Codifying a rule against friendly antagonists

[Bisar]

Hey, I don't have a long dissertation on this, and I hope a succinct summary of what I'm hitting at will suffice.

I personally believe there should be codified rules against antagonists who blatantly side with the crew outside of extenuating circumstances. Specific circumstances that I think should be extenuating are:
1) Station ending threats (blob, nukies, wizard, halo cult)
2) The antagonist has been brainwashed or otherwise forced into cooperation
3) They have non-custom objectives to do so

I have my selfish reasons for wanting this. It grinds my gears for someone to grab up an antagonist slot and... not do any antagonizing with it. But, it also flies in the face of the lore, the theme, and the gameplay loop. An antagonist should ANTAGONIZE: antagonizing is being a bad dude doing bad stuff. Someone who chooses to go against this completely should specifically be against the rules.

[bingusdingus]

Whenever I see this brought up it always goes the same way. Admins find antag rounds to be sacred, and they rule that people can do whatever they want with their antag rounds as long as it isn't breaking the rules.

The worst part is, I agree with you 100%. I don't enjoy killing people as an objective, so I just don't play antagonists, simple as. I completely understand the appeal to be the bad guy and cause for conflict on the station. The only reason I can think of someone wanting to be a "friendly" antag is when someone wants the round to be them and have the station treat them like a god, and that isn't what SS13 is for. Go be the overpowered main character everyone fawns over in literally most other games. Antagonists exist to antagonize and if that isn't what you plan on doing, don't play them.

[Vekter]

I don't like this for a couple of reasons.

1) It removes "pretending to be friendly" as a valid tactic because anyone acting friendly would be breaking the rules, so everyone would still know they were valid.
2) It would increase instances of people valid hunting, because they would just kill every antag on sight since they know they can't be helpful or friendly in any way.

We have this restriction on MRP, but we also have other restrictions that prevent these two things from generally being an issue.

[DaydreamIQ]

This already kind of has policy on mrp. For whatever reason if an antag is acting friendly you can just straight up kill them regardless of their actions...and on LRP it doesn't matter cause antags are all KOS anyways. Personally I feel like we should open more room for people to actually roleplay their antags without being immediately listed as friendly but I'm in the minority there

[Itseasytosee2me]

I don't like this for a couple of reasons.

1) It removes "pretending to be friendly" as a valid tactic because anyone acting friendly would be breaking the rules, so everyone would still know they were valid.
2) It would increase instances of people valid hunting, because they would just kill every antag on sight since they know they can't be helpful or friendly in any way.

We have this restriction on MRP, but we also have other restrictions that prevent these two things from generally being an issue.

I think these are some of the lesser qualified arguments against a change like this. Antagonists pretending to be friendly (acting overtly on the side of the crew) basically has all of the same issues as antagonists actually being friendly. This ruling would do next to nothing regarding "valid hunting" as traditionally defined. If valid hunting is attacking an antagonist for no other reason than the fact they are an antagonist, then them being friendly or not will not change that motivation.

I do think there is an argument to be made that a ruling like this steps on the toes of antagonist autonomy and thus add a restriction that scares them into avoiding scenarios that would otherwise be very healthy and cinematic.

[Itseasytosee2me]

I have my selfish reasons for wanting this. It grinds my gears for someone to grab up an antagonist slot and... not do any antagonizing with it. But, it also flies in the face of the lore, the theme, and the gameplay loop. An antagonist should ANTAGONIZE: antagonizing is being a bad dude doing bad stuff. Someone who chooses to go against this completely should specifically be against the rules.

Your sentiment comes from a very understandable place, and any openly operating friendly antagonist is pretty much an insta immersion breaker for me, but I think the root problem here is our very low standards for roleplay and lack of encouragement for openly antagonistic actions.

Here's just a thought, but what if we instead shifted the burden to command and security staff who openly cooperate with antagonists? It could be a an extension of rule 5, Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort. Openly operating with the most hostile entities this side of the universe could very well be ruled as not being a "reliable worker for your department." Obviously this would not apply in situations of extreme duress, if a traitor has a bomb in your chest you are free to value your life over anything else.

