Of course. And it seems legit
I want to see a true neutral, not a new scum neut (unless the scum neut replaced another existing scum neut)
Wow this blew up, I have to catch up.
- It curbs inherent swinginess of starting king’s alignment.
- It follows ToL, which is a something we have to be mindful of.
- It is not scum-sided by default like Warlock or something.
- It works with the king mechanic which is one of the things that makes ToL unique.
- I like it and I think it has potential for a lot of incarnations.
- All royals are currently in a powerful state, so a counter to royals specifically is also interesting.
It’s interesting, I think the Alchemist concept could borrow from this, so we don’t lose the ToL flavors for no reason.
A BD-sided neut is also fundamentally different from just another BD… I don’t see how it follows.
Someone who prevents kills is typically BD-sided but not always.
Having more benign neutrals also gives scum-sided neutrals options to claim when they get peeked neutral (which is admittedly niche)
We addressed this partially by removing one of the random neutral slots in the latest changes.
1 Like
Killing royals is against Pretender’s best interests because it paints a larger target on their back, not really getting rid of competition
It depends on the form that we’d make. I’m not directly referencing the ToL Pretender here, but a Pretender that opposes royalty/king/prince in some kind of form. It really depends on the win condition we’d give.
Honestly I just want to add Insurgent
> Doesn’t know their alignment immediately so they can’t open claim.
> Reduces swing of starting king by being opposed to them.
1 Like
I agree to something like that, but we are calling it Pretender then lul. That’s what I was referencing the whole time.
I caught up.
It really doesn’t.
It just kills king at some point so I suppose it’s anti-swing, but not the good kind.