I was thinking about it and I am having this in my game right now. So if Sorcerer becomes Evil King when voted up instead of becoming Psycho KIng because they are a Neutral Killer and sides with the Unseen. Then the Inquisitor should side with the Blue Dragon and as a result should become Good King instead of the usual Neutral King. Thoughts?
Inquisitor exists as counter class to the Sorcerer and defeating the Sorcerer is its only goal. The sorcerer already has exactly the same goal as scum, so it only makes sense she’d join the scum side if she steps up for king. Inquisitor does not have the same motivation, so he should remain as neutral king.
You are not wrong there, making BD king still want to eliminate the sorcerer since it’s against the wincon for Sorcerer to stay alive to see BD lose.
Neutral King as Inquisitor though, not quite I imagine to let Sorcerer go.
I like the idea of a new king, the Inquisitor King, who is like a neutral but also needs to defeat the Sorcerer.
However, I would add a rule that the game will not end with an Inquisitor King and a Sorcerer alive (the Inquisitor does not block a Sorcerer victory if all the BDs are dead.)
Perhaps we could also do similar things for the Fool and Scorned - Foolish King and Scorned King respectively.
(It makes both gameplay and lore sense for the Scorned to want to become King in order to lynch their targets - but currently, if they manage it, they lose their goal! That’s silly.)
3 Likes
All neutrals should have a king with their goal. Note: Scorned King shouldn’t be able to use decide fate on their target.
Note: Scorned King shouldn’t be able to use decide fate on their target.
Why not? They still have to get them voted up to begin with, and more importantly, they have to become king first (which is hardly a cakewalk.) And they have to do all of this before their targets die. I think it’s fine to have “become king” be a near-victory-condition for scorned - a BD that screws up enough to elect a Scorned king deserves what they get.
Also, I feel the risk of evil Decide Fates like that is good for the game because it somewhat discourages voting someone up for their logs, which is otherwise a fairly overwhelming strategy.
If anything, Foolish King is a bigger problem. How is BD supposed to deal with that once they make that mistake?
2 Likes
I’d like many varieties of Neutral Kings to be able to start with. If Scorned starts as King, that would be OP. It would be okay if you became King, though.
Having each neutral become a different neutral king just needlessly complicates things for little gain in my opinion. I already felt that way with the creation of the Psycho king, but I can see why that was more necessary. Becoming king is no easy feat as a non-royal and it’s hardly a cakewalk to win as neutral king either.
Having a scorned or inquisitor keep their goals while becoming king also exacerbates the already great problem of a scorned/inqui that has won meddling with the game randomly. Scorned/inquisitor siding with NK/scum/BD for no apparent reason other than the whims of the neutral who has already won is not how games should be decided.
How often do you really see a fool becoming king and do we really want to spend precious developer time on something like that as opposed to creating an entirely new class or something.
1 Like
But having them just become a generic neutral king makes it more easy for them to meddle randomly, not less. Currently, an Inquisitor who becomes king can decide to side with the Sorcerer. This would remove that option, which would make the situation less driven by whimsy, not more.
Sure, a Scorned or Inquisitor who had already won could just decide who to side with on a whim, but that’s true already. Currently, they can do so even if they haven’t resolved their previous win condition!
Except a generic neutral king has to survive until the end of the game to win. If an inquisitor/scorned that has already won steps up for king and becomes this new form of king that retains their original neutral goals, their whimsical swing vote suddenly counts for two and they get a decide fate while at it. Their death is meaningless to them as their goal is already reached, so they do not have the same stakes as the generic neutral king.
It’ll be rarer to have king die early in sorcerer/inqui games as opposed to later anyways. So most of the time the inquisitor will have already won, so that is the more relevant scenario. Especially because most royals have to be dead too allowing for the inqui to even step up in the first place.
Still if you make Inquisitor to become BD King and Sorcerer is still not dead, it will be better to become BD King because Sorcerer siding with evils vs Sorcerer’s wincon will be against Inquisitor-BD King’s wincon as well.
1 Like