Undertaker (Neutral Benign) (5000+ views!!)

[JazzMusicStops]

It's purpose isn't to give votes
It's purpose is to live
hat's in

Besides I'd like to point out you're defending Kingmakers which are shit

[randomguyhavingfun]

How on earth can you defend kingmakers? Like how? They will happen always. And I have lost my fair share of games from kingmaking ( always siding with town cost me two arsonist games so far ) but I don't hate it like some do. Survivors goal is to survive which makes him completely neutral so he can give his vote to alignments ( always town ) which is a side effect that gives him a huge impact.

[JazzMusicStops]

Kingmakers are bad for balance and should be removed whenever possible
Therefore, the suicide part of the UT is fine

[PoptartPresident]

This role is absolutely fantastic!

However, I do have One issue with it that I will type out.

What purpose does this role serve to the town?

The main problem I have with this role idea is that it will contribute nothing to the town.
The thing is...the undertaker just does his only goal, and then literally leaves the town. So in other words, he just focuses on his one goal, and can pretty much ignore everything else around him.

That's not good because in Town of Salem, every single player needs a purpose. Everyone has a reason to be there. But not the undertaker.
If you ask me, I think this particular role would only be more town-sided given the fact that it can prevent jester haunt, and see cleaned roles. Which...is only good for the town, and slightly nerfs the janitor/jester. Both of which, are essential to picking off townies. Sure you may not be able to revive a buried target but...that would only matter if the buried person was a Jailor/Mayor. But it's still 2 evil eliminations vs 1 town elimination. Town gets more out of it.


But for now, the role is only here to do its goal, and then leave, serving literally no purpose to the game. There's no particular reason to want to kill off the undertaker, as he just...minds his own business.


But again, this is a very nice idea! But it's missing the one thing that it needs. Purpose. So for now:

/Nosupport

Two words for ya.....
Spoiler: NEUTRAL BENIGN!

None
It's NB

"Benign roles don't serve a purpose" is not true at all.

An amnesiac can literally join a side, granting that side another team member. An amnesiac can become the new serial killer everyone has to worry about when the original one died off. And so on.

The survivor is there to make you question role claims, as survivor is a very easy cover for an evil role. Just because the majority of players lynch/attack survivors, does not mean survivors are completely worthless. And as another user started, a spared survivor can help you vote late game.

So no. Simply saying "ITS A BENIGN ROLE" does not grant it the excuse to just serve no purpose to the town. Neutral benign roles serve purpose to the town. This role doesn't.

/Stillnosupport

[randomguyhavingfun]

Kingmakers are bad for balance and should be removed whenever possible
Therefore, the suicide part of the UT is fine

Fine as long as it impacs the game in another way. Kingnakers are not balanched but they are innevitable. And a completely neutral role like the survivor is needed for balanche so i think we cant really limit them too much right now.

[Jerme]

I think you are not makng yourself clear enough: THis is a neutral role, so there is no need for this role to serve a pupose for the TOWN, as this is an other alignment, but I guess you meant with "town" the game itself. Let me explain: This role serves as another claimspace for neutral roles (as Survivor), plus it also creates more doubt when a lynch call is made, since the one wanting to lynch a certain person could be the Undertaker having the person, they force a lynch upon, select in the prior night, additionally to the Executioner.

Is this enough for an explanation?
Please try to be more clear next time~

[PoptartPresident]

I think you are not makng yourself clear enough: THis is a neutral role, so there is no need for this role to serve a pupose for the TOWN, as this is an other alignment, but I guess you meant with "town" the game itself. Let me explain: This role serves as another claimspace for neutral roles (as Survivor), plus it also creates more doubt when a lynch call is made, since the one wanting to lynch a certain person could be the Undertaker having the person, they force a lynch upon, select in the prior night, additionally to the Executioner.

Is this enough for an explanation?
Please try to be more clear next time~

Yeah by the town I did mean "the entire game" not the town's side. Sorry for not clarifying that.

