Uh, it stops people from voting after it has won?
I think that fool should be offensive myself. Mostly because I don’t get why wildcard is even a thing. I mean, does the Reaper look out for others? Of course not!
Can you investigate the King? Nope.
And the majority of the time, yes, the King is objectively scum.
Depends on how much you personally trust neutral Kings, especially with the general mindset of letting evils win in kingmaking situations because it’s generally harder to do.
no it doesn’t
Scum = can’t win with the uninformed majority (i.e. Blue Dragon)
Neutral King can win with BD and is therefore not scum
Whatever title you want to give neutral king is irrelevant.
The point remains that human behavior sways neutral kings to give the win to evils in kingmaking situations more often than town. I’ve seen this time and time again. This means neutral king has greater than a 50% chance of siding with evils when possible.
Whether or not it gets to the kingmaking scenarios depends on how strong BD is at the moment, but psychology sways kingmakers to evil sides much more often, especially if it is a NK.
So in other words the king is scum more than 50% of the time as far as anyone else is concerned
Hmm are you sure of that?
What’s your own behaviour?
Because that influences your samples…
Do you only feel that?
Or do you KNOW that?
I think I sided with BD fairly often, but I have a priority list(with number 1 being obviously survival)
I have seen many a king make in ToS; the survivor (or already won exe) can be swayed in the mafia v sk scenario that “More people win if you let us win”.
Not only that, but I played a game as assassin vs last knight, with a losts corned turned neut king by BD. I was converted and pushed for him to get king. However, they still decided to side with BD, the ones who let her win ( if you wonder how she did this, she game them a guard)
I personally would have guarded myself. Solo victory would have been cool.
Short Answer: Yes.
Long Answer: If Neutral Kings broke even exactly 50% of the time between helping BD vs. Scum, that means out of a large sample of games the chance of King being good is exactly a coin flip.
My assumption is that Neutral kingmakers tend to side with scum. Any negativity bias I could have in this matter is negated by the fact that I’ve been the scum in those games to enjoy the favor of the kingmaker. I’ve played enough ToS and enough ToL to understand the significant psychology behind allowing the underdog to win.
Now, it’s difficult to say exactly what constitutes an “evil” neutral king vs a “good” neutral king. The issue is that a neutral king’s thought and decision pattern will be vastly different than any other player in the game because it is extremely malleable to the shifting environment.
I’ve seen plenty of kingmakers side with BD. But I would bet money that if Imperium42 somehow could gather the raw data of 1000 games or so and let us process the W/L ratio between BD and Scum in games where it came to the final 3, I would bet money the scum would win.
I dont know specifically about the situation on ToL, but i will agree with Sketch in that human psychology does tend to want the underdog to win, and as such when given the choice between underdog and non-underdog teams, most people would chose the underdog team to win.
in terms of FoL/ToL, personally, I’d go with loyalty over underdog, and even sometimes over winning, if i/my word is challenged enough
Another point to talk about is the rule of Neutrality – “I side with BD (…until I don’t have to anymore.)”
Is a Neutral King a “good” king if they provide no assistance to BD but still win because scum was curbstomped? I wouldn’t consider that a “good” outcome.
This is why I love the change that made King immune to execution for the first few days – it was always advantageous to eliminate the King to remove doubt and put up a BD. At least with this change, the King will have time to prove their allegiance and maybe BD will be too distracted to hang the King once leads have sprung up.