So I heard a rumor that inf killed aristocrat.

Can anyone confirm this?

After talking to Aristocrat, he insists that he is dead and that all players should now let their guard down, especially independents.

Seems legit.

Quote from Roy

I character hasn't killed, nor has my character made a hostile action in this entire game, poison. In fact, your character has exerted more desire to hurt others than mine.

Granted, but you know what my exact actions were. My intent was to protect players that I have no reason to harm than to harm players for no reason.

Quote from Roy

And it would be impossible for me to not be a killer if I kill Aristocrat: I acknowledge and accept this. However, my agenda is not to kill others in general, which is the meaning behind the quoted statement.

(And that's not irony.)

So it's not ironic that you would kill someone in order to prevent killing? More importantly, if we take your word that neither of you two are the "killer" role, then would that not still leave us with two killers?

Quote from Roy

After talking to Aristocrat, he insists that he is dead and that all players should now let their guard down, especially independents.

Seems legit.

It's not. I carried his body with me to have sexytime. I bound and gagged him up, because "MMPFH!" is not a no.

Your original statement was that is was ironic that I "won't be a killer, despite having killed." That's not irony; it's factually impossible.

Killing Aristocrat isn't to prevent killing, it's to protect all those to which he poses a threat. That involves preventing them from being killed. Since I can't cover ground for every player in the game, the most reasonable course of action would be to remove the threat. It's slightly different than the simplified version you're trying to present.

Also, to all players: don't attempt something like this, or you may very well die from a stroke. Yes, it's a rule.

Quote from Roy

Quote from poison_us

So it's not ironic that you would kill someone in order to prevent killing?

Your original statement was that is was ironic that I "won't be a killer, despite having killed." That's not irony; it's factually impossible.

Sorry, apparently you didn't understand my particular brand of sarcasm.

So, all you have to go off of is the basis that he's killed before. Why don't we kill off at least half of the players, because they might kill others without provocation? I mean, I didn't pay much attention to the first TKG after I left, but IIRC most deaths were by normal players killing each other. What good is it to kill off one person who has a chance of killing others, when you could kill off everyone who's ever done it before? They pose just as much of a risk as Aristocrat.



But here's what I've been thinking ever since you proposed to kill off Aristocrat. You see him as the only player worth attempting to kill this early in the game, to stop him from being able to beat you by killing the killer. I'm not sure how you'll deny this, but (not only am I positive you will deny it) it's the only reasonable explanation for you targeting Aristocrat over others that have killed fellow innocents before the game even starts.

Roy contacted people before first turn even came in. He had the thing planned before he could even know if he was killer.

Read the last paragraph. I basically called him out because, the way I see it, Roy thinks the only person that poses a risk to him winning as the killer, or killing the killer, is Aristocrat.

No it isn't. I'm not going to repeat the reasons I'm going after Aristocrat again, but you can look back at my previous posts if you want the answer (which I assume you don't). The reason that is most applicable to all other players is just the one I emphasize.

The record for most kills was tied between Aristocrat, Lotus, and me, and nobody else that killed in TKG1 is playing this game. Lotus was the killer, so of course he's supposed to kill. My three kills were for two people who were afk for the entire game (a request from most players "just in case one of them is the killer and we're wasting our time") and an accident (who happened to also go afk halfway through the game; I threw my torch at the afk player from a poorly written defensive script, and when I left it caused a fire that after three turns or so caught him on fire and burned him to death). Aristocrat was a regular survivor role that killed three innocent people (stabbing throat, choking and beating to death, throwing off third-story of building), one of which he had an alliance with.

And yes, if payne was playing, I'd advocate to kill him immediately as well based on his record.

But please, by all means continue with your idea that killing in this game doesn't require context. I think it's a good argument that can win you some support.

I deny this.

I need a goal. I'm gonna end up wandering the next several turns looking for blunt or sharp objects unless I have something to do. Then I'll get tired of doing that and try to kill random people in creative ways.

By the way, as a courtesy, if you enter a new area, please post what you find. Let's get this place mapped out at least.

I'm not sharing information with someone that is willing to kill others for the sake of preserving lives.

That almost sounds like you agree with Roy's viewpoint that killing me will preserve lives, poison

I got to the room east of spawn, and the room 2 rooms north of that. The first one leads south and north and has a sign indicating a staircase is somewhere north. Second room leads north and west. Both room are horribly devoid of items.

Also, no zombies and/or corpses yet.

If you decide to do that, start with yourself like last time, please. Otherwise, I will have to prepare disabling you as well. I'm not an advocate for killing random people.

What happened to your interest in creating a 100% automated script? Did you ever make that?

And what happened to that petting fluffy bunnies talk you gave to me? Why do you want to kill all of a sudden?

Just people that are willing to kill for the fun of it, right? That makes sense.

Because it's a game and I don't have a specific goal or seem to be finding one. At least one of us is the killer, and the victory condition is to kill him, so...

Besides, I wasted 2 turns with recollections that told me basically nothing.

Goal: Find and kill the killer.

Goal: Preserve the peace.

Goal: Find the best weapon.

Goal: Create some cool items.

Goal: Fight a zombie.

Goal: Explore the entire map.

'Find the killer' isn't specific. I've got no leads.

Get upstairs without help and without using stairs.

Quote from Aristocrat

That almost sounds like you agree with Roy's viewpoint that killing me will preserve lives, poison

No, I was remarking upon the irony of killing someone to stop killing.

So apparently we're in a completely empty building. I wonder how far I have to travel to find anything remotely useful...