But I'm still sticking with what I said. Neutral benign roles DO serve a purpose to the game.
And claim space?? The undertaker currently falls under the investigative result Medium/Janitor/Undertaker/(Retributionist needs to be here too as of 1.5 unless this was intentional). This particular investigative result is not a threat to anyone, as there is a 1/4 chance you get someone that's actually threatening.
And the undertaker trying to lynch someone...? Why would an undertaker do that? I mean I get it so you can get a free burial. But do you even really need that? Town is fine encouraging lynching on its own.
As an undertaker, you wouldn't exactly wanna make yourself look suspicious. So accusing someone for your own burying strategy, is a very, very bad idea, as it makes YOU look suspicious. And as a benign role, you'd want everyone to like you.

As long as there is no confirmed janitor to make the public question you, you're pretty much a free B.
At least with Survivors, you do wanna question them 100% of the time since Survivor claims are the absolute easiest cover ups. (which is why they're often lynched anyway)


But with this role...you just...don't give a *shot*. Just bury a certain amount of people, leave the game, and never come back. You win.
Doesn't anyone see the problem with that?? You literally serve no purpose to anyone because all you have to do is your goal. So why should you be in the game at all?

With Executioners being able to win with anyone, they do have to hurt the town for their own win. It is the Executioner's purpose in town that makes accusations suspicious. And that is a very big play in ToS.
With Jesters being able to win with anyone, they have to lynch themselves. Do I even need to say what kind of impact Jesters have left on this game? They are the reason people love to abstain, and question every single public trial ever.
With Survivors, you can win with anyone, but the problem is that you have the ability to grant yourself temporary night immunity. This will not only make you look super suspicious if someone does end up attacking you, but this can also make you a distraction for the town while the Mafia/NK's attack. Survivors have also been known to be the tie-breaker of several games. Survivors, have purpose. Not ONLY that but the survivors are the "best" allies for Neutral killings. (Yeah witches win with them too but witches usually force control on the NK to ensure they witch themselves don't die.)
Amnesiacs...they don't win with anyone actually. They have to technically pick a side. But they still leave the impact of joining a side, or joining a lone role with a huge impact on the game.

The undertaker...it just does it's ability, no one really cares that much (Unless he buries an important town role that could've been revived. But that would mean you'd have to actually have a retibutionist...Technically counts as role reliance). Of course you'd be able win with anyone! You literally just left the town after your goal is completed. This role serves absolutely no purpose for anyone. He will not leave an impact on the game unlike every other role I've stated above.

Now, I wanna clarify something again. I do not think this role idea is garbage. I think it's abilities, it's attributes, it's very creative overall.
If you want me to agree with this role idea being in the game, then give it a purpose in the game. But until then:
/Stillnosupport

[Villagerlover]

I agree with PoptartPresident.

This role doesn't necessarily serve anyone any purpose. Why would you want an ally that's an undertaker? Your ally is gonna leave soon if he completes his goal anyway. So it's not like anyone would want to team up with you. But at the same time, no one would want to kill you either since you're just minding your own business. So...at the end, the undertaker will just be left alone to complete his goal of burying people, and then he'll leave. No purpose for anyone really.

[PoptartPresident]

Neutral benign roles tha currently exist serve a purpose. So this is just a lazy excuse jammy and trump.

Survivor doesn't serve a purpose, it's just there

Survivor is bad.

Yeah you may not like the survivor. I'm not a big fan of being one either.

But that doesn't change the fact that they leave an impact on the game.

[PoptartPresident]

Neutral benign roles tha currently exist serve a purpose. So this is just a lazy excuse jammy and trump.

Survivor doesn't serve a purpose, it's just there

Survivor is bad.

Yeah you may not like the survivor. I'm not a big fan of being one either.

But that doesn't change the fact that they leave an impact on the game.

No.

They don't.

At all.

Then explain to me why they're bad instead of just saying "it's bad" with no explanation.

I have already stated before that Survivors are the best allies for other neutrals, and along with that, Survivors commonly end up deciding who wins with his late game vote. Those are 2 impacts for the game that may not seem like a lot, but DO contribute to the game.

