I was more arguing against this sentiment. The fact that you have a twofold win condition does weaken it.
But the Starting king is the b*tch of the Court. He has to lead the court, he has to keep the rails on track or be accused of being evil. If the game draws toward the end you basically just want him to die because he’s a possible liability.
The role of the Starting King is borderline just being a punching bag. And you generally don’t expect to be aided and therefore not to survive till the end.
Generally the only time people defend/aid king is N1 to hinder a Sorc from getting a chance at PK and to confirm themselves.
I wouldn’t mind if there was a neutral class out there, who actually potentially wants to ally themselves with the Starting King.
I agree that a win condition that would solely rest on the Starting King living till the end would be pretty abysmal. That is not what I’m advocating for.
I failed to actually reply to this statement. You actually believe it is good gameplay design to make classes based entirely around the Starting King dying?
A neutral that needs the starting king to win or survive ends up acting as another member of the starting king’s faction, compounding the swing of the slot
That entirely requires the knowledge of the alignment of the Starting King to actually work, without it being blind luck. THAT is just as much a weighted coin flip.
But he doesn’t know the alignment of the Starting King. If the Starting King reveals they are EK to the Diplomat, the Diplomat could just as well use this info to leak it to a Butler or the Prince and have the Court whack the King. That opens up an easier win condition for the Diplomat.
If the Starting King is BD they gained a Mystic that just as well may betray them if the game goes into the favor of evils.
Nothing is set in stone with this neutral. - unlike Scorned or Inquisitor who is much more likely to cause harm to BD than Cultseen / NK.
I mean
This neutral is… Extremely easy
You literally just make a confirmed BD your associate, yeet the king then crown them
Every Diplomat ever will claim D1 and just associate with a BD like Noble or Mystic
What does this even mean? Other than a thin line away from an insult?
Do you mean in this social deduction game, you need to deduct from the actions of the players to determine their alignment?
In the vast majority of games the Court will judge the Starting King based on if they “play perfectly”. Pressuring claims and logs.
Have you not heard of scum reading players
Literally the entire point of social deduction
You are supposed to determine the king’s alignment based on his actions
But saying he’s lock evil because he didn’t play perfectly is a very flawed way of going about it
Except how do you yeet the king? You try to convince the Court to vote out King on D2?
What good does the Court get from this?
Mystic is mutually exclusive with this class (at least with my suggestion), so you cannot get that. Noble is a possibility, if they are outed. So you put the associate on the Noble and hopes the King gets murdered sometime and the Noble elected - and not die in the meantime. If a non-associate is elected, you need to find another target that could be elected king and isn’t converted or killed in the meantime.
So you sit still as a Mystic claim, with a Noble associate and hopes things fall into their right place?
I mean it’s extremely easy for things to go well because your wincon is “have starting king survive or see an associate become king.”
King good? He’s probably living the whole game
King evil? Kill him and crown ur associate
King is about to die in evil majority? Evil associate
I’m having a hard time determining if you’re just being dense about my responses or you just want to argue. I’m leaving it here.
Hmm as said by Amelia, not just killing them, but ensuring their faction loses. I don’t think that’s perfect either since you don’t know what alignment you are going for at the start then and reading focused on a singular person is hard and having your game be decided (hyperbole) on one read sucks.
All I’d want to convey is that if a neutral interacting with starting King would exist, it’d be better, if they would be more likely to side against the starting King than not to minimize starting swing in class distribution.
Employing this as a check on King is bad too though since specific neutrals aren’t guaranteed to spawn.
Overall I’d be 
on these kinds of neutrals. They aren’t as great as Scorned for example who actually ensures that BD can’t trust anyone making an actual bold accusation, devalues invests and gives every accused an out. Scorned has a good impact even if it doesn’t roll, so it’s a net benefit to have regardless of class distribution, which is pretty huge.