If more than 50% of the players are cultist at the start of the game it just becomes Inevitability: The Game.
Other roles in Inevitability: The Game:
-The Overzealous Bodyguard
-The Guilt-Ridden Serial Killer
-The Lovers that got together even though their OK Cupid profile gave their relationship a 14% chance of success.
-The Jester (damn jesters).
If it’s only a small advantage, they might lose against some especially lucky doctors and grannies.
With all of them cultists, though, it’s more of a certain train ride mystery sans the victim being the super evil guy.
Yeah, I’m still not sure whether we’re doing the obvious and the first four are involved (but some under duress and resentful), or the too-obvious fake is too obvious because they’re messing with us and the lantern works as advertised (only #5 guilty), and #4 was just Claude’s lover.
They could’ve done this quicker by dividing the whole village population in half, testing each half separately, progressively halving any previous division that triggered the lamp (with every test group internally divided into pairs or trios for the purpose of making sure that the other members of the sub-group are actually responding).
A very good idea. However, a preliminary study should be done to be sure the lamp is able to detect one liar among a bunch of innocent people. For all we know, the signal from one lie is drowned by the signal from a dozen trues.
I would also insist on proper positive and negative controls. The one done in the previous post was not that robust.
Yes, I’m a scientist. How did you know?
(real-life tangent: in the 80’s, a medical lab in my country (France) tried to rip off customers and health insurances by testing simultaneously the blood of 10-20 people for HIV by pooling their blood samples before testing the mix in one go, instead of testing the samples individually, as per the test’s manufacturer’s protocol. If the first test is negative, that’s 9-19 tests the lab would skip but still charged for. Sadly for all concerned, it turned out the test becomes unreliable if you dilute 10 times the blood of someone who does have the virus…)
Also keep in mind that the person or people who killed him might be interspersed in both groups if you divide the town in half. And once they figure out what the lantern shining means, they may just stop answering in the group answer and it wouldn’t detect their lie.
They’re also asking the question wrong. It wouldn’t be “ARE you involved”, it’d be “WERE you involved”…because they’re no longer involved, seeing as he’s now dead. Past tense is your friend! ;-)
I originally thought that too, but look at the third panel. He said, “I swear I didn’t do anything.” That’s impossible sir, did you breathe? Did you not breathe? Both are doing something.
Now, if the lamp is willing to go off for as innocent as can be, than it should go off for that.
I don’t think it works like that, otherwise it would have gone off for the guy who also said, “I didn’t do anything” which is clearly not literally true. The lantern appears to actually understand intended meaning and not get stuck on technical meaning.
Well, Lectrus said that “this sentence is a truth”, so he interpreted the lantern as lantern of detect lies, but it was a lantern of detect truth all along?
Obviously this doesn’t prove that he did it. But he may have seen something, or suspect someone, but has decided to cover it up.
But that grin. He did it. HE ENJOYED IT. The smile tells me so.
With “professional” law enforcement lie detectors the test administrators are very insistent that the test taker (accused) only answer questions with one of two words: “yes” or “no”. These binary absolutes help to draw falsehoods out of the vauge grey shadows of personal perception in to the stark contrast of “true or false”.
“Nope” was good enough and may even be a truthful answer to the question but the accused’s added statement of “Innocent as can be!” would easily trigger subconscious self-assessment of the validity said statement.
It’s like saying “I’ve never done anything wrong my entire life”: it almost has to be false by definition of being alive.
You know, I originally took that as meaning that the lantern was just exposed as being a fraud, and not lighting up for lies, because of the flow of the page. I just now realized that it was just a delay in it lighting up over his lie about him being innocent. Hmm.
If it turns out that the lamp doesn’t work like he said, then they really deserve whatever happens to them. They should have tested to be sure it works with blatant lies like “This tree is blue” along with true things to be sure there are no false positives.
I like the guy in the second panel. Not looking at the lamp, just locked in a staring contest with Scipio. He will doubtless won, since he is so nonchalant and badass.
It’s not going to be “the lamp is misfiring” or “the lamp is challenging his general innocence, not the fact that he wasn’t involved in this murder,” or anything less straightforward than “He’s been caught lying and he was involved in the murder.” If the lamp worked like some people are arguing, it would have lit up for “I didn’t do anything!” in the previous row.
That’s a good point. I still feel like the lamp is activated by Lectrus, a cultist. This crazy-looking guy is a cultist, but one who has volunteered to take the fall – and give misleading information corroborated by the lamp of “truth”.
“I declare that this lantern illuminates truths, not falsehoods!”