[Bisar]

A carrot and stick situation would be best here. People chafe under too much restriction without incentive.

Antagonists have an incentive to cooperate with crew a lot of the time: you get the safety of numbers while still getting your super awesome superpowers.

Crew don't have much incentive to go after antagonists outside of certain conflict seeking personalities who throw down for love of the game (me, Jeff Gaiman, Will Nodder, Lou Cherry, etc).

We should incentivize crew in some way to almost never cooperate with an antagonist because it's in their own personal best interest. I submitted a rule against friendly antagonists because it would balance their current incentives with a restriction. The crew already have many restrictions on their behavior -- not complaining -- and making conflict with an antagonist compulsory by policy wouldn't be the way to go.

[Lacran]

Antagonists are there to add to a round, not necessarily in a negative way.

A murderboning antag isn't necessarily any better than a peaceful one.

I don't think the issue is not being hostile, the issue is if being friendly is being done simply because you just want to be a snowflake crewmember.

Friendly antags shouldn't be banned, but should be pressured to use that playstyle to still generate conflict.

[Constellado]

I have my selfish reasons for wanting this. It grinds my gears for someone to grab up an antagonist slot and... not do any antagonizing with it. But, it also flies in the face of the lore, the theme, and the gameplay loop. An antagonist should ANTAGONIZE: antagonizing is being a bad dude doing bad stuff. Someone who chooses to go against this completely should specifically be against the rules.

Your sentiment comes from a very understandable place, and any openly operating friendly antagonist is pretty much an insta immersion breaker for me, but I think the root problem here is our very low standards for roleplay and lack of encouragement for openly antagonistic actions.

Here's just a thought, but what if we instead shifted the burden to command and security staff who openly cooperate with antagonists? It could be a an extension of rule 5, Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort. Openly operating with the most hostile entities this side of the universe could very well be ruled as not being a "reliable worker for your department." Obviously this would not apply in situations of extreme duress, if a traitor has a bomb in your chest you are free to value your life over anything else.

hmm, with this change would I would no longer be able to take bribes from antags as a CE?
Taking bribes is very much a good IC interaction in my opinion, and much more fun to me than getting my face blasted with a revolver.

[Itseasytosee2me]

I have my selfish reasons for wanting this. It grinds my gears for someone to grab up an antagonist slot and... not do any antagonizing with it. But, it also flies in the face of the lore, the theme, and the gameplay loop. An antagonist should ANTAGONIZE: antagonizing is being a bad dude doing bad stuff. Someone who chooses to go against this completely should specifically be against the rules.

Your sentiment comes from a very understandable place, and any openly operating friendly antagonist is pretty much an insta immersion breaker for me, but I think the root problem here is our very low standards for roleplay and lack of encouragement for openly antagonistic actions.

Here's just a thought, but what if we instead shifted the burden to command and security staff who openly cooperate with antagonists? It could be a an extension of rule 5, Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort. Openly operating with the most hostile entities this side of the universe could very well be ruled as not being a "reliable worker for your department." Obviously this would not apply in situations of extreme duress, if a traitor has a bomb in your chest you are free to value your life over anything else.

hmm, with this change would I would no longer be able to take bribes from antags as a CE?
Taking bribes is very much a good IC interaction in my opinion, and much more fun to me than getting my face blasted with a revolver.

Yes and I agree! I did not want my original post to be too bogged down but players should definitely be allowed to abeit an antagonist if they have good in character reason! Credible threats and healthy bribes are both great reasons.
I also probably wouldn’t consider this kind of thing openly cooperating with antagonists, its a secret, and the relationship is probably still pretty tense.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Be the change you want to see. Ambush "friendly antags" as sec and throw them in the permabrig in their underwear for Enemy of the Corporation (or send them through the gateway with an exile implant if you think metafriends soft-hearted sympathisers will break them out/rescind your arrest). They'll learn.



