Faeries & Lycans [Epilogue]

[Nagi]

Please, everyone here, note the bolded "such as". This implies the situation is an example, and does not restrict the activation requirements to only being when the Seer dies. Please do not overlook this utterly crucial wording of the original role description, which makes or breaks the arguments provided.

as true as this is, it still says that the powers can only be used in 'dire circumstances'. i can't imagine why the SA would already have been allowed to see these visions from night 1 on then. still, i see where you're coming from, and perhaps because the visions are more involuntary, they can work in that way. the original point i made still stands though, which is that technically, Shak's description is closer to the OP's description than Sonata's is. but also because Nakuzami said ''If you knew everything in mafia, where would the fun be? You know about as much as a Havenite should.'' to your comment about the confusing OP description, i wouldn't be surprised if that was implying that the OP indeed does not give a complete and accurate image of what the role encompasses. i do think Sonata was probably the SA. so no need to attack me so much, sheesh. :c

Actually, I totally missed that little post by Naku there. However, he's not saying that we should disregard the hints from Day 1, only that today's hints don't actually relate directly to the hint in Day 1. But that doesn't mean to say that the hints don't fit together, just that they weren't posted to relate to each other. Finding parallels and crossings between hints is a different thing entirely to hints relating to one another.

i also don't really understand this. you say that if hints don't relate, they can still fit together? i don't think that makes a lot of sense; if hints don't relate, then that means they are not all referring to the same person. so even if you somehow make them fit together, that doesn't mean they were meant to. i just think Naku was trying to steer us away from Cosmic with that comment warning about the day one hints, that's all. i could very well be wrong.

 

[Nakuzami]

I mean, you could kill an NPC, but it wouldn't do you much good. It'd just be an empty lynch, basically.

 

[Circuit]

as true as this is, it still says that the powers can only be used in 'dire circumstances'. i can't imagine why the SA would already have been allowed to see these visions from night 1 on then. still, i see where you're coming from, and perhaps because the visions are more involuntary, they can work in that way. the original point i made still stands though, which is that technically, Shak's description is closer to the OP's description than Sonata's is. but also because Nakuzami said ''If you knew everything in mafia, where would the fun be? You know about as much as a Havenite should.'' to your comment about the confusing OP description, i wouldn't be surprised if that was implying that the OP indeed does not give a complete and accurate image of what the role encompasses. i do think Sonata was probably the SA. so no need to attack me so much, sheesh. :c

It wasn't meant as a harsh attack, sorry. But I still don't think Shak's description actually is closer, for the reasons I have previously outlined but can't be bothered right now to repeat. I also disagree that the OP would not give an accurate description. I agree it wouldn't be complete, otherwise we'd have all the information we needed already, and it'd make it a lot easier for others to fake it and everyone would claim roles they wanted. But I do think that if the role description was inaccurate, there would be problems. I don't think the role is any different to how it is described, only more detailed when the player receives it.

i also don't really understand this. you say that if hints don't relate, they can still fit together? i don't think that makes a lot of sense; if hints don't relate, then that means they are not all referring to the same person. so even if you somehow make them fit together, that doesn't mean they were meant to. i just think Naku was trying to steer us away from Cosmic with that comment warning about the day one hints, that's all. i could very well be wrong.[/QUOTE]

If hints are related, it means they directly link to one another and the information carries over. The hints for today do not carry on from Day 1 and the information certainly hasn't carried over into these hints to give more detailed information or whatever. But the hint from Day 1 does support the same claim the hints from today make. Imagine it like the hints are pointing fingers. If related: Day 1 hint --> Today's hints --> Cosmic. If not related: Day 1 hint --> Cosmic <-- Today's hints. Hopefully that made sense, and explains the difference I see between related hints and hints fitting together. To outline all the hints I'm using.

Day 1 hint --> Cosmic <-- Today's third hint <-- Today's second hint <-- Today's first hint. That's kinda the process my mind took to reach my conclusion. It didn't 'relate' Day 1's hint with today's, but Day 1's hint did further incriminate Cosmic, supporting the claims I made from the other hints.

God I feel like that was very convoluted and not very helpful at all.

