The King and His True Alignment

Feedback/Suggestions
#1

We have a dilemma on our hands. While Allies is now gone and games can get dynamic once again, people are saying that the King can’t be trusted with leads ever because they can’t “prove” themself.

And they are completely right.

Because statiscally proven, the King has a 33% chance to be a Blue Dragon. And when all other players have a chance of at least 70% of being a Blue Dragon, the King does not definitely seem trustworthy. Even taking account of Neutral King in addition to a Good King, that is still only 66%.

So I have a proposal in changing the odds of what sort of King will start with the Throne of Castle Adiart at the start of the game.

To match the odds of every other player being a Blue Dragon, I propose we set the chances of a Good King to 66%. Now the King is 2/3 of the time trustworthy, but could possibly be a surprising non-Good King. But definitely more trustworthy than 33%.

An Evil King should appear 33% of the time. While there are only 2 Evils at the start out of 16 players, which results in 12.5%, there will usually be 3 by turn 2, and only 14 to 15 people. Also, having an Evil King is still dynamic for the game, compared to a Neutral King.

A Neutral King should take the throne with odds of 1%. This way, they could still be a potential safe haven for Neutral Killers seeking allies in a game where everyone is pitted against them.

Totaling the percentages:
Good King: 67%
Evil King: 33%
Neutral King: 0%

Or alternate total:
Good King: 60%
Evil King: 30%
Neutral King: 10%

#2

This probability is too high.

I’ve made this suggestion before but I think it should be 66.66…%/33.33…% with the 66% being good and the 33% being evil with a 0% chance of Neutral.

By day 2 he is already the most likely to be good and by Day 4 there is more likely to be a converted royal than an evil king

#3

Okay okay, but that’s only 99%, so what do we do with the 1%? Neutral King

#4

The 66 is repeating and so is the 33

#5

Okay okay, but then there’s no Neutral Kings. I mean, I feel that there should be at least a miniscule chance of them appearing so it’s not always Good or Evil.

1 Like
#6

Why? And if its 1% then no one will care about that chance and it wont matter except to arbitrarily screw people up (or accomplish absolutely nothing)

#7

Okay you got me there, but I would prefer lower chance of Evil, maybe down to 30 or something, but our point is the same: Good King chance has to go up.

#8

Huh? Don’t get this impression at all. My post-patch games have been significantly more boring and samey than pre-patch games.

King not having investigative abilities and a killing ability instead makes him entirely untrustworthy. Making King 66% good does not solve the problem whatsoever. You’re not going to get important BD to out themselves/communicate with the king even if there’s a 66% chance he’s good because…what if it’s the other 33% and the king is Evil and could just kill me tonight?

Best possible solution would be to revert the change to Sheriff and give Kings a nerfed version of Allies (sus/not sus, only usable starting n2 or something, 3 charges).

This new iteration of King has created many indirect problems that won’t be solved in simple ways, barring a reversal of the patch. This is what happens when you force through ham-fisted changes that have failed before.

#9

If as a sheriff I can find the unseen, and tell the king, if king is neut he won’t kill me, so i don’t see the difference between 66% bd, 33% evil to 33% bd, 33% neut, 33% evil.

I think the best way to play sheriff right now is just out yourself to the court so people can heal you. you can prevent people from visiting so sage/enforcer won’t be able to kill you that easly

#10

Yeah, outing yourself to only the King is about as bad of an idea as it should be lol

#11

I think people are getting this wrong, strategically. You should almost always share information with the king (unless he’s proven himself evil.)

Rationale:

A good king will obviously use the information he’s been given to help BD.

An evil king is placed in a bind. The people who gave him information know what they told him. If he’s seen as dragging his feet, he’ll be outed as evil. In particular, if someone says “I claimed to the king”, and the king is silent? If they get lynched and turn out to be BD, the king is next. This often forces neutral and evil kings to help BD to an extent.

Remember, the king can’t easily pass information to evils, and can’t easily act on information in an evil way because his powers tend to be social and obvious. There’s little risk in giving information to an evil king, and actually some benefit (because you force him to either behave like a BD king or risk outing himself.)

…anyway, that’s the idea. If people can figure out why people are so reluctant to share information with the king, we could address it. But basically, you shouldn’t need to trust him 100% - most of the time, the worst case scenario of giving info to an evil king is that he sits on it, which doesn’t really hurt BD more than it would have if you’d stayed silent.

EDIT: Oh, right, killer guards. We might want to get rid of those.

#12

They fixed the killer guards thing too. They are anounced.

#13

I donxt think they fixed them, theyxre unstoppable but announced, which is both good and bad

#14

It adds risk vs reward to both sides. I think it’s cool and it stops both Kings out and Yolocute.