More seriously I think that any "anti-friendly" RP rule would actually have to be a crew restriction along the lines of "Sec/Captain can work with antags in times of crisis, they can ignore them for a more pressing threat, or issue lesser sentences if they think it's justified, but should not issue blanket immunities for "friendly" antags who do something as spineless as rolling up with an open uplink to hand out free items in exchange for becoming a super-officer."

Not sold on the necessity though, I really dont see it happen often at all.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Be the change you want to see. Ambush "friendly antags" as sec and throw them in the permabrig in their underwear for Enemy of the Corporation (or send them through the gateway with an exile implant if you think metafriends soft-hearted sympathisers will break them out/rescind your arrest). They'll learn.



More seriously I think that any "anti-friendly" RP rule would actually have to be a crew restriction along the lines of "Sec/Captain can work with antags in times of crisis, they can ignore them for a more pressing threat, or issue lesser sentences if they think it's justified, but should not issue blanket immunities for "friendly" antags who do something as spineless as rolling up with an open uplink to hand out free items in exchange for becoming a super-officer."

Not sold on the necessity though, I really dont see it happen often at all.

I have gone after friendly antags as security before, occasionally against the will of the HOS. 10 out of 10 times it will result in them and at least one other person slinging abuse at you in OCC, and also occasionally gets other people to target and escalate against you for attacking their friend or whatever. Usually not a fun time.

[ekaterina]

As much as I hate friendly antags, this feels like an IC issue to me. Just kill them. I don't like the idea of restricting what players can do with their antag rolls. I like Not-Dorsidarf's suggestion.

[Deathrobotpunch1]

honestly this feels bad. considering most friendly antags are pretty new, punishing new players for not murderboning probably isn’t a thing we want to do.

[Cheshify]

This already kind of has policy on mrp. For whatever reason if an antag is acting friendly you can just straight up kill them regardless of their actions...and on LRP it doesn't matter cause antags are all KOS anyways. Personally I feel like we should open more room for people to actually roleplay their antags without being immediately listed as friendly but I'm in the minority there

The protection that friendly antags have on MRP is being interesting enough to have nobody want to kill you

[Jackraxxus]

Antags already have too many rules that scare good players away from doing anything interesting, at least on MRP.

[DrAmazing343]

I kind of hate the “friendly = instavalid” rule already because it discourages antagonists doing anything more interesting than murder (think wizard doing puzzles, or a changeling doing a literal arms dealer gimmick) because some validhunter can just go beat cheeks whenever they see fit. antagonists ARE for conflict, yes, but I believe that we should be seeking interesting rounds and stories above all else and penning antags in even further to “lol go kill people” is antithetical to anything more than the very most basic of the SS13 round “formula.”

[Timberpoes]

The problem on MRP is it butting up against treating antags in proportion to their crimes. Friendly antags took maximum advantage of this to basically have friendly rounds where nobody on the crew were allowed to do anything to them.

We saw stuff like heretics walking around just asking people if they'd be sacrificed so they can get gamer points and they'd get revived after, traitors spending their TC to help the crew out or even help security. It's roleplay so utterly unsuitable to the setting that it's genuine and honest failRP and NRP.

Instead of prohibiting friendly antags, they were just excepted from the proportionality rules. If at any point you were a clear, obvious and known antag that wasn't antagonising and was just vibing or bar RPing, at any point any player could just kill you. This gives the playerbase agency over how they want to handle friendly antags without admins forbidding it. MRP antags that aren't doing antagonism can't use admins to stop the crew killing them when their goal is to rely on the rules created to protect antags actually doing antagonism.

LRP doesn't have this issue. Antags are already insta-valid just for being antags. So the playerbase already has control over how they treat antags. As such I don't think preventing friendly antags is much of an issue, in the sense that if the crew don't like it on LRP they can just kill them.

