Survivor Neutrality and Risks

[Randyxpxp]

There are a number of strategic facets of Town of Salem I’ve discussed in my threads. One of the most bothersome to me, though, is the survivor who aggressively aligns itself with town in early game and is subsequently killed in some way or another by evils. The survivor question is a broad field that covers a variety of tactics, risks, and alignments. There are various ways that one can play survivor, various alignments that one can choose, even various fake claims that can prove effective. However, in my analysis, one of the gravest mistakes that a survivor can make is to aggressively side against evils in early game, and effectively align itself with town. While this can potentially result in a win, there are serious risks that this carries, risks that are unnecessary to assume for a survivor. There are a number of reasons this is a mistake, and a serious risk to survivor, issues I’ll elaborate further upon in this thread.

As a basic framework of survivor, consider the risks from evils that a survivor faces:

1. Survivor wins with all roles. This includes mafia, vampires, and all evils. Survivor is not a town role. It does not need to side with town. It does not need town to win. It can win with any faction whatsoever and is essentially the epitome of true neutral.
2. The survivor may be targeted by serial killers, a werewolf, or arsonists. Any of these NK can easily kill the survivor, especially werewolf and arsonist, who bypass its basic defense. If a survivor aggressively pushes evils, it is more likely the survivor will be targeted by an NK. One of the reasons NK may target survivor is that, on some level, the NK may feel that if the survivor is trying to get the NK killed, then the NK is going to take the survivor with them, an eye for an eye. Especially in scenarios in which an NK feels it is already doomed, it is more inclined to doom the survivor who is siding against evils. Despite this, there is strategic value in lynching NK in some situations, particularly werewolves and arsonists. The way in which the survivor lynches the NK may be more or less contentious however. A silent vote is much less conflictual.
3. The survivor may be targeted by mafia. This includes attacks, distractions, blackmail, and framing. A determined mafia may even send its consort to the survivor to prevent them from using a vest so the MK can kill them that night. If a survivor aggressively pushes evils, it is more likely they will be targeted by mafia than if the survivor is simply neutral, or implicitly or explicitly sides with mafia/evils. Mafia may also frame an unfriendly survivor as an arsonist or other NK in order to get them lynched or executed. This is again especially likely in scenarios in which the mafia already feels doomed and wishes to take the hostile survivor with them. Hostile survivors are also more likely to be NK in general, on a theoretical level, since NK needs most other roles dead.
4. The survivor may be targeted by vampires. This isn’t always disastrous for the survivor. However, if a survivor aggressively pushes evils, vampires are probably more likely to target them, especially in late game when the survivor probably has no vests. Vampires would rather turn a survivor into one of their own than get lynched by the survivor. If the survivor is turned into a vampire, this may very well prove its downfall, as it now cannot win with all factions and can only win with vampires, NE, and NB.
5. Even when a survivor pushes evils, a jailor or vigilante may feel intimidated by the survivor, may consider it suspicious for the survivor claim to push others so aggressively, or may even misperceive the survivor’s aggression as evil and, for any reason, decide to execute or shoot the survivor.
6. Being aggressive in any way as a survivor is probably more likely to make the survivor a target of witches, executioners, and jesters, who may dislike the survivor’s aggressive incursions against evil and may be more likely to lynch (or haunt) them than other targets, even town. A survivor who is friendly and keeps a low profile is less likely to incur the wrath of sinister neutral evils.

Survivor is not town. I cannot stress this enough. Yet in many instances I’ve observed, survivors operate as if they’re town, and as if they must side furiously against any and all evils, and in the vast majority of these instances, this only incurs the wrath of evils, and often results in the death of the survivor by lynching or murder. Pushing to vote someone guilty, pushing to vote someone innocent, asking for roles, asking for leads, making accusations, etc., all of these actions draw the ire of evils, and increase the risk the survivor will die in some fashion. In contrast, simply claiming survivor, keeping a low profile, and being neutral is definitively more likely to keep a survivor in the good graces of others, even town. Neutrality can involve not voting, staying quiet, not asking for roles, not asking for leads, not making accusations, abstaining on trials, etc. All of these are more likely to both make you look like a survivor and prevent you from being a target. Neither town nor evils have any obligation whatsoever to keep you alive. They can rid of you for any reason they so please. So remember you’re a disposable neutral before you go trying to get evils lynched and killed.

Now, having said that, there is still strategic value in deflecting suspicion from yourself onto someone else when suspicion is cast onto you. If you have information or observations that lead you to think someone is evil, deflecting suspicion onto them may save you from getting killed. This can backfire, but sometimes evils will even deliberately push to lynch survivors to prevent themselves from getting lynched or killed, and this is a critical moment for the survivor, who must balance its neutrality with the necessity to survive. Even so, sometimes survivors will just get lynched or killed, and there’s nothing you can really do about it. That’s part of the game. Being hostile to others, though, is not in the spirit of true neutrality, and will more often than not make a survivor an enemy of evils, who could easily be the survivor’s allies.

[GrumpyGoomba]

k

[wozearly]

It depends a heck of a lot on the game mode.

For example, in the old ranked list where there was a guaranteed Survivor, Survivors tended to be Town-sided in the early game, with the potential opportunity to conduct a reverse-ferret and side with the evils later on, if Town loses its killing roles and fails to keep voting majority. Because there was at least one Survivor, it was a fairly risky prospect for most evil roles (Jester aside) to claim Survivor early on and absolute suicide to counterclaim a Survivor. As a result, Survivors tended to walk one of two paths - claiming incredibly early to establish their credentials and then siding with Town unless or until Town lost, or keeping a low/town-sided profile until the NK was out of the way, then claiming Survivor when the Mafia attacked them to explain their night immunity.

