. We know Danr believed what he said, so that has to count for something, right? And if you look back at his post, Danr does make some good points, points that Mursi, to my idea, does not counter very well, as far as we can see (is there more missing? From the bard who wrote it all down and is writing it in an epic song along with awesome Lute solo's?)

We also have Jormund, who was one of the evil-doers. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all interaction between him and other people should be dissected. Cultists and the like have a tendency not to interact with their own a lot, and when they do do it, it's often things like agreeing or joking around. The main thing I got out of it was that he at one point explicitly agreed with Sveinn, he did have some interaction with others, but interaction that would more clear them than make me suspect them, at this point. Does that mean anything that he agreed with Sveinn, I don't know.

Oh, and I don't really see a reason to assume other than that the one that killed Steinvoir was the evil one, and that the one that killed Jormund was a helpful one, unless you have tangible evidence to suspect otherwise?

[Rick]

Hooray. One Servant down. Let's drink to that. Too bad it had to come at the loss of three of us, not that the nutchoker was going to be very helpful.

Hinckley, on 14 October 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Jormund was obviously (duh) not killed by the Oink Oink Servants of Loki. So he was either killed by the serial killer or the vigilante. I noticed that Jormund spoke in summaries yesterday and voted near the middle of the pack, which is what Danr told us to look for and is a typical place for a Scum to vote in a bandwagon. So, if it was a vigilante, there was a certain risk taken there as this is how Jormund tends to act in these situations. Jormund was also a good serial killer target since he didn't stand out from the pack at all, he was less likely to be protected.

I agree. We either have a lucky or smart vigilante, or a serial killer looking for a target not likely to be protected. Although, even though I don't remember yesterday all that well (bloody mead), I think there were probably people who stood out even less. So, I'm hoping we have a smart killer on our side.

Quote

Steinvoir Squeal would be a rather interesting Scum kill. I would imagine if Steinvoir was going to be metagamed, it would be by the vigilante. Did the serial killer kill Jormund? The vigilante kill Steinvoir? and the Scum were blocked? Or did the Town kill the Scum and Scum killed the Town? Those who protected and blocked last night, I imagine, will certainly take note if a third killer shows up tonight.

Steinvoir, even though he never covered his heart, is a very unlikely target for the serial killer, but a risky target for the Servants of Loki as well. Still, I can't see any real alternative to him being killed by the scum. Steinvoir's killer dressed the same way as the killers who killed quite a few of us last night and Odin believed those murders to be the work of Loki.

Palathadric, on 14 October 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

That said, Piggyboy has also raised my eyebrows for certain reasons, but Danr's coming up town has possibly allayed those fears (surprisingly, maybe). Too bad we had three loyalist killed over the space of yesterday, but bah, they were, for the most part, useless anyway!

You're not making an awful lot of sense there.   So, if Danr were a Servant of Loki, you would have been more suspicious of Hervi? Care to elaborate?

Scubacarrot, on 14 October 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

We also have Jormund, who was one of the evil-doers. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all interaction between him and other people should be dissected. Cultists and the like have a tendency not to interact with their own a lot, and when they do do it, it's often things like agreeing or joking around. The main thing I got out of it was that he at one point explicitly agreed with Sveinn, he did have some interaction with others, but interaction that would more clear them than make me suspect them, at this point. Does that mean anything that he agreed with Sveinn, I don't know.

I didn't expected a Servant to 'agree' with someone so explicitly at all, because once they die, by your logic, it essentially "clears" that person, which would only help us find the remaining scum. However, I realise we're quickly going to reason in circles here. More wine?

[badboytje88]

Palathadric, on 14 October 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

My suspicions are still with Bergulf. It is just like a Servant of Loki to do disappear when they are accused and let one of us defend them and suffer the consequences for it. Methinks that if he were a loyal Einherjar he would have felt a little more indebted to Danr. Sure, there was no way of knowing whether Danr was a Servant of Loki or a Loyal Einherjar, but still Danr gave a fairly convincing argument, so Bergulf, obviously knowing his own affiliation, would, if he is a Loyal Einherjar, have probably realized that Danr was too.
That said, Piggyboy has also raised my eyebrows for certain reasons, but Danr's coming up town has possibly allayed those fears (surprisingly, maybe). Too bad we had three loyalist killed over the space of yesterday, but bah, they were, for the most part, useless anyway!

I understand you are suspicious of me, heck I would be suspicious of me if I wasn't me. So I am going to take my time and try to address your suspicion of me as good as I can. I know I am town. I know I messed up choosing my words yesterday, which happens to me more often than is good for me. Danr defended me. Which at first I thought was really sweet. But after thinking it over it looked just odd. Why would you defend someone you don't know on day 1 without knowing if they are worth your defense? At that point it looked like a scummy thing to do. Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking that way. Since we lynched the poor guy. I feel terrible for voting of Danr. Really I do! When he told us his arguments for defending me I realized chances were small we were lynching a servant of Loki. Chance was big we were going to lynch one of our own. Did I change my vote? No. Did anyone else change their vote? Not that I remember, or maybe one or two people, but not enough people changed their vote to safe Danrs life. Do I feel guilty for lynching the poor guy? Sure I do. He tried to help him and eventually got lynched doing so. But there still was a chance he was a servant of Loki. And at that point he was the best option we had. So we went for it.