[Vekter]

Instead of prohibiting friendly antags, they were just excepted from the proportionality rules. If at any point you were a clear, obvious and known antag that wasn't antagonising and was just vibing or bar RPing, at any point any player could just kill you. This gives the playerbase agency over how they want to handle friendly antags without admins forbidding it. MRP antags that aren't doing antagonism can't use admins to stop the crew killing them when their goal is to rely on the rules created to protect antags actually doing antagonism.

Basically just this. I can't speak for every admin, but if an antag was doing an actually interesting gimmick that wasn't directly antagonistic to the crew (your example of a puzzle wizard or an "arms" dealer come to mind) and someone wordlessly killed them with no interaction whatsoever, I'd probably step in via rule 0.

[BlueMemesauce]

but it also feels like failrp to kill a guy just cause he works for a rival company even though hes actively sabotaging that company and giving you all their stuff

[Vekter]

but it also feels like failrp to kill a guy just cause he works for a rival company even though hes actively sabotaging that company and giving you all their stuff

The lore behind traitors is that they've been actively brainwashed to be doing what they're doing. I would be okay with a traitor deciding they're not going to act antagonistically because the crew had done some significant kindness to them, but if you spawn in as a traitor and immediately start giving all your uplink shit to Sec, I'm not helping you if someone bodies you over it.

[Itseasytosee2me]

but it also feels like failrp to kill a guy just cause he works for a rival company even though hes actively sabotaging that company and giving you all their stuff

The lore behind traitors is that they've been actively brainwashed to be doing what they're doing.

I'm sure thats one possible suggestion for why a traitor might be on the spacestation, but there are plently of others, directly offered by the game. They could be a hired gun, a cooperate loyalist, part of some spec ops division, a normal employee who got offered the right bribe at the right time, and independent evildoer with access to syndie tech, some kind of double agent, a NT crewmember who is being threatened or has their family threatened. Brainwashing is a fine way to frame it, but its by no means the only possible reason.

[Itseasytosee2me]

but it also feels like failrp to kill a guy just cause he works for a rival company even though hes actively sabotaging that company and giving you all their stuff

I would argue its worse roleplay to be a guy from a rival company who is supposed to be actively sabotaging the station and instead turning over all your goods to the people who are supposed to be your enemy.

And plus, this is a cooperate dystopia, if someone in an executive position wants to execute an employee who has been colluding with the enemy that is appropriately thematic.

[BlueMemesauce]

I know, but I'm just saying why "Instead of prohibiting friendly antags, they were just excepted from the proportionality rules." makes no sense. Why would you ever kill a guy for betraying his own side and helping you out? It needs to be an admin issue.

[Itseasytosee2me]

I know, but I'm just saying why "Instead of prohibiting friendly antags, they were just excepted from the proportionality rules." makes no sense. Why would you ever kill a guy for betraying his own side and helping you out? It needs to be an admin issue.

Seems like a two way street. Why would the guy betray his side for no reason? People might argue that the first case is more significant because it takes someone out of the game, but I don't think thats given. Traitors and 'tics cooperating with heads is already usually a not very fun situation, and it being unjustified is just proverbial hotsauce on the proverbial Urinary Tract Infection.

[Deathrobotpunch1]

I for one am against this policy because this would also forbid any gimmicks that doesn’t involve killing people. I for one, enjoy doing fishing as a traitor with a syndicate modsuit on and produce fish electricity using the emag exclusive fishes.

[warbluke]

I for one am against this policy because this would also forbid any gimmicks that doesn’t involve killing people. I for one, enjoy doing fishing as a traitor with a syndicate modsuit on and produce fish electricity using the emag exclusive fishes.

I don't mean to come off rude but doing that seems to me to be stealing gameplay from other players. Instead of creating holes for the engineers to fix or mysteries for sec to solve or bodies for medical to heal you're just fishing.

I don't think you have to kill people but an antagonist who does not cause problems is not something I am fond of.

[Vekter]

I don't mean to come off rude but doing that seems to me to be stealing gameplay from other players.

Can you elaborate on this?

