There are two types of survivor players - Loyalists and Schemers. The struggle between them creates the most interesting moral conflicts on the show, because they have different ideas about what is fair or decent in the game. Seasons dominated by Loyalists play out very differently then those dominated by Schemers.
Loyalists must do some scheming, just as Schemers must feign loyalty. Both types form alliances early in the game, vote out weak or obnoxious tribe members, and target the strongest players on the opposing tribe. The big difference comes in the endgame.
Loyalists like to be loyal to their friends. They find it hard to betray their allies, after working together as a team throughout the game. They prefer to go to the finals with people they respect. They have scruples - there are certain things they won't do (betraying their closest buddy, or faking friendship, or lying in certain situations). Their focus is not 100% selfish - they may help "good people" stay in the game or target the "undeserving" (however they define it).
Schemers will do anything to win. They play hardcore.They may feign friendship, but really only make alliances of convenience. Their hallmark strategy is to vote out the strong and the good (however that is defined by the jury) and go to the fianls with the Goat, the unpopular person. Loyalists focus on getting others to vote FOR them (by being likable, a good leader, etc). Schemers strive to get a F2 opponent that the jury will vote AGAINST.
Loyalist seasons feature stable alliances and lots of pagonging. S2 and S3 are good examples. Traitors and suspected traitors are quickly targeted (Brandon and Kelly G), and nobody will jump ship to better their position. Amber and Kim J remain loyal, even though they aren't part of the inner alliance of their tribe. Tina and Brandon win because of unselfish decisions made by Ultra-Loyalists, Colby and Kim J.
Seasons dominated by Schemers often features lots of power shifts and surprises. The downside is that undeserving or morally repulsive people are more likely to make it to the end. Strong, popular and hardworking folks will be targeted, as players plot to get a beatable F2 opponent. Richard and Brian are the classic Schemers who led alliances and dominated their seasons. S4 and S6 each had several schemers battling it out.
To summarize. When everyone is a loyalist the danger is boredom. If there are lots of schemers, the people we care about and the deserving players tend to be eliminated before the end. Loyalists and Schemers produces some of the most fascinating ethical conflicts on the show. Consider S5 and S6:
Brian - Schemer
Clay - Goat
Helen - Loyalist
Jenna - Loyalist
Matt - Goat
Rob C - Schemer
Who would have thought Helen and Jenna - such different women - would end up in the same category? Yet both are loyalists, and their respective betrayals by Brian and Rob C. represent classic Loyalist\Schemer confrontations. Both women thought their friendship with the Schemer would translate into loyalty in the game. Helen saw herself and Brian as the most hardworking players, who should go to the end together. Jenna was loyal to Heidi and wanted to go to the F4 with people she cared about. Helen and Jenna took it hard when they were betrayed (while Brian and Rob C considered it just part of the game). But how different the outcome! In F5 the Schemer won and the Loyalist cast the deciding vote for him, like a dupe. In S6, the Loyalist came back by winning immunities and doing some scheming herself. In the end, Rob was defeated by his own tactics, when Jenna voted him out and stole his Goat.
Survivor fans divide into Loyalist and Schemer camps as well. Schemer fans tend to dismiss Loyalists as stupid for being too trusting. Or emotional, for letting friendship get in the way. Or irrational, for not pursuing self-interest to the exclusion of all else. They insist that Survivor is a game, like poker or chess, and the only ethical standards are the rules of the game (things like not assaulting or poisoning your competitors). Many people who discuss Survivor strategy take this view.
Loyalist fans, on the other hand, view schemers as calculating people with no integrity. Survivor may be a game, but it's a game in which a lot of money is at stake, you have only one shot, and players develop close bonds from being together for many weeks. Someone with no scruples about betraying others in this context seems a lot like a person who would have no scruples in business. Most fans do apply ethical considerations in deciding who to root for, though often they are applied inconsistantly. I've yet to see anyone outline a ethical code for playing with Integrity AND Success.
I'll leave you with two questions:
Do you find my Loyalist\Schemer distinction helpful?
