Seriously, it’s kind of stupid. He’s dead. How does it make sense that an arrow just pops out of him into the accuser? He should just do nothing and die. He can’t claim, so if nobody knows he’s Hunter, then people will just think that he’s acting reaped and execute him. Makes no sense and never feels good.
1 Like
A reaped fool and hunter should react the same way when executed - either both do or neither
2 Likes
The player isn’t dead. They’re missing their soul.
The body dies after the soul has been gone for too long, but before that the victim can still walk, stand, blink, etc. (As evidenced by the fact they’ve walked to the meeting room and are standing at the table after their soul was stolen the previous night.)
Think of it more like being “empty” than being an actual dead body. The Hunter’s revenge killing is a reflex. XD
3 Likes
I think both personally.
I’ll just point this out.
Orange despises Fool.
So he’s gonna have quite a bit of bias there
Uh
If you have been killed
Why do you win when your husk is executed
If you have been killed
Why do you take out your first accuser
Don’t give me that lore shit, somebody come up with a good reason this should be the case balance-wise and try to convince me. Because I see exactly zero gameplay benefits to this, and gameplay pretty much trumps all for a real-time Mafia game.
1 Like
I don’t see why the Fool should win if he’s been dead for 1 day/night phase and has done nothing. His win condition reads “Convice others that you are guilty of treason and get them to execute”. I don’t see how a soulless dead body is going to do much convincing. The reap description clearly says they are killed and are just an empty body.
Also, you can’t kill some if they’re already dead.
Hunter shouldn’t shoot an arrow, and Fool shouldn’t get the win. The whole game is about talking. Reaped people are dead. Dead people don’t talk.
2 Likes
If anyone wants a non-lore biased answer to the OP’s question. Because then people would know that they were reaped.
I’d say keep it how it is except make it so the fool doesn’t win anyways despite BD still being unable to vote.
But they just die without saying anything
I think it’s kinda obvious at that point
For Hunters: If the Reaper identifies a possible Hunter before everyone else, then reaps them and uses that silence to get someone else to vote first against them, they ought to be rewarded for that. Granted, they can do the same thing with chill. I’m not sure how often a Reaped Hunter who gets executed is going to be the result of deliberate Reaper mechanations, but it makes gameplay sense for it to be a viable strategy.
For Fool victories: Sometimes, the Fool being lynched will be the result of them previously setting it up. In that case it’s at least not an unreasonable thing to hand them a victory. And, again, from the “town misses executions” perspective - which I think is the more important thing to think about, gameplay-wise, since the Fool winning or losing doesn’t directly affect anything else - if evils convince the court to lynch a Fool, they deserve the reward of missed executions, even if the Fool was reaped (does it make sense to deny them that reward in that situation?) And, tactically, it’s more interesting if they can cause the missed executions by getting people to lynch even a reaped fool.
The same is sort-of true for the Hunter. Even if the Reaper didn’t reap the Hunter deliberately, “trick the court into lynching the Hunter” ought to be a viable strategy for any evil, and I don’t think the game is improved by “robbing” them of their reward just because the Hunter turns out to have been reaped the night before.
(Really, what’s the argument for letting the BD avoid the punishment for lynching a reaped Hunter or Fool? Either the court is lynching blindly, or someone successfully tricked them into a mislynch - even with a completely silent target, I think that if you view it from the perspective of “should the BD be punished here or not / should the evil who tricked them get rewarded”, it’s obvious that it’s more interesting to go for punishing the BD / rewarding the evil.)
I guess you could deliver the Fool punishment without giving the Fool their victory, but that’s a bit counter-intuitive, and honestly, if the Fool gets lynched in that situation they probably did something to attract suspicion earlier, so I’m fine with erring on the side of granting them the win, especially since it doesn’t really cost anyone else anything (if we’ve already accepted that it’s more interesting to deliver the Fool-lynching punishment either way.)
So based on that, my vote would be definitely for full punishments for lynching reaped Fools or Hunters, and probably let the Fool get their win in that situation, although the last part doesn’t matter too much.
2 Likes
It definitely makes sense with the lore. It seems arbitrary to get killed for executing a dead person, so I agree. If you’re dead, your abilities shouldn’t work, and that should go with all classes, which the only other one would be Fool. Fool definitely shouldn’t win if they die at night, even if they get executed.