Strange that he would choose that phrasing seeing as that would cause it to light up in either case. If it illuminates truths, then it’s a true statement, and the lantern lights. If the lantern illuminates falsehoods then it’s a false statement and the lantern lights…
Conclusion: Either the old man is a cultist, as are most of the villagers, or the old man is an idiot and doesn’t even know how to test his lamp. Either way he shouldn’t be trusted as it’s just as possible that the lamp lights when he presses the hidden switch…
All other speculation aside, it seems like this needs repeating:
Lectrus, AKA lamp guy, AKA geezer with the lantern, does not live in this village. He lives in Gastonia. He is not a new character. He first appeared eleven chapters ago. He is not a stranger to the main characters. He was part of the Fightopia rebellion, helped with the founding of the Adventurer’s Guild, and is now a member of said guild. He travelled to this village via sky elf portal along with the other adventurers.
None of which obviates the possibility of him being an imposter, mind-controlled, a double-agent, or a gross incompetent.
It’s also possible that he’s merely a good guy with a love of logic puzzles, and that the cultist they’ve just captured is going to tell a series of carefully-worded lies that cause the heroes to jump to false conclusions… Either way would be a fun twist.
The lamp details truths; the entire village is cultists.
That’d be one hell of a game of Mafia.
If more than 50% of the players are cultist at the start of the game it just becomes Inevitability: The Game.
Other roles in Inevitability: The Game:
-The Overzealous Bodyguard
-The Guilt-Ridden Serial Killer
-The Lovers that got together even though their OK Cupid profile gave their relationship a 14% chance of success.
-The Jester (damn jesters).
If it’s only a small advantage, they might lose against some especially lucky doctors and grannies.
With all of them cultists, though, it’s more of a certain train ride mystery sans the victim being the super evil guy.
Inevitability: The Game? This is one of very few references in this comic’s comments threads I’m not getting. Of what dost thou speakest?
A wild guess would be Werewolf: http://maxistentialism.com/werewolf/
Well, we ain’t seen any of the good guys confirm the functionality of the lamp by themselves yet.
Someone could stand to be a bit more innocent.
Illuminating.
Did they REALLY need the lamp to figure out that this guy was sketchy?
Why would he say “sniff”?
Welcome to the fanciful world of comics! Note that not everything in a balloon is a word someone said.
I can’t figure out if he’s sniffly because Claude Ferncase is dead, or because he wasn’t involved…
Yeah, I’m still not sure whether we’re doing the obvious and the first four are involved (but some under duress and resentful), or the too-obvious fake is too obvious because they’re messing with us and the lantern works as advertised (only #5 guilty), and #4 was just Claude’s lover.
He could just be coming down with a cold.
It’s not, but if it isn’t, it should be marked as such (for instance with lessthan-greaterthan, or asterisks, etc).
Onomatopoeia… look it up.
If it were, it would be marked as such:
, or perhaps *sniff*.
Would it, sniff?
They could’ve done this quicker by dividing the whole village population in half, testing each half separately, progressively halving any previous division that triggered the lamp (with every test group internally divided into pairs or trios for the purpose of making sure that the other members of the sub-group are actually responding).
A very good idea. However, a preliminary study should be done to be sure the lamp is able to detect one liar among a bunch of innocent people. For all we know, the signal from one lie is drowned by the signal from a dozen trues.
I would also insist on proper positive and negative controls. The one done in the previous post was not that robust.
Yes, I’m a scientist. How did you know?
(real-life tangent: in the 80’s, a medical lab in my country (France) tried to rip off customers and health insurances by testing simultaneously the blood of 10-20 people for HIV by pooling their blood samples before testing the mix in one go, instead of testing the samples individually, as per the test’s manufacturer’s protocol. If the first test is negative, that’s 9-19 tests the lab would skip but still charged for. Sadly for all concerned, it turned out the test becomes unreliable if you dilute 10 times the blood of someone who does have the virus…)
Also keep in mind that the person or people who killed him might be interspersed in both groups if you divide the town in half. And once they figure out what the lantern shining means, they may just stop answering in the group answer and it wouldn’t detect their lie.
That’s why I stipulated a fix for that.
Clearly this man just came up with a brilliant idea!
It’s obvious the lamp has a personal grudge against this guy.
or it’s the lamp of random illumination and this guy is just very unlucky.
how about the flickering lamp of illumination it didn’t go off until him.
also my image looks so damn angry at the person below me.
Fits your name though.
I believe the lamp is going off due to his claim that he is innocent as can be, not any claim he is involved with the death…
That’s a good point.
Good observation, Bob!!
They’re also asking the question wrong. It wouldn’t be “ARE you involved”, it’d be “WERE you involved”…because they’re no longer involved, seeing as he’s now dead. Past tense is your friend! ;-)
I originally thought that too, but look at the third panel. He said, “I swear I didn’t do anything.” That’s impossible sir, did you breathe? Did you not breathe? Both are doing something.
Now, if the lamp is willing to go off for as innocent as can be, than it should go off for that.
