Okay, I just don't get it.
Any reasonable lone-mutineer would try to have as "lynchable" fellows around her/him on the last Day. But what did s/he do? Killed
Shasta!
Now we have the two only people in this game a kind of case could be made they are not mutineers eg.
Nerwen (via dream) and
Gwath (via mutineers attacking hunter-
Rikae suspecting ang voting for him).
If you
Izzy actually are the last mutineer... *shakes head and rolls eyes*
So what other possibilities there are?
Greenie was a co-conspie and made the swindle of the year choosing
Nerwen - and getting it right from what, four out of twenty possibilities eg. 1/5! Thus
Nerwen is the mutineer. That would explain why she continues to live - but as I said already yesterDay: the dynamics of this game sure are different and there probably isn't the same urge here to get rid of "known innocents".
The mutineers went for
Rikae who was a self-confessed hunter. And even if she suspected
Gwath heavily & even voted for him, still with mutineer-
Gwath in the pack they decided to go for her? Okay. This I find even less believable than
Greenie's possible hoax. It's suicidal for the mutineers to attack a hunter suspecting heavily one of their own. I just don't buy it. Although it's interesting why they attacked
Rikae in the first place? One would think the mutineers would let the hunter stay as there are risks in killing her.
Blah... It must be
Izzy. But why did she play her cards this way were she a mutineer? Beats me...
Interesting scheme
Shasta! I would have loved to see it unfold!
Buit it would have been pretty complicated indeed and have different result-options depending on fex. whether there are two inncents or one innocent and one co-conspie alongside the last mutineer.
Heh, just thinking about one option (with one cobbler still in the game):
Player X: "HAhaa, I'm the mutineer, now you co-op, vote with me for Player Y!"
Player Y: "Wait a minute! I'm the mutineer. Let's vote that lousy trickster-goodie X off!"
Player Z (Cobbler): Hmph...