 

[Salzorrah]

What if Sonata got pulled by an amnesiac event. He said that everything feels fuzzy, we know that it is possible and he could be the warlock but since he forgot, he appeared as a havenite. Tbh the only way we can determine this is if the coroner uses his power, but that would be wasteful since we only had 4 deaths that were all havenites.

Also, Shak is a no no. Trust me and Orpheus on this one, he is telling the truth.

 

[Shak]

In what way? And actually, I'd like to see a full description of the role as listed by Shak, because as far as I've seen he's insisted he doesn't know what the role actually does.

Funnily enough, I think you'll find I'm the only one that knows what the role does.

And since we're here, lets take a crack at breaking down that role description shall we

Seer Ascendant
The apprentice and destined successor to the current Seer. As they're a novice clairvoyant under the tutelage of an imperfect oracle, they're not typically permitted to utilize their powers as their sight is inordinate and the strain could prove too much for them to handle. Under dire circumstances, such as the untimely demise of the current Seer, the Seer Ascendant could be counted upon to act as Haven's spiritual leader and visionary.

1-A successor is quite literally some one who takes over a role when another passes away.
This suggests that waiting for the previous Seer to die, is probably a good shout in terms of SA triggers. The fact it was used as an example only serves to heighten the belief that this would be one of the key ways to permit(Another key word I'll get into in a second) the Seer to use their abilities.
2-They are not permitted to use their abilities. Yet Sonata was able to use his abilities freely. Clearly he was permitted to use his 'abilities' because no one seemed to be stopping him, yet I wasn't allowed to use any abilities of mine. Surely we aren't the ones who are supposed to stop him from using his abilities.

 

[Circuit]

Funnily enough, I think you'll find I'm the only one that knows what the role does.

And since we're here, lets take a crack at breaking down that role description shall we

1-A successor is quite literally some one who takes over a role when another passes away.
This suggests that waiting for the previous Seer to die, is probably a good shout in terms of SA triggers. The fact it was used as an example only serves to heighten the belief that this would be one of the key ways to permit(Another key word I'll get into in a second) the Seer to use their abilities.
2-They are not permitted to use their abilities. Yet Sonata was able to use his abilities freely. Clearly he was permitted to use his 'abilities' because no one seemed to be stopping him, yet I wasn't allowed to use any abilities of mine. Surely we aren't the ones who are supposed to stop him from using his abilities.

1 Yes, I never denied that this is one of the activation requirements. My argument is that it is not the only requirement to using the role, and saying that the Seer HAS to die for the ability to be usable isn't correct, based on the role description.
2 I don't think he was quite permitted to use them freely. It took him until Night 2/Day 3 to actually use his ability, whereas someone who could use their ability freely would likely use it on the first day, to get as much info as possible. Knowledge is power.

Also, right now I'm not inclined to believe anything anyone says, unless you want to give me proof and/or information. Why are all my arguments and time spent digging through every word for naught, Gunner? Surely you can see why I find it a little annoying, when someone pops up and says "you're wrong" after I've spent a long time searching everything, to make sure my arguments are as solid as possible, using as much official information as I can. Please tell me why then, I am wrong. If said information is actually valid, then I will admit I was wrong and drop my argument.

 

[Yukari]

If we kill shak we're going to waste this day, kill and innocent, and the Lycans are going to get to take another one of us down.

Killing shak is a mistake; trust me.

 

[Circuit]

Killing shak is a mistake; trust me.

Where is the evidence that Shak is an innocent? What information do you have to convince me I'm wrong here? You're both starting to annoy me.

Another thing. Gunner said to trust you Orpheus, before you'd even said something. Something is up between you two.

 

[Shak]

1 Yes, I never denied that this is one of the activation requirements. My argument is that it is not the only requirement to using the role, and saying that the Seer HAS to die for the ability to be usable isn't correct, based on the role description.
2 I don't think he was quite permitted to use them freely. It took him until Night 2/Day 3 to actually use his ability, whereas someone who could use their ability freely would likely use it on the first day, to get as much info as possible. Knowledge is power.