[warbluke]

Can you elaborate on this?

Calling it stealing was a bit harsh on my end, it's not intentional grief or anything like that. But it's my firm and unwavering belief that Space Station 13 is first and foremost a multiplayer roleplaying game, and that it should not be treated like a singleplayer experience. Someone who readies traitor just to play with the equipment is going against the intended spirit of the game and making it less fun for people who want to try and survive. It's not a nonsensical metal deathtrap if the antagonists are all chilling around, it's a very sensible metal hughouse.

With the mechanical depth that all the jobs have gotten over the life of the game it feels almost like we're being pushed away from the multiplayer experience. Instead of being paranoid about traitors or working together to fight off an outside threat everyone retreats to their designated corners to work on hours and hours of individual job content. Antagonists should be pushing people out of these safe zones, making them work together or even just communicate once in a while. And while I could go and seek out bar/library roleplay there is a fundamental difference between water cooler conversations and desperately welding yourself in your office with a coworker while something slams on the door.

I might have a stronger opinion than most though, since on Basil every antagonist is a friendly one and I am thoroughly sick of it. The unfortunate reality is that on a 5 population station even killing one person constitutes murderbone and is admittedly a dick move regardless of if they're your objective or not. Plus everyone is an antagonist with midrounds and dynamic not being balanced around 5 pop so if you pull a DEsword the other guy will too.

I do also want to make it clear that I am against turning the game into a TDM slaughterfest as well, I support some sort of discouragement of Friendly antagonists as much as I support rules against murderboning. Ideally both of these issues could be solved through code, but friendly play is a lot harder to tweak than random murder where you can just nerf overused weapons.

[Vekter]

Can you elaborate on this?

Calling it stealing was a bit harsh on my end, it's not intentional grief or anything like that. But it's my firm and unwavering belief that Space Station 13 is first and foremost a multiplayer roleplaying game, and that it should not be treated like a singleplayer experience. Someone who readies traitor just to play with the equipment is going against the intended spirit of the game and making it less fun for people who want to try and survive. It's not a nonsensical metal deathtrap if the antagonists are all chilling around, it's a very sensible metal hughouse.

With the mechanical depth that all the jobs have gotten over the life of the game it feels almost like we're being pushed away from the multiplayer experience. Instead of being paranoid about traitors or working together to fight off an outside threat everyone retreats to their designated corners to work on hours and hours of individual job content. Antagonists should be pushing people out of these safe zones, making them work together or even just communicate once in a while. And while I could go and seek out bar/library roleplay there is a fundamental difference between water cooler conversations and desperately welding yourself in your office with a coworker while something slams on the door.

I might have a stronger opinion than most though, since on Basil every antagonist is a friendly one and I am thoroughly sick of it. The unfortunate reality is that on a 5 population station even killing one person constitutes murderbone and is admittedly a dick move regardless of if they're your objective or not. Plus everyone is an antagonist with midrounds and dynamic not being balanced around 5 pop so if you pull a DEsword the other guy will too.

I do also want to make it clear that I am against turning the game into a TDM slaughterfest as well, I support some sort of discouragement of Friendly antagonists as much as I support rules against murderboning. Ideally both of these issues could be solved through code, but friendly play is a lot harder to tweak than random murder where you can just nerf overused weapons.

That was a significantly larger answer than I expected, and I feel bad because all I can really say is "I don't think antag rounds are sacred and players are welcome to do what they want as an antagonist, I don't see that as 'stealing someone else's gameplay' because it's not someone else's. it's yours."

I would argue that I think there's room for players to be friendly or at least not explicitly antagonistic at first glance, but that I think they need a good IC reason to be doing so and can't just be "antag with gear to fight other antags". That being said, I worry any rule that tries to restrict "friendly" antagonists would be applied to people doing something creative, like selling weapons to generate chaos or pretending to be friendly to stab someone in the back.