[Etzel]

Ah, the gods take and the gods give. 1 Servant of Loki for 3 Loyal Einherjare is a poor trade, but better then nothing. Jormund never raised any suspicions to my yesterday, but in hindsight I can agree that his action do correspond with what to expect from the Scum. Problem is that that action pattern is probably corresponding to some of us loyalists as well. Neverthenless, I think we will find at least one of the other traitors amongst those who voted about the same time as Jormund, more specifically I suspect Chief Mursi, Carl Poem-Piece, Beorn Ale-Lover and Snotra Carrotface. I'm sure at least some of them are Loyal Einharjare, but I would be surprised if none of them is a Servant of Loki.

[Sandy]

Too bad we were wrong about Danr. I suspected as much when the votes started steaming in, but since the votes were split I did not dare to change mine. There were no evidence to prove Danr innocent, anyway.

Alas, the party must go on! We have nailed one of the dastardly servants, so onto seeking another one!

I unfortunately have nothing more to share with you, it was an uneventful night for me. I am unaccustomed to uneventful nights, if you get what I mean... ;)

[Hinckley]

Palathadric, on 14 October 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

That said, Piggyboy has also raised my eyebrows for certain reasons, but Danr's coming up town has possibly allayed those fears (surprisingly, maybe).

While I'm happy to hear you're less suspicious of me, I agree with Rurik, the reasoning here makes no sense. If Danr came up as Scum, you would suspect me more?? Please explain. That is exceedingly odd.

[Pandora]

I suspect the scum killed Steinvoir in a cowardly move in order to eliminate a formidable opponent. And big thanks to Jormund's killer, whichever side they may be on, and only time will tell in that regard.

Hinckley, on 14 October 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

I apologize for the loss of Danr. He was a good man. I had a big part in his lynching and I apologize to his spirit, which has died twice now, and take full responsibility for my actions. I would imagine I will be under some scrutiny today for casting the first vote against him and I welcome it. Let the discussion begin.

Where would you like to start? Which actions (aside from leading vote) are you taking full responsibility for?

Hinckley, on 14 October 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

I noticed that Jormund spoke in summaries yesterday and voted near the middle of the pack, which is what Danr told us to look for and is a typical place for a Scum to vote in a bandwagon.

Yeah, no scum would ever dream of leading a bandwagon. Ever. Because everyone knows, don't they, that no scum would ever dare draw such attention to themself that way. More wine? Or is it 'Mead in front of me' in this context?

Moving on ...

badboytje88, on 14 October 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Wow, what a long night. I am glad one of us managed to kill one of the servants of Loki.  It's too bad we had to loose two of our friends too. I played a part in lynching Danr and I am sorry he didn't turn out to be a servant of Loki. I can't help but somehow feel responsible for his death.

Another person feeling responsible, and that statement is in such stark contrast to this:

badboytje88, on 14 October 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I understand you are suspicious of me, heck I would be suspicious of me if I wasn't me. So I am going to take my time and try to address your suspicion of me as good as I can. I know I am town. I know I messed up choosing my words yesterday, which happens to me more often than is good for me. Danr defended me. Which at first I thought was really sweet. But after thinking it over it looked just odd. Why would you defend someone you don't know on day 1 without knowing if they are worth your defense? At that point it looked like a scummy thing to do. Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking that way. Since we lynched the poor guy. I feel terrible for voting of Danr. Really I do! When he told us his arguments for defending me I realized chances were small we were lynching a servant of Loki. Chance was big we were going to lynch one of our own. Did I change my vote? No. Did anyone else change their vote? Not that I remember, or maybe one or two people, but not enough people changed their vote to safe Danrs life. Do I feel guilty for lynching the poor guy? Sure I do. He tried to help him and eventually got lynched doing so. But there still was a chance he was a servant of Loki. And at that point he was the best option we had. So we went for it.

My goodness, Bergulf, I've never seen such an eloquent statement from you, and full of questions, too. It reminds me of something... hmmm.

Sandy, on 14 October 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Too bad we were wrong about Danr. I suspected as much when the votes started steaming in, but since the votes were split I did not dare to change mine. There were no evidence to prove Danr innocent, anyway.

The bandwagon against Danr was reached pretty quickly, so even though you voted second, you still had plenty of time after a conviction was reached to change your vote if you felt uncomfortable with it.

In other news, I seem to have found my shiny flame-thrower; if only someone had invented a sticky-sweet confection that would taste better when toasted...

[CorneliusMurdock]

Snotra, I deny "twisting" anything.  As I said to Danr yesterday, I merely pointed out where he was being confusing.  He himself admitted that some of the things he said didn't make a lot of sense.  I'm sorry that he was unable to convince me of his innocence but that's hardly my fault and it seems that I was not the only one unconvinced.

I feel, more than anything, that Danr picked me out rather randomly to accuse.  Which, knowing that I am loyal, only made me think he was scum more.  Snotra, if you or Eric would like to point out anything that Danr accused me of that you think wasn't adequately countered by me, go ahead and say it and I'll defend myself again.