1-The role description doesn't explicitly say that there are other ways to trigger it. You may be able to infer it by digging deeper, but saying 'the idea that the Seer dying is the only way to trigger it is wrong' is just wrong.
This is a classic case of Schrodinger, until it is proven that it is or isn't the only way to trigger it, it exists as both possibilities. Meaning you simply can't say it's wrong until you have solid proof. (The use of the words 'for example', unfortunately isn't solid proof, since it is possible for there to be a single example of a trigger)
Right now the only ones with solid proof, are me and Naku.
2-The abilities Sonata claimed are a strange case.
Are you insinuating that it's possible he could use them on both day and night phases?
And if so, how does he get the riddles? Are they just given to him at random?
He couldn't pick the person he wants to search like the Seer, because he said the clues 'lead him to sopheria'.
Why does the SA have such different powers to the Seer if they are under their tutelage?

Why are all my arguments and time spent digging through every word for naught, Gunner?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but I can give you my answer.
It's because you're wrong.
I'm not a Lycan.

 

[Circuit]

I know this wasnt directed at me, but I can give you my answer.
It's because you're wrong.
I'm not a Lycan.

I'm not going to even respond to your list of arguments, because this is outrageous. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, but give me PROOF. Give me information that actually tells me WHY I'm wrong. Telling me I'm wrong with no reasoning whatsoever is just going to make me angry, because it doesn't do anything except come across as an 'I know better than you' attitude, which is just bs in a game like this. No you don't. No one really knows better until solid evidence is given. So either give the evidence and/or information, or accept the arguments proposed with the information already given. Don't tell me I'm wrong with no proof at all.

 

[Yukari]

Where is the evidence that Shak is an innocent? What information do you have to convince me I'm wrong here? You're both starting to annoy me.

...fuck. Fine. I'll tell you.

I'm the seer. Night three I investigated Shak and found that he was an innocent. Of course he could still be the Alpha or the Marked- something that would appear as an innocent. But night 2 I investigated gimmepie and found that he was a werebeast and because of this post where he claimed that Shak was suspicious I concluded that he was in fact an innocent. Now why would a werebeast claim that another werebeast is suspicious? this post further leads me to beleive that he's innocent.

Another thing. Gunner said to trust you Orpheus, before you'd even said something. Something is up between you two.

Dude that's bullshit.

Welp. I didn't want to reveal myself because of the 3 people I've investigated so far only one was a werebeast but I really don't have much of a choice I guess or something.

 

[Shak]

I'm not going to even respond to your list of arguments, because this is outrageous. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, but give me PROOF. Give me information that actually tells me WHY I'm wrong. Telling me I'm wrong with no reasoning whatsoever is just going to make me angry, because it doesn't do anything except come across as an 'I know better than you' attitude, which is just bs in a game like this. No you don't. No one really knows better until solid evidence is given. So either give the evidence and/or information, or accept the arguments proposed with the information already given. Don't tell me I'm wrong with no proof at all.

xD Just respond to the first part.
I was just being dumb with that part (Though it's true)

 

[Circuit]

...fuck. Fine. I'll tell you.

I'm the seer. Night three I investigated Shak and found that he was an innocent. Of course he could still be the Alpha or the Marked- something that would appear as an innocent. But night 2 I investigated gimmepie and found that he was a werebeast and because of this post where he claimed that Shak was suspicious I concluded that he was in fact an innocent. Now why would a werebeast claim that another werebeast is suspicious? this post further leads me to beleive that he's innocent.

Alright. So you're the Seer. And your information gives us one guaranteed kill on a werebeast. Maybe if you're lucky you won't die tonight. I am going to trust you now, since I have no reason not to. Here it comes...

I was wrong, and I renounce all claims that Shak is a Lycan. There. My apologies.

Dude that's bullshit.

Oops, I didn't see this either. I shouldn't be playing this at 3:15am it seems, smh

Welp. I didn't want to reveal myself because of the 3 people I've investigated so far only one was a werebeast but I really don't have much of a choice I guess or something.

Hopefully you'll be protected. I would rather you didn't die for this, since I did sorta force you to tell me your information.

