LoRab wrote:Epignosis wrote:LoRab wrote:Personally, mainly because I'm stubborn, I'm not putting it outside the realm of possibility that LC was bad and his team killed him to protect his identity, seeing that his lynch seemed inevitable. What that means for this new lynch, I'm not sure. But I'm not buying that LC was civ. If he was, killing him would make no sense for the baddies.
Killing him regardless makes no sense from a strategic standpoint.
I've seen it happen. And your logic of what makes sense is not necessarily the same as others' logic.
That's why I qualified: "From a strategic standpoint." If he's your teammate, it's not strategically sound to kill him, because you, the sole remaining mafia member, can end up lynched and the game is over and you lose. If he's not your teammate, it's not strategically sound to kill him because he's almost assuredly getting lynched next, so that would eat up a lynch and give your team another kill.
The only thing that remotely makes any
strategic sense is that Sorsha checked LC and figured he would be a dangerous role to be made public in the thread, but I don't see that being the case at all. Long Con didn't vote Sorsha- he voted Illyria.
The only exception would be if they found that Long Con was the doctor, who had not used his resurrection yet (presumably waiting for Lady Mary, Edith, or Sybil to be lynched), or Mr. Molesley, and didn't want him to stop the lynch, because that could clear him either way.
I think I just talked myself into the most logical answer.