I don’t think it works like that, otherwise it would have gone off for the guy who also said, “I didn’t do anything” which is clearly not literally true. The lantern appears to actually understand intended meaning and not get stuck on technical meaning.
What if the truth shine up for truths?
What if the *lantern* shines for truths? >.<
Then everybody in town EXCEPT this guy is involved, plus Lectrus.
Well, Lectrus said that “this sentence is a truth”, so he interpreted the lantern as lantern of detect lies, but it was a lantern of detect truth all along?
is lamp man looking at us?!
And now, he’s gonna get the cig.
And now we investigate a little, see if there’s evidence, find alibis, etc.
We do NOT trust a guilty verdict on a single magic artifact.
Unless we do!
Obviously this doesn’t prove that he did it. But he may have seen something, or suspect someone, but has decided to cover it up.
But that grin. He did it. HE ENJOYED IT. The smile tells me so.
That’s NOT how guilty people look like.
Overconfident, brazen, and a bit sinister?
Yeah, if he’s part of a larger group that is confident in their own victory then he might understandably be a little overzealous in his answers.
Panel 4 guy: Is he in mourning, or does he truly regret he wasn’t involved?
With this crowd, it could be a little of both.
I interpret his posture as him being intimidated. And his *sniff* as him being sad.
With “professional” law enforcement lie detectors the test administrators are very insistent that the test taker (accused) only answer questions with one of two words: “yes” or “no”. These binary absolutes help to draw falsehoods out of the vauge grey shadows of personal perception in to the stark contrast of “true or false”.
“Nope” was good enough and may even be a truthful answer to the question but the accused’s added statement of “Innocent as can be!” would easily trigger subconscious self-assessment of the validity said statement.
It’s like saying “I’ve never done anything wrong my entire life”: it almost has to be false by definition of being alive.
You know, I originally took that as meaning that the lantern was just exposed as being a fraud, and not lighting up for lies, because of the flow of the page. I just now realized that it was just a delay in it lighting up over his lie about him being innocent. Hmm.
If it turns out that the lamp doesn’t work like he said, then they really deserve whatever happens to them. They should have tested to be sure it works with blatant lies like “This tree is blue” along with true things to be sure there are no false positives.
I like the guy in the second panel. Not looking at the lamp, just locked in a staring contest with Scipio. He will doubtless won, since he is so nonchalant and badass.
Against Scip? That’s quite the bet you’re taking
Well, you’ll notice he’s not making eye contact with the cigar.
Would you want a cigar to make contact with your eyes? That would freakin’ HURT!
It’s not going to be “the lamp is misfiring” or “the lamp is challenging his general innocence, not the fact that he wasn’t involved in this murder,” or anything less straightforward than “He’s been caught lying and he was involved in the murder.” If the lamp worked like some people are arguing, it would have lit up for “I didn’t do anything!” in the previous row.
That’s a good point. I still feel like the lamp is activated by Lectrus, a cultist. This crazy-looking guy is a cultist, but one who has volunteered to take the fall – and give misleading information corroborated by the lamp of “truth”.
I think the lamp just dislikes people without hats. One guys freaks the heck out, the other one gets outed.
Plot Twist, the main cultist is the one holding the lamp.
“I declare that this lantern illuminates truths, not falsehoods!”
Strange that he would choose that phrasing seeing as that would cause it to light up in either case. If it illuminates truths, then it’s a true statement, and the lantern lights. If the lantern illuminates falsehoods then it’s a false statement and the lantern lights…
Conclusion: Either the old man is a cultist, as are most of the villagers, or the old man is an idiot and doesn’t even know how to test his lamp. Either way he shouldn’t be trusted as it’s just as possible that the lamp lights when he presses the hidden switch…
All other speculation aside, it seems like this needs repeating:
Lectrus, AKA lamp guy, AKA geezer with the lantern, does not live in this village. He lives in Gastonia. He is not a new character. He first appeared eleven chapters ago. He is not a stranger to the main characters. He was part of the Fightopia rebellion, helped with the founding of the Adventurer’s Guild, and is now a member of said guild. He travelled to this village via sky elf portal along with the other adventurers.
None of which obviates the possibility of him being an imposter, mind-controlled, a double-agent, or a gross incompetent.
It’s also possible that he’s merely a good guy with a love of logic puzzles, and that the cultist they’ve just captured is going to tell a series of carefully-worded lies that cause the heroes to jump to false conclusions… Either way would be a fun twist.
“All other speculation aside”.
The last guy had nothing to do with the murder. He just stole some money from his neighbor yesterday.
He’s not the most innocent person in the village, ergo the lamp lights up.
Bingo! We got a winner!
“Innocent as can be”…you may want to rephrase that.
they…they’re asking more than one question here right?
“are you involved in cult bullshit” and “do you mean the town any harm” should be thrown in there….