[warbluke]

The only way I could think of to police people using antagonist rounds to layabout rather than drive conflict would be to wait until round end before intervention, to give them time to do something underhanded like arms dealer or sudden betrayal. Unfortunately that would be impossible to implement since it would require watching one player the whole round and there's a thousand and one excuses as to why they might have never done anything antagonistic. It might just be the sort of thing that has to be vibe checked upon, where after enough rounds someone gets a note or something.

I will also reemphasize that i think passive antagonists are bad because they take away the crew gameplay of trying to survive their machinations rather than being mad about them because "that's MY fragtime they randomly rolled!"

Also is using fish to generate power locked behind an emag? I did not know that. Put that shit in the tech tree not the TC-shrub so fishers can singlehandedly support the entire station

[Stabbystab]

Third time I’m typing this my internet keeps dying so here’s a shitty remake of it
I think a big issue and why we see a lot less chaos in rounds especially in Manuel is antags are too scared to antagonize the crew since the rules to be a antag are very tough. Kill one wrong person banned, sabatoge the ai well now your banned, admin decided that you making the sm blew up was too much well now your banned. I feel like we should de restrict antags and this will solve a lot of issues with friendly tags.

[Deathrobotpunch1]

Also is using fish to generate power locked behind an emag? I did not know that. Put that shit in the tech tree not the TC-shrub so fishers can singlehandedly support the entire station

Fish power generation is not unique to the Emag but it is certainly easier to do with one. for example the anxious zip zap produces around 6.7 mW but since they are unsociable you can only put three in a fishtank, as the syndicate exclusive monocloning jumpercable produces 0.90 mW but you can fit a lot in a fishtank.

[Vekter]

Third time I’m typing this my internet keeps dying so here’s a shitty remake of it
I think a big issue and why we see a lot less chaos in rounds especially in Manuel is antags are too scared to antagonize the crew since the rules to be a antag are very tough. Kill one wrong person banned, sabatoge the ai well now your banned, admin decided that you making the sm blew up was too much well now your banned. I feel like we should de restrict antags and this will solve a lot of issues with friendly tags.

How often do you play on Manuel? I can't say I remember seeing you on there at all recently.

[Deathrobotpunch1]

How often do you play on Manuel? I can't say I remember seeing you on there at all recently.

they mainly play sybil as Mason Slavovich

[Stabbystab]

Third time I’m typing this my internet keeps dying so here’s a shitty remake of it
I think a big issue and why we see a lot less chaos in rounds especially in Manuel is antags are too scared to antagonize the crew since the rules to be a antag are very tough. Kill one wrong person banned, sabatoge the ai well now your banned, admin decided that you making the sm blew up was too much well now your banned. I feel like we should de restrict antags and this will solve a lot of issues with friendly tags.

How often do you play on Manuel? I can't say I remember seeing you on there at all recently.

Mostly sense Sybil has been dead but I’ve been playing other statics in Manuel was going try it again this weekend

[Not-Dorsidarf]

That was a significantly larger answer than I expected, and I feel bad because all I can really say is "I don't think antag rounds are sacred and players are welcome to do what they want as an antagonist, I don't see that as 'stealing someone else's gameplay' because it's not someone else's. it's yours."

I do actually think that they have some grounds to complain about stuff like deathrobot posted - People tend to look down VERY harshly other forms of wasting limited/round important roles, like suiciding at roundstart, taking a head slot and going afk, neglecting a team antag's team, using engineer for greytide+ and so on. Someone deciding to do nothing except singleplayer non-antagonistic content with an antag role is being annoying, because they could amuse themself equally on a localhost without taking one of the ~5-10 "do something to make the game happen" roles.

I don't think it rises to the level of admins telling them to knock it off, but there's a wide gulf between "This is stupid and people can be annoyed at you/ call you out for it" and "admins need to get involved!"

[Maxipat]

I don't think we should forbid it with rules/policy, it's gonna scare away newer players from playing antags, especially that the proposed policy is too vague. At what point you're a friendly antag? At what point is your antagonization antagonizing enough? Do you have to do something specifically allowed for antag but disallowed for crew to pass the check? Do you have to pass a DC15 D20 roll? Who knows, but definitely not new players.