EDIT: Yes, it is true. But that's besides the point when you flat up tell somebody they're wrong, after they've spent a lot of time trying to work out what is right with the information they have been given and left to sort through. You'd also given little to no actual proof, as to why I was wrong. So to just say to me I was wrong is rather rude. But I apologise, I was wrong, and I take it all back.

 

[Netto Azure]

What did you find at Night 1 then? O.o?

 

[Yukari]

What did you find at Night 1 then? O.o?

That Gunner is a Heavenite.

EDIT: Yes, it is true. But that's besides the point when you flat up tell somebody they're wrong, after they've spent a lot of time trying to work out what is right with the information they have been given and left to sort through. You'd also given little to no actual proof, as to why I was wrong. So to just say to me I was wrong is rather rude. But I apologise, I was wrong, and I take it all back.

You don't need to justify yourself; I understand. Under the same circumstances probably would have felt the same way. I just wanted to avoid revealing myself and the only information I had I really couldn't reveal without getting myself killed.

 

[Circuit]

Ok. Well, then my vote stands as such, should the day phase end before I wake:

[KILL]: Gimmepie

Now I need to sleep and berate myself for being wrong.

 

[Yukari]

[KILL] Gimmepie

Bodyguard, if you're still alive, please protect me this night. :c

 

[Shak]

Well for me that pretty much settles it, but like Ninja before me...I must sleep
[KILL] Gimmepie

 

[Juno]

I was writing this before Orpheus' reveal, but it's kind of obsolete now if we believe he's the Seer. Still, here's a recap of my thoughts (some are just repeats from my last post) and what I think the hints meant.

Spoiler:

Night is dark but hindsight is 20/20. Look back on last night to see the true colors.

Despite being revealed Havenite, the amulet does point to Sonata being the Warlock. I feel like the hindsight bias here refers to the fact that some had already suspected he was the Warlock before last night began, hence the reference to the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect.

Regarding the theory that Sonata was the victim and he has the amulet because the Warlock placed it on him - I find that a bit of a stretch seeing as no one could have predicted that Sonata would reveal himself as the SA the night before, so either the Warlock /is/ someone else and they made a very good guess the night before, or the amulet being there simply means that Sonata was the Warlock.

Daemons are easier to identify than casters.

We don't know what colors Lycans turn yet because we haven't caught one, but last game, all Hellspawn burned green when they were set on fire. Story-wise, I think it just means that Daemons are a different kind of species from the Havenites, and that's why the burning effectively helps determine what they were.

The Warlock, however, despite being unaligned, can biologically be a Havenite too. So it would make sense that they burn like the rest of us. I don't trust the reveals 100%, since last game we did have some traitors/spies that were revealed as the opposite of their true alignments.

All these colors border on the truth, but a fire can show only so much.

As mentioned, the colors of the flames are supposed to indicate what the players are, but the fire can show only so much because someone can technically be a Havenite and unaligned because their loyalties aren't with us.

I maay be looking too much into the story of the game or whatever, but I don't know, I still believe Shak. The thing is, looking back on last day, he literally had nothing to gain by saying he is Seer Ascendent if he is not. It looked a lot like a in-the-heat-of-the-moment reveal, spurred by the fact that someone else claimed to be who he was.

Orpheus' tip about gimmepie makes sense to me too - something I forgot to bring up because I was silenced the night the post was made.

I don't know if you guys remember, but the day prior to that we were discussing what the very first clue meant. In the beginning, some speculated that it pointed to the survivors of last game, but then we kind of brushed it off and decided that it meant anyone that participated last game was a suspect.

But then Naku said this in the night post:

They seemed confused.

Had Zami said something strange?

She glanced between them. "While it is . . . unlikely that one of the recently resurrected were able to become a beast and kill the previous Seer Ascendant so quickly, it's not impossible."

Which seemed to indicate that we were right the first time, that only the survivors were to be implicated. And the only survivors of last game were gimmepie and Lycanthropy (H.A.N).

..so in short, what I'm trying to say is I'll believe Orpheus for now, because there are no tricks to his role. If he's not right tomorrow he's dead, so I see no point in him lying.

[Kill] gimmepie

 

[Yukari]

I wouldn't lie even if this is just a game. c: