Mafia/Triad Extorter or Briber

[Shepherd]

Similar in functionality to a witch at night, this Mafia/Triad role represents the Mafia's ability to make common folk work for them by means of blackmail, extortion, bribes, etc.

Certain officials might be immune to bribery.

Player would receive notification of the attempt (or not depending on checks but i'd assume normally he would)

Probably would require a wait between evenings (to gather funds, though that would be an option I expect).

It'd be a cool addition to the crime syndicate family.

[Cryptonic]

I like this, as long as the target's are always informed of being controlled. That, and maybe charges. Idk

[McKinley]

That's redundant. In full ultimate conditions, witch will always side with triad/mafia. Being able to have a town member behave to the full will of mafia + communication is too powerful. Force a jailor to kill. Force a sheriff to visit a veteran. Grab doctor to heal other mafia. Force vigi to kill off town. Mafia shouldn't be allowed to 100% control town without verbal manipulation and logical misdirection with false claims and lying.

[McKinley]

I did not say that mafia sides with witch -- I said witch sides with mafia. Often out of pure fear. If you're facing down 3 mafia, 4 town, and yourself, you're not going to try and help town or try to kill of mafia. Sure, later down you might try for the solo win. However, more often than not, conditions do not meet manipulation for witch to solo win. Regardless, it does not dispute the hard proof that shows mafia does not deserve a controlling role.

[deathworlds]

+1 to this

[Shepherd]

I did not say that mafia sides with witch -- I said witch sides with mafia. Often out of pure fear. If you're facing down 3 mafia, 4 town, and yourself, you're not going to try and help town or try to kill of mafia. Sure, later down you might try for the solo win. However, more often than not, conditions do not meet manipulation for witch to solo win. Regardless, it does not dispute the hard proof that shows mafia does not deserve a controlling role.

If your argument is that "witch often sides with Mafia, so the Mafia doesn't need a controlling role" then you really have just said nobody should make a save with a Witch and a Briber/Extorter, not necessarily that the role doesn't make sense or couldn't be useful.

Considering Witch may "often" side with Mafia, but will (in my experiences) at first chance side with SKs, or other neutrals against Mafia, and if given the opportunity, kill off Mafia to further their own ends, I don't think it's fair to equate them together. So I have no idea what hard proof you're talking about. Statistical numbers that show Mafia would be overpowered with the implementation of a controlling role?

As to implementation - it'd probably be the type of role that could only work once every night/other night/2 nights in between. And maybe limited to 2-3 types. Certain roles would be immune to bribery (with options to change toggle that on and off), and if you tried bribing an immune target, he finds out who you are.

Your example of a vigilante being made to kill off town might only work once (assuming briber can find the vigilante) but vigilante has limited shots, and briber has to wait between bribes. He can't randomly bribe otherwise he risks being found out. Meaning, briber has to wait to find a confirmed townie (a veteran to send another person into, a vigilante to use to shoot people) or risk being outed immediately for trying to bribe the wrong player, and then it's likely one time use only since you'd need to wait another night or two and hope to get lucky your vigilante still has shots (or veteran is alerted, which is even more chancy).

Meaning most nights, he won't do stuff - which makes it amusing in that he would likely make Mafia weaker in many circumstances, since he chooses not to do anything, but in very strategic spots could be VERY useful.

Personally I see no reason to suspect it would be overpowered in most circumstances, though in some rare ones it would be exceedingly useful. Or to put it in your terminology, I see nothing in your post to dispute the hard proof that this role would make a good addition to gameplay, make games more strategic and interesting, and happens to fit in reasonably well with how a crime family works.

[McKinley]

You're taking my argument out of context. Mafia is meant to win the game through manipulation and correctly picking out who to eliminate. They do not need to have a 100% confirmed ability to control another player against their actions. The reason a neutral role can do so, is because they are alone in the darkness. They do not know who, is who. What is what. So on and so forth. Mafia will already have a general idea of who they need to take down by day two, the latest day three. This can also force a Serial Killer/MM/Arsonist/Cultist to work against their own goals. Giving Mafia an ability to 100% control a player forces an unnecessary advantage to them. Even if you limit it to few uses, and have it where you're exposed and revealed, it still favors heavily for mafia in the fact that they can simply counter-claim, or with a blackmailer duo, shut down that person entirely. Mafia already has a roleblocker, and a jailor, and several misdirection roles. Being able to force a killing role to work with them and in the end cause them to lose, is beyond unfair. Not to mention, even if the controller dies, mafia now knows who they are.

Letting them have 100% confirmed manipulation is unfair to the rest of the game. They're a team, that has a higher level of communication than the rest of the town. There is a 0% need for them to have their own form of a Witch.

[Shepherd]

You're taking my argument out of context. Mafia is meant to win the game through manipulation and correctly picking out who to eliminate. They do not need to have a 100% confirmed ability to control another player against their actions. The reason a neutral role can do so, is because they are alone in the darkness. They do not know who, is who. What is what. So on and so forth. Mafia will already have a general idea of who they need to take down by day two, the latest day three. This can also force a Serial Killer/MM/Arsonist/Cultist to work against their own goals. Giving Mafia an ability to 100% control a player forces an unnecessary advantage to them. Even if you limit it to few uses, and have it where you're exposed and revealed, it still favors heavily for mafia in the fact that they can simply counter-claim, or with a blackmailer duo, shut down that person entirely. Mafia already has a roleblocker, and a jailor, and several misdirection roles. Being able to force a killing role to work with them and in the end cause them to lose, is beyond unfair. Not to mention, even if the controller dies, mafia now knows who they are.

Letting them have 100% confirmed manipulation is unfair to the rest of the game. They're a team, that has a higher level of communication than the rest of the town. There is a 0% need for them to have their own form of a Witch.

I disagree completely in that it is unfair or overpowered in any way. They'd get a controlling role that is extremely limited at how often it can control, and likely to OUT himself as a member of mafia if he screws up. They are likely to only have limited amount of uses per game (most games are over by Day 7 so they may only get to use a skill once or twice).

Personally I think it's an intriguing aspect of gameplay since it's a role that would have to be played VERY skillfully. You can't just randomly grab a townie like a Witch can, since a Witch's victim can only know he is controlled (but not by whom). In these circumstances, the Briber's target might KNOW who he is. With voting records the way they tend to be, it's likely he could cost Mafia an entire game if he plays wrong. But if a Vigilante outs himself at the wrong moment it could enable a Briber to get off a quick shot at a Mayor or something.

And again I think you'd probably make roles like SK, MM, Arsonist, etc, immune to bribes. In fact I'd say all neutral would likely be immune. Probably also make certain town roles toggleable for immunity (like Mayor, Marshall, Veteran, Jailor, etc). Granted they have no night roles, but if you make them immune, once someone attempts to bribe them, they can out them.

Or of course, town could assume if a player outs a briber they are either a good town role... or a bad guy immune to it. You seem to picture this working like a Witch. I view this more like a witch in terms of what it can do, but also similar to cult in that if they target the wrong person, it can out them. So it's definitely a more vulnerable witch. And with limitations on how often he can use his ability... I don't see it as overpowered even a little bit.

[lingsarecute]

Seems a little OP comparing to the witch, which is completely alone and has no friends