What ethical norms, if any, do you use to judge players on Survivor?
Loyalists must do some scheming, just as Schemers must feign loyalty. Both types form alliances early in the game, vote out weak or obnoxious tribe members, and target the strongest players on the opposing tribe. The big difference comes in the endgame.
Loyalists like to be loyal to their friends. They find it hard to betray their allies, after working together as a team throughout the game. They prefer to go to the finals with people they respect. They have scruples - there are certain things they won't do (betraying their closest buddy, or faking friendship, or lying in certain situations). Their focus is not 100% selfish - they may help "good people" stay in the game or target the "undeserving" (however they define it).
Schemers will do anything to win. They play hardcore.They may feign friendship, but really only make alliances of convenience. Their hallmark strategy is to vote out the strong and the good (however that is defined by the jury) and go to the fianls with the Goat, the unpopular person. Loyalists focus on getting others to vote FOR them (by being likable, a good leader, etc). Schemers strive to get a F2 opponent that the jury will vote AGAINST.
Loyalist seasons feature stable alliances and lots of pagonging. S2 and S3 are good examples. Traitors and suspected traitors are quickly targeted (Brandon and Kelly G), and nobody will jump ship to better their position. Amber and Kim J remain loyal, even though they aren't part of the inner alliance of their tribe. Tina and Brandon win because of unselfish decisions made by Ultra-Loyalists, Colby and Kim J.
Seasons dominated by Schemers often features lots of power shifts and surprises. The downside is that undeserving or morally repulsive people are more likely to make it to the end. Strong, popular and hardworking folks will be targeted, as players plot to get a beatable F2 opponent. Richard and Brian are the classic Schemers who led alliances and dominated their seasons. S4 and S6 each had several schemers battling it out.
To summarize. When everyone is a loyalist the danger is boredom. If there are lots of schemers, the people we care about and the deserving players tend to be eliminated before the end. Loyalists and Schemers produces some of the most fascinating ethical conflicts on the show. Consider S5 and S6:
Brian - Schemer
Clay - Goat
Helen - Loyalist
Jenna - Loyalist
Matt - Goat
Rob C - Schemer
Who would have thought Helen and Jenna - such different women - would end up in the same category? Yet both are loyalists, and their respective betrayals by Brian and Rob C. represent classic Loyalist\Schemer confrontations. Both women thought their friendship with the Schemer would translate into loyalty in the game. Helen saw herself and Brian as the most hardworking players, who should go to the end together. Jenna was loyal to Heidi and wanted to go to the F4 with people she cared about. Helen and Jenna took it hard when they were betrayed (while Brian and Rob C considered it just part of the game). But how different the outcome! In F5 the Schemer won and the Loyalist cast the deciding vote for him, like a dupe. In S6, the Loyalist came back by winning immunities and doing some scheming herself. In the end, Rob was defeated by his own tactics, when Jenna voted him out and stole his Goat.
Survivor fans divide into Loyalist and Schemer camps as well. Schemer fans tend to dismiss Loyalists as stupid for being too trusting. Or emotional, for letting friendship get in the way. Or irrational, for not pursuing self-interest to the exclusion of all else. They insist that Survivor is a game, like poker or chess, and the only ethical standards are the rules of the game (things like not assaulting or poisoning your competitors). Many people who discuss Survivor strategy take this view.
Loyalist fans, on the other hand, view schemers as calculating people with no integrity. Survivor may be a game, but it's a game in which a lot of money is at stake, you have only one shot, and players develop close bonds from being together for many weeks. Someone with no scruples about betraying others in this context seems a lot like a person who would have no scruples in business. Most fans do apply ethical considerations in deciding who to root for, though often they are applied inconsistantly. I've yet to see anyone outline a ethical code for playing with Integrity AND Success.
I'll leave you with two questions:
Do you find my Loyalist\Schemer distinction helpful?
What ethical norms, if any, do you use to judge players on Survivor?
.avatar.yuku.com/survivorsucks "unknown(d5)'s Avatar")