[JazzMusicStops]

Survivors are the best allies for other neutrals

Witch

Survivors commonly end up deciding who wins with his late game vote.

Kingmakers are shit

[PoptartPresident]

Survivors are the best allies for other neutrals

Witch

The witch is not a great ally to have, as more often than not, the witch will control you because they're afraid you might kill them, and you will become their little puppet.
Survivors just don't care. For the most part they will willing pair with you if you promise not to kill them.

Survivors commonly end up deciding who wins with his late game vote.

Kingmakers are shit

Yeah well it's better than having a 1 v 1 with someone you know you don't have a chance against. If there is a medium, survivor, and godfather. And the godfather attacked the survivor earlier, then the survivor has a good reason to help the medium lynch the godfather.
Survivors are the best allies because they can't do anything to you.

Wow. It's almost as though you just ignored my previous posts about all of this

[JazzMusicStops]

Survivors are the best allies for other neutrals

Witch

The witch is not a great ally to have, as more often than not, the witch will control you because they're afraid you might kill them, and you will become their little puppet.
Survivors just don't care. For the most part they will willing pair with you if you promise not to kill them.

Survivors commonly end up deciding who wins with his late game vote.

Kingmakers are shit

Yeah well it's better than having a 1 v 1 with someone you know you don't have a chance against. If there is a medium, survivor, and godfather. And the godfather attacked the survivor earlier, then the survivor has a good reason to help the medium lynch the godfather.
Survivors are the best allies because they can't do anything to you.

Survivors are more likely to side with Town
and Kingmakers are bad for balance, as well as being incredibly frustrating if you would have won otherwise

[PoptartPresident]

Survivors are the best allies for other neutrals

Witch

The witch is not a great ally to have, as more often than not, the witch will control you because they're afraid you might kill them, and you will become their little puppet.
Survivors just don't care. For the most part they will willing pair with you if you promise not to kill them.

Survivors commonly end up deciding who wins with his late game vote.

Kingmakers are shit

Yeah well it's better than having a 1 v 1 with someone you know you don't have a chance against. If there is a medium, survivor, and godfather. And the godfather attacked the survivor earlier, then the survivor has a good reason to help the medium lynch the godfather.
Survivors are the best allies because they can't do anything to you.

Survivors are more likely to side with Town
and Kingmakers are bad for balance, as well as being incredibly frustrating if you would have won otherwise (Well then maybe you should've thought twice about attacking the survivor claim)

Survivors are not always likely to win with town. It depends per game. Sometimes a survivor wants to pair with evils so that they get a guarenteed run of not getting killed at night.
And lately the reason Survivors keep joining evils is because the townies always wanna lynch them. Doesn't surprise me when survivors help evils.

But you can't just say "Survivors are more likely to side with Town." Because everyone looks at survivors, and plays them differently. Survivors will win with whoever they feel like winning with. There is no way to control who the survivor wins with other than influential reasons.

[DankaldTrump]

Poptart you literally said this role is great, but you don't think it's good because no purpose. This is a baseless argument. The UT does serve a purpose.

The assumption that having an ally that's an Undertaker is useless is extremely 10000000% false! Let's say for example, that the town wants to hang a mafia member, but they need another vote to do it, the UT burys the maf at night, then the next day votes for the maf member, giving you the vote majority you need, the UT gets the burial he needs and the town's gets rid of a maf member. The UT can help neutrals and mafia as well. The purpose of the UT, is to give a challenging role, that requires deductive reasoning assisted prediction, and a little bit of manipulation if need be. You have to pay attention to who dies, the day chat, and who is being considered scum. The UT requires you to put your thinking cap on in order to win. Before you say this is luck based, it's not, if you just randomly choose people to bury at night, you will rarely win any games. The UT doesn't necessarily need to be engraved into town/mafia activities to be a good role, but it does help if you do it right. In addition, this role serves as valuable claimspace to night immune roles to give them some much needed cover.

[randomguyhavingfun]

Survivors are the best allies for other neutrals

Witch never picks someone that isn't mafia because fuck nks she is already hard to win as and if she does in that 1:1000000 games she controls you all the time

Survivors commonly end up deciding who wins with his late game vote.

