There's a whole range of possibilities depending on the specific circumstances. Your odds of survival might not be too good if, say, we're talking about the Yamasee War. The situation was so desperate for the Carolinians they started arming their slaves, which would have made them targets too. Generally speaking though, most Native nations and enslaved Africans recognized that they had a common enemy and alliances between the two are historically frequent. In what's now the continental United States, these alliances date back to 1526, when Ayllon's attempt to colonized mainland North America failed when (among other hardships) the colony's slaves joined the local Guale to oust the Spanish. Similar alliances would continue into the 1800s, with the integration of former slaves into the Seminole in Florida.
The letters of William Johnson (the man in charge of relations between Great Britain and Native American communities, especially the Haudenosaunee [Iroquois] leading up to the American Revolution) mentions a Cayuga man who he refers to only as "the Negro" who had risen to become the leader of one of the Cayuga villages. Most likely this man had been captured and adopted by the Cayuga. He'd have to have become a member of one of the clans in order to become the head of the village. Assuming he went through the normal adoption process and wasn't fast-tracked for some reason, the first couple years may have seemed little different from slavery. He'd be the lowest ranking person in the family, a given the worst work. But working hard, he'd have gained prestige and the family's trust.
Of course, relations between Native Americans and enslaved Africans weren't always so promising. Johnson also talks about Mohawk bounty hunters who tracked escaped slaves in the northern colonies. In the South, the adoption of race-based slavery was one of the features of "civilization" that Euro-Americans encouraged among the "Five Civilized Tribes." This included the Seminoles, who owned slaves even while allying with freed Africans. Of course, slaves among the Seminoles enjoined considerable more rights than they did among their Euro-American counterparts, such as the right to own guns.
The Iroquois are the only Native American group that I have extensive ethnographic knowledge of. This answer concerns them, but please note that "Native American" is a huge blanket term that covers a LOT of landmass with a LOT of different cultures.
This answer only concerns the Colonial Era because it is the cross-section in time between when raids would have occurred and when we have ethnographic data. Their culture changed considerably on the reservations after the victory of the United States in the Revolutionary War, and raids basically didn't happen anymore.
Iroquoian warfare was largely based around the concept of the Blood Feud. If a member of an Iroquoian group is killed by a member of an out-group, the family of the the victim has the privilege of demanding satisfaction for the loss.
Satisfaction of the blood debt almost always involve a raid on the offending group, and can end in one of two ways:
1 - The death of a member of the offending group, thus "balancing the scales" of loss.
2 - The capture of a member of the offending group, who is then adopted into the family as a replacement for the family member who was killed.
Iroquois did take captives in raids, but they were never slaves. They were usually adopted and thereafter treated as an equal. If a black slave were captured alive during a raid, they would probably be adopted into the tribe. There wasn't slavery among the Iroquois.
My other ethnographic sources for this information are League of the Iroquois by Lewis Henry Morgan and Death and Rebirth of the Seneca by Anthony F.C. Wallace