week 3 ( monday );

[reidentify]

[Meeting in the longhouse is a go! Lief clears his throat, as a part of him wonders how he keeps ending up in this situation, but:]

Thank you all for gathering here. These past few weeks have been difficult, but I pray that none of us fall into despair. Now, more than ever, we need to keep our spirits up and put an end to this twisted game.

Vriska and Kirigiri have asked that we take advantage of our time now to discuss our next course of action, without an immediate deadline constraining us, driving us to ill temper. As we have struggled with how we should approach the trial, perhaps we should focus on the roles—the ones with the purpose to kill.

In particular, what sort of people would the Chiefs place in such a role? Not necessarily who would kill, normally, but who would be the Chiefs' "ideal" candidates. That is what we wish to figure out.

... Of course, we may not come to a complete agreement. But perhaps we will walk away from this with a better idea of how to go on from here, if nothing else.

[ooc: basically, a mingle post to discuss stuff! top-level and hijack away, etc.]

Comments

[sylfied]

[ ... why can't she rest ]

Probably people who have killed before. There's a bigger chance they'd be more willing to do it again, no matter their reasons before.

[varunastra]

The rules seem very effective at providing motivation to fall in line.

[ Vote wrong and the cute little girl gets her eye stabbed out? If there's a breaking point for everyone, Hal seems quite capable of finding it. ]

The other possibility is those who, in being forced to kill, would prove the most...entertaining.

[ You can hear the air quotes around "entertaining." Serph does not find this entertaining. ]

[cutefaced]

..."entertaining"?

[She doesn't get it.]

But what would make one person killing more entertaining than someone else doing it...? No matter who it is, it's not entertaining at all...

[alienated]

Hal laughed when [ugh] he told us Joshua died on Friday. We have to assume it's whatever would make things worse for all of us.

[hypertoxic]

That is probably exactly it. This whole game is centered on freaking us out! So presumably it's whatever would cause the most drama.

[alienated]

[yeah, honestly.]

We should be preparing for the worst case scenario in the future. I get the feeling none of us are going to be happy if we get it right.

[unless you're, like. some kind of weirdo who gets off backstabbing, anyway.]

[alienated]

Why not both?

[People who are down for murder, and... people who would be "entertaining" if pushed to murder.]

It feels too easy to pick one kind of person and be right on the money. We might be looking for a mix of two or more possibilities.

[reidentify]

... Indeed. While I do not think they are all of this sort, I imagine there could be at least one "conventional" murderer—to be a role model, or to keep the others in line.

[sylfied]

It'd make sense, but at the same time, that's going to make narrowing it down a lot harder. Since I think there's a mixture of both here.

[alienated]

Making things harder to narrow down seems like the whole point of the "game."

[hypertoxic]

I've actually been theorizing that there are three!

[ ticks off on her fingers. ] Someone who hasn't killed before who'd fall under the label of "entertaining." One experienced killer to show the others how it's done. And one strategist to help plan it all out!

[chessking]

At the minimum, two. You don't really need the strategist, considering that the Chiefs do need to know about the murder and would provide any other weapons and scatter the body [ thanks, tutorial murder ] so they would fill the strategist role well enough.

[hypertoxic]

I've thought about that, too. The killer and the strategist could be the same person, for instance, or it could be just like you said. But if we're working with multiple parties, that just occurred to me as a possible setup! We also have to consider that it could actually be more than three.

[cutefaced]

...I think it would definitely have to be more than one person. Maybe even more than two. If this is... a game... that means there's a way to win and a way to lose.

One of the ways to win might be to... to get rid of all the people in the killing roles? [She sounds hesitant - because in order to do that, they're going to have to either kill them or execute them. Either way, people are going to die.] If it's just one or two... with the partner system, we could wipe them all out by accident. And we'd technically win, but that wouldn't be very...

[...]

...entertaining? So there'd almost have to be more than that to make sure they wouldn't all get caught too soon.

[hypertoxic]

[ Vriska actually, honestly, looks surprised.

But it morphs slowly into a sort of appreciation. ]

That is an excellent point, Yona. I think you could be right about that.

[ a pause. ]

I think we have to consider the potential consequences of wiping out that role, though.

[spinatalltale]

[Magilou, who has been here the whole time but has otherwise been quiet, finally finds a reason to speak up. be proud of her!!]

Not only the potential consequences, but the reason why the killing role exists in the first place. Is it really just for "entertainment?" Is it really just to give the rest of us some unseen enemy, and to breed discord and distrust among the masses?

[hypertoxic]

[ arches a brow. ]

Your point being?

[ because there obviously is one. ]

[spinatalltale]

[jabs her quill at Hiro]

"The role is incentive enough to murder."

[she echoes]

That implies those given that role don't need any outside influence to carry out their duties. To me, it sounds as though they don't need to be tempted to kill by payment in material possessions or granted wishes or anything of the sort. The mere fact that they were assigned a role that tells them to kill is enough to get them to do it.

Most of us don't know all of the rules to this game, right? We don't know the win or lose conditions, and we don't know all of the pieces that are in play.

If the role in and of itself is incentive enough, then is it so far-fetched to believe that it might be tied to some hidden game rule of which we aren't aware?

[reidentify]

[This is more to Vriska, but:]

... For the record, when I said that "someone" and I briefly discussed the incentive behind the killing role, I was referring to Magilou.

[spinatalltale]

[HEY!!!]

Lewin-Lief! Don't spill all of our dirty secrets!

[reidentify]

[iiiiiignoring her choice of words]

That is the only one, I assure you.

[spinatalltale]

[she makes it sound so SCANDALOUS]

To be frank, it's a discussion worth having with everyone, anyway. As long as we're discussing the roles and how they were chosen.

[hypertoxic]

[ dry as the sahara, though not unamused: ]

I can see that now.

[ to Magilou: ]

So, basically, the role is its own reward, and not some other incentive. Whatever it was, it'd have to be pretty compelling!

[spinatalltale]

That's right! ☆

[I'm sorry she's dramatic even during serious discussions]

Granted, I have no concrete speculation as to what sort of reward would be inherent in a killing role. It's just another thought to throw into the sea of ideas.

Until we learn more about the rules shrouded behind the curtain, it's as valid of a theory as any.