This was going to be a reply to the other thread (which obviously wants to go in the other direction), but after I started writing it up I realized it was worth its own topic.
I believe we should revise the rules to allow a Mercenary to turn on their first contract (regardless of the method, including by outing them directly and deliberately) provided they still have a chance to get a second one. This might require rewording their goal slightly (eg. “survive to the end with a living contract”, which is similar to what they have now, but subtly different in that it doesn’t imply that they necessarily need to keep their first contract alive provided they have a second one lined up.)
Mercenaries would be required to play to a Mercenary victory still, meaning they can only betray their contract when they believe it makes them more likely to win as a Mercenary (note that this is different from being converted - you’re always playing to the same goal, that goal would just be “survive to the end of the game with a living contract” rather than “protect this particular person.”)
A Mercenary would not be allowed to play towards a Sellsword or Ritualist victory, only to Mercenary victories. They’d only be allowed to betray their first contract in situations where they can credibly believe that doing so makes them more likely to win as a mercenary.
Here’s my reasoning.
-
Mercenaries are assigned completely at random at the start of the game. It is better for the game if there is at least some risk of betrayal to balance out that randomness - getting a mercenary assigned at the start should not be a flat, no-brainer buff.
-
The possibility of betrayal leads to more interesting interactions with mercenaries - it gives people reasons to potentially lie to the mercenary, and therefore means that the mercenary has to sometimes doubt what their contract tells them. Telling your mercenary that you are not BD now has more risk, which makes it a more interesting strategic decision.
-
The more options people have, the more interesting it is to try and predict their behavior, and the more variety we get in terms of gameplay. If a mercenary doesn’t always have to side with their first contract, but has the option of turning on them, it opens up a much wider array of strategies for the mercenary and for people playing against them, and adds new considerations for the person they’re contracted to.
-
Some people might fear this could lead to kingmaker scenarios with mercs. I think that’s unlikely, since a merc can only get a second contract if the game doesn’t end when their first one dies (ie. a mercenary still wouldn’t have the option to turn on their contract late in the game when doing so would lead to an immediate loss for them - that would still be gamethrowing. You have to credibly believe you can get a second contract before the game ends for this to be allowed.) I feel that with this change, mercenaries would mostly just switch sides when they want to be on a team that’s more likely to win, which I feel is strategically interesting (if you want to sway a mercenary into betraying their contract, you’d have to convince them you’re a better bet.) This is particularly interesting because it leads to a role that could be swung between BD and Cult / Unseen - or even, potentially, NK - without necessarily being a kingmaker in the traditional sense, since their decisions would be based on who they think is most likely to win.
-
While this is less important than the gameplay implications… thematically, it makes sense. Real-world mercenaries turned on their employers all the time. “Sorry, but siding with the prince is a safer bet” is a thematically appropriate thing for a mercenary to do. The theme of the class is a mercenary, not a fanatical bodyguard; the very name itself means someone whose loyalties are weak and constantly-shifting based on who can pay them the best. The potential for betrayal is a logical thematic aspect of the mercenary as a concept.
Note that this would be purely a rules change (aside from maybe the subtle rewording to the Mercenary’s goal.) It wouldn’t involve any direct gameplay changes beyond indicating that betraying your first contract while they’re alive is now allowed.
But anyway, basically. ToL should be a game of backstabbing, betrayal, and secrets. Right now the Mercenary is too straightforward. Revising their goals slightly so they can betray their first contract (when they believe it would make them more likely to win with their second) fits in the thematic of the role and would generally make it more interesting both to play as and to play in a game with.
(Also, in case it isn’t obvious: Mercenaries would never be allowed to betray their second contract, since doing so always leads to a loss for them.)
