Neutrals: How do you think they fit in?

[McKinley]

As the title says, how do you think the neutral roles fit in? Are they there to add spice to a game and give players a unique change? Are they meant to create a pathway to victory for a side that would dreadfully lose no matter the odds? Are they there to merely shove the middle finger up your ass? Or... Well, you tell us. Or me. Depending on how many read this.

[dga]

Well in my opinion.
Witch is very powerful when played right. So much confusion going on when there is a witch. She can really decide the game
Arsonist so cool when he survives and lights up lots of people in late game.
Jester will keep the town from random lynching, if the town are not sheeps.
...and so on, I think they are all fun and add confusion to most games. (Depends on town etc.).

[Lazers]

Well they're called neutral because they take the game where they want it usually

this can mean either they work passively for their win or they kill 6 people in one night via fire

they're a wildcard, really

[JSaint]

Most of the time, Neutrals are actually anti town, in my opinion. They are like a seperate team from mafia that *tries* to win on their own, but from experience, you mostly work with the mafia, and then you try to get rid of them later and vice versa.

Except survivor and amnesiac, the rest of the roles are really killing town mostly.

I find adding too many of them means town will lose very fast. especially on a 3 mafia 1 sk and 2 random neutrals that exclude benign.

You have to also take into account Town's intelligence and the fact that the mafia know who each other are.

[McKinley]

I personally feel neutral roles provide a chaotic twist to the natural scheme of the game. Instead of focusing on just Mafia Vs. Town, you have to keep your mind open to any and all possibilities. You cannot simple take word-of-mouth for granted, and you must calcuate the possibilities that are given in each and every setup. There are countless possibilities, endless outcomes, and never does one match ever go the same. I feel that Neutrals are the key reason for this as well. Without them, the "wild card" wouldn't be as present. I cite my most recent Neutral win, being Arsonist, as an example.

To sum the replay in short: I claimed to be a Survivor when two neutral roles were present, with not static neutral killing role placed in the setup. Serial Killer kills that same night, and Mafia were the folks that attacked me. Serial Killer was routed and discovoered extremely fast, and I convinced the entire town, and Mafia, that I was truly a Survivor. Cultists were present, Town had a Mayor and two jailors and an end-game strength of 25. Mafia had a Framer, and Disguiser. I feel that with such strengths present, it all ends up going back toward the game's original concept of deception, manipulation, and problem-solving. Neutral roles add such a greater level to this, and add such a stronger impact to the game when individuals play their roles out to beautiful extents.

*EDIT: My in-game name is Lucifer, Mafia-name AFK Jester. I do find it extremely funny how I get Arsonist when my username is Lucifer.

[creedkingsx]

I think of them simply as that chaos factor. They are what allow to be different. If someone were to play a specific save that was standard x mafia versus y town, they would eventually get it down to a certain science where they could either side easily.
But you have neutrals, that is a person either has to be controlled or convinced to work with your side. In such cases, everyone is different with how they are convinced or not.

[Admiral]

Evil neutrals want to work with the Mafia because there are less of them. Why would you get rid of the Mafia first and leave the larger faction large?