[Vekter]

I do actually think that they have some grounds to complain about stuff like deathrobot posted - People tend to look down VERY harshly other forms of wasting limited/round important roles, like suiciding at roundstart, taking a head slot and going afk, neglecting a team antag's team, using engineer for greytide+ and so on. Someone deciding to do nothing except singleplayer non-antagonistic content with an antag role is being annoying, because they could amuse themself equally on a localhost without taking one of the ~5-10 "do something to make the game happen" roles.

I don't think it rises to the level of admins telling them to knock it off, but there's a wide gulf between "This is stupid and people can be annoyed at you/ call you out for it" and "admins need to get involved!"

On the MRP side of things, we could handle it as a rule 10 issue if it became excessive, but we also have the rule that friendly antags can just get capped for literally existing, so I don't know if it matters there.

On the LRP side of things, I don't see a problem with admins stepping in to handle serial friendly antaggers, but I think a rule about it would just result in players being bothered more often for simple gimmicks and feeling like they can't do interesting things as antagonist or risk having their privileges revoked.

Mostly sense Sybil has been dead but I’ve been playing other statics in Manuel was going try it again this weekend

I recommend sticking around longer, because I've actually seen the opposite issue, where players tend to take issue with mostly anything an antag does, assuming they've murdered half the crew when they're the only one who has died.

[Stabbystab]

Mostly sense Sybil has been dead but I’ve been playing other statics in Manuel was going try it again this weekend

I recommend sticking around longer, because I've actually seen the opposite issue, where players tend to take issue with mostly anything an antag does, assuming they've murdered half the crew when they're the only one who has died.

Will try

[MooCow12]

The only administrative intervention necessary for a friendly antagonist is an admin giving back points to dynamic. And even then that should be up to admin discretion.

Ya okay, the game isnt designed for friendly antags, but a sentient person can look and tell the dungeon master that he can have more points to spend because one of his toys turned against him.

Friendly antags already get hazed in dead chat and are always valid even with an entourage of security and command players with them because as far as any crew member is aware those sec staff are committing dereliction of duty by not detaining an enemy of the corporation...its no longer security's job to do that.

And for every friendly antag there is a traitor who forgot to lock their uplink or something and now sec are walking with tot gear and being lowkey valid.

Its a chaotic wrench in a chaotic game and it has plenty of opportunities for infighting and escalation, its fine.



The best a policy thread could get against friendly antags is a big green light from headmins saying "yes go kill that friendly antag and anyone defending them"

[8bot]

Its a chaotic wrench in a chaotic game and it has plenty of opportunities for infighting and escalation, its fine.

you get bwoinked for killing anyone who isn't actually an antag now
it's not a chaotic wrench, it's a roadblock
it is what it is
headmins saying "go for it" would be nice

[Maxipat]

Its a chaotic wrench in a chaotic game and it has plenty of opportunities for infighting and escalation, its fine.

you get bwoinked for killing anyone who isn't actually an antag now
it's not a chaotic wrench, it's a roadblock
it is what it is
headmins saying "go for it" would be nice

You can kill antags freely, and anyone defending an antag themselves act like antag so is also valid. Sec with antag gear is also valid if they're not obviously members of security i.e HoS in a chicken outfit (I've seen it few times)

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Antag rounds are not sacred in the sense that admins can't fuck with you and spawn stuff or do stuff that kills you indirectly or directly, I encourage admins to intervene with tooling strongly when someone is friend tagging and it's lame rather than us create some wordy policy which will have so many edge cases and get very painful and bureaucratic and ultimately never have a perfect answer or verbage to hit every nail that needs to be hammered, additionally if someone is doing this in a way that is harmful to the server e.g. repeatedly or a very excessively bad example of it, admins are already empowered within the rules to act against them. Just my personal take

[GamerAndYeahMick]

All 3 head admins in agreement that such a thing is not necessary