The logic behind this was solid, because Town had a good reason to lynch non-Town members. While the Survivor wasn't a priority, it couldn't be trusted and, potentially, could be something more dangerous pretending to be a Survivor (e.g. an NK whose night immunity was revealed by the Spy). So if there were no better leads, Town had a fairly reasonable incentive to lynch Survivor claims unless the Survivor was actively helping them either by revealing immediately to narrow down the rolelist and help direct TIs or by "taking a bullet for the Town" later on.

In games with no guaranteed Survivors, a Survivor claim is a much riskier prospect. As a fairly easy to claim role which can explain night immunity and which doesn't tend to attract Mafia attention, it's a fairly common NK claim - Town would be right to be suspicious of it, and Mafia have an incentive to lynch a Survivor that might be something more dangerous that they can't kill at night.

In these games, the Survivor is generally better off keeping a fairly low profile or, potentially, claiming to be a comparatively harmless role (e.g. Medium). Ideally, a Survivor playing the long game who doesn't know what the other factions look like (common in All Any), should be looking to keep track of confirmed/likely Town roles that it doesn't want to annoy while Town has majority while trying to identify potential allies amongst the Mafia and Neutrals - Witch, Mafia and NK being the priorities.

Ultimately, the Survivor needs to be aware of which roles/factions are in play that can get it killed, side with the largest current threat and try to have particularly dangerous roles removed ASAP (Werewolf and Arsonist) as a priority, with Vigilante not too far behind. Jailor is also good to remove, but in practice incredibly difficult for the Survivor to influence. If Town are establishing solid control over the game, and the Jailor is alive, the Survivor has a huge incentive to remove the night killing roles and get themselves checked by a confirmed Investigator or, at a pinch, a Sheriff if the Godfather is no longer in play.

If the Jailor is dead, the Survivor has more practical options to ally with the evils - but they still need to be careful of roles which can kill them through their vests, a paranoid Town worried about losing its majority, or if the game is running long enough that their vests will run out before the end.

[Randyxpxp]

It depends a heck of a lot on the game mode.

For example, in the old ranked list where there was a guaranteed Survivor, Survivors tended to be Town-sided in the early game, with the potential opportunity to conduct a reverse-ferret and side with the evils later on, if Town loses its killing roles and fails to keep voting majority. Because there was at least one Survivor, it was a fairly risky prospect for most evil roles (Jester aside) to claim Survivor early on and absolute suicide to counterclaim a Survivor. As a result, Survivors tended to walk one of two paths - claiming incredibly early to establish their credentials and then siding with Town unless or until Town lost, or keeping a low/town-sided profile until the NK was out of the way, then claiming Survivor when the Mafia attacked them to explain their night immunity.

The logic behind this was solid, because Town had a good reason to lynch non-Town members. While the Survivor wasn't a priority, it couldn't be trusted and, potentially, could be something more dangerous pretending to be a Survivor (e.g. an NK whose night immunity was revealed by the Spy). So if there were no better leads, Town had a fairly reasonable incentive to lynch Survivor claims unless the Survivor was actively helping them either by revealing immediately to narrow down the rolelist and help direct TIs or by "taking a bullet for the Town" later on.

In games with no guaranteed Survivors, a Survivor claim is a much riskier prospect. As a fairly easy to claim role which can explain night immunity and which doesn't tend to attract Mafia attention, it's a fairly common NK claim - Town would be right to be suspicious of it, and Mafia have an incentive to lynch a Survivor that might be something more dangerous that they can't kill at night.

In these games, the Survivor is generally better off keeping a fairly low profile or, potentially, claiming to be a comparatively harmless role (e.g. Medium). Ideally, a Survivor playing the long game who doesn't know what the other factions look like (common in All Any), should be looking to keep track of confirmed/likely Town roles that it doesn't want to annoy while Town has majority while trying to identify potential allies amongst the Mafia and Neutrals - Witch, Mafia and NK being the priorities.

Ultimately, the Survivor needs to be aware of which roles/factions are in play that can get it killed, side with the largest current threat and try to have particularly dangerous roles removed ASAP (Werewolf and Arsonist) as a priority, with Vigilante not too far behind. Jailor is also good to remove, but in practice incredibly difficult for the Survivor to influence. If Town are establishing solid control over the game, and the Jailor is alive, the Survivor has a huge incentive to remove the night killing roles and get themselves checked by a confirmed Investigator or, at a pinch, a Sheriff if the Godfather is no longer in play.

If the Jailor is dead, the Survivor has more practical options to ally with the evils - but they still need to be careful of roles which can kill them through their vests, a paranoid Town worried about losing its majority, or if the game is running long enough that their vests will run out before the end.

A thoughtful reply, and definitely relevant to this thread. I was mainly making the point that it's dangerous to be overly aggressive as survivor, or even aggressive at all. Smart evils should almost never attack a survivor claim who asks to be investigated and who remains neutral. This is basically an extra vote/non-vote in mid to late game, and can easily mean the difference between a town and an evil win. Some survivors get too aggressive and they end up getting lynched or killed for it. It's one thing to quietly vote against an outed werewolf or arsonist. It's something else entirely to push random people for roles and vocally push for lynches and so forth. This is not only going to piss people off but it's going to make you look like you aren't actually a survivor but something else, maybe an arsonist or even a vampire. I think the best survivor strategy is to claim D1, ask to be investigated, and then be neutral until your vote would eliminate a clear threat such as a werewolf or an arsonist and serve to resolve the faction disputes.

[PuppetPrincess]

I've always wanted Survivors brought back to normal Ranked, but now more than ever. Whoever hacked my account spent all my coins buying Survivor Scrolls. : (