Kingmakers are shit but a lo of nk and mafia wins are from them. Imagine a world where those precious wins were town ones

[PoptartPresident]

Poptart you literally said this role is great, but you don't think it's good because no purpose. This is a baseless argument. The UT does serve a purpose.

The assumption that having an ally that's an Undertaker is useless is extremely 10000000% false! Let's say for example, that the town wants to hang a mafia member, but they need another vote to do it, the UT burys the maf at night, then the next day votes for the maf member, giving you the vote majority you need, the UT gets the burial he needs and the town's gets rid of a maf member. The UT can help neutrals and mafia as well. The purpose of the UT, is to give a challenging role, that requires deductive reasoning assisted prediction, and a little bit of manipulation if need be. You have to pay attention to who dies, the day chat, and who is being considered scum. The UT requires you to put your thinking cap on in order to win. Before you say this is luck based, it's not, if you just randomly choose people to bury at night, you will rarely win any games. The UT doesn't necessarily need to be engraved into town/mafia activities to be a good role, but it does help if you do it right. In addition, this role serves as valuable claimspace to night immune roles to give them some much needed cover.

Your argument about the Undertaker being the tie-breaker in a voting situation doesn't work. Why? Well...if the Undertaker had won to begin with, he wouldn't even be there to participate would he? He would've already left the town. If he is the deciding tie-breaker, he shouldn't give a *flock* about the other voters because he isn't gonna win no matter who he lynches. It's like when the deciding tie breaker is the jester that hasn't been lynched yet. Why should he care who wins? He isn't gonna win. Same logic applies here.
The only reason the Survivors are the best tie-breakers is because the Survivor will win either way, and it's up to him. So at the very least, the Survivor cares about the faction he wins with.
And yes, while the Undertaker requires you to..."strategically predict" who's gonna die, you'll still contribute nothing to the town other than your buried players can't be revived/haunt (and cleaned roles are for you to know too).

And "valuable claim space?" Not really...I mean you fall under Medium/Janitor/Retributionist. It's not like the medium is such a tight claim anyway. The medium is one of the very few roles evils can get away with claiming because medium's can't really be confirmed so easily. Adding undertaker wouldn't change that. If anything, you will be called out for claiming undertaker when you're actually lying. It's just easier to claim Medium. Townies don't mind lynching neutrals. Townies DO mind lynching Townies.


The point I am trying to make (not too sure if it's clear), is that the undertaker does not have a strong impact on the game in comparison to the other 2 neutral benigns he supposedly belongs with. When he should.

This is still a good and creative role.
I would gladly change my mind if you were to make adjustments to the undertaker to a point where the Mafia/Town/Other Neutrals have an actual reason to care about an undertaker being in their town.

[JazzMusicStops]

Kingmakers are shit but a lo of nk and mafia wins are from them. Imagine a world where those precious wins were town ones

[/quote]
Town doesn't win 1v1 against scum usually so that point is invalid
Plus you're making someone who should have lost win, so my point that it's bad for balance still stands and you've proven nothing

[randomguyhavingfun]

Kingmakers are shit but a lo of nk and mafia wins are from them. Imagine a world where those precious wins were town ones

Town doesn't win 1v1 against scum usually so that point is invalid
Plus you're making someone who should have lost win, so my point that it's bad for balance still stands and you've proven nothing[/quote]
I don't have anything to prove. You are the one trying to prove that survivor is bad for balanche. Town doesn't win in one v one but it can win in 4v3 or 2v1 can't it?

[Villagerlover]

Kingmakers are shit but a lo of nk and mafia wins are from them. Imagine a world where those precious wins were town ones

Town doesn't win 1v1 against scum usually so that point is invalid
Plus you're making someone who should have lost win, so my point that it's bad for balance still stands and you've proven nothing[/quote]


Survivors are not bad for balance. I an guarantee you at least 50% of those NK win rates are only because a survivor fucking helped them in some manner.
You're not exactly proving anything either by just saying "You should've won but the survivor didn't let you"
That's why you are allowed to kill the survivor :3 (Just...good luck with that)


Are you suggesting that the Survivor is against the town as a whole? And it's not fair that the survivor always votes with the evil roles and helps them win when it SHOULD'VE been the evil role that lost??
Well maybe the town shouldn't be such an ass to a survivor claim. And maybe...juuuuust maybe, the survivor would help town.

[JazzMusicStops]

Survivors are not bad for balance

I lol'd

[Villagerlover]

Survivors are not bad for balance

I lol'd

Well it's clear your simple mind didn't read anything else. So keep loling

[DankaldTrump]

Your argument about the Undertaker being the tie-breaker in a voting situation doesn't work. Why? Well...if the Undertaker had won to begin with, he wouldn't even be there to participate would he? He would've already left the town. If he is the deciding tie-breaker, he shouldn't give a *flock* about the other voters because he isn't gonna win no matter who he lynches. It's like when the deciding tie breaker is the jester that hasn't been lynched yet. Why should he care who wins? He isn't gonna win. Same logic applies here.
The only reason the Survivors are the best tie-breakers is because the Survivor will win either way, and it's up to him. So at the very least, the Survivor cares about the faction he wins with.
And yes, while the Undertaker requires you to..."strategically predict" who's gonna die, you'll still contribute nothing to the town other than your buried players can't be revived/haunt (and cleaned roles are for you to know too).

And "valuable claim space?" Not really...I mean you fall under Medium/Janitor/Retributionist. It's not like the medium is such a tight claim anyway. The medium is one of the very few roles evils can get away with claiming because medium's can't really be confirmed so easily. Adding undertaker wouldn't change that. If anything, you will be called out for claiming undertaker when you're actually lying. It's just easier to claim Medium. Townies don't mind lynching neutrals. Townies DO mind lynching Townies.

.

First of all, your voting scenario argument is completely invalid, what if I am at 2 burials and I still need a third? Checkmate.
Secondly, your invest result argument is even more invalid! I mean seriously! If this role were to be added (along with other roles), it would certainly cause the invest results to change. Also, the results were made before 1.5.
What I don't think that you seem to understand, is that this is a neutral Benign role. let's pull up some definitions shall we?
Spoiler: neutral
adjective
1.
not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
Spoiler: Benign
Gentle, quiet.
The Undertaker perfectly fits the definition of both words. The Undertaker is a true neutral benign. If I wanted it to be more involved with the town, I would have made it a town role, if mafia, I would have made it a maf role. A true Neutral benign's job is to furfuill it's own goal, which has little to no effect on ethier of the big factions. That, the UT does perfectly.

[JazzMusicStops]

Survivors are not bad for balance

I lol'd

Well it's clear your simple mind didn't read anything else. So keep loling

Survivors are not good for balance
Citizens are good for balance
Mafia Tactical is good for balance
A lot of things are good for balance
Survivors aren't
Neutral Benign in general isn't good for balance
Hell, you could make the case that all Neutrals are bad for balance and that the game would be best with just Town vs Mafia

And by the way, calling someone and idiot doesn't make your point any more valid

[SzGamer227]

Kingmakers are shit because they replace winning with skill with instead having to win by getting a random Neutral's vote. A bad town that let a Werewolf get to the end of the game can still win just because a Survivor decides to vote with town. A Mafia who didn't deal with an Arsonist until it was too late doesn't deserve to win just because they get the Survivor's tie-breaking vote. Survivor just arbitrarily gets to decide who wins, regardless of how well one side played over the other.

Survivors being kingmakers is one of the reasons an Elo system is a terrible system for Town of Salem. Elo doesn't represent your skill, it represents how much you win, and a big part of winning is getting in the kingmaker's good graces or very simply getting lucky by not being on the side the Survivor has a grudge against.

Imagine you're playing a game of chess, you completely smear your opponent because they played sloppily and you were better at the game, and then you lose because an unbiased bystander decided your opponent should be the winner anyways. This is the problem with Survivors.