Hello, everybody. I am here to announce a small but important change involving antagonism on the server. At the moment, it appears that there is a shortage of people who wish to participate as an antag, and those that do participate as one tend to be more hesitant and reserved. There are likely many reasons as to why, but one reason that Staff are trying to address is that some people may feel too scared of doing antagonistic actions due to a fear of the banhammer.
This forum post is an attempt to assure to the playerbase at large that we are trying to help reverse this perception of antagonistic action = boink. This is not to say that we are going to start allowing mass bombing and no RP killing, but that we are trying to reach a middle ground and help solidify what is considered okay or not okay.
To accomplish the above goal, I have written up a few example scenarios that people who have antagged or may wish to do so may find themselves in, where it may not be obvious if it is okay to do bad things. This is not meant to be a 100% absolute 'you can only do X if Y' list, but a guide to help clear some of the nuances, and help summarize two years worth of Polaris antag "case law", so that people aspiring to be a baddie or interacting with a baddie can get a rough idea of what is acceptable.
First, lets start with some easy examples, and go from there.
You (the antag) are taking someone as a hostage, threatening them to do something, or otherwise have them at gunpoint. The hostage decides to act tough and refuse your demands while you have a (metaphorical or literal) gun to their head.
It would be perfectly acceptable for you to make good on your threat, by maiming or killing them, and you should consider adminhelping the hostage for not taking the threat of their life seriously.
A security officer discovers that you are doing a Bad Thing. They are standing near you, but has yet to draw their weapon. They demand to know what you are doing.
This situation is rather more complex, but there are a lot of options available.
Suddenly shooting the officer without saying anything would be quite poor form, as they've extended the courtesy to roleplay with you (by talking first), and rewarding that with instantly dying would likely result in less roleplay opportunities for everyone in the future.
A better option could be to pull out your weapon (if you have one), and then tell them to go away 'or else'. Even if they refuse, you've done enough and it most likely would not be considered a 'no RP kill', as you also roleplayed, abeit escaling the conflict, which is perfectly acceptable.
You could also try to lie to them to buy some time. Who knows, it might actually work, as well.
Another option would be to simply flee, however this will likely open you up to them firing at you, as it is rather difficult to talk and chase at the same time.
The same scenario as 2, except this time, the officer opens up by aiming their taser at you, and they yell at you to get on the ground.
This is another common situation, however the officer has escalated the conflict this time. Since they're aiming a gun at you, it would be acceptable for you to retaliate immediately, even with lethal force.
You have done Bad Things, and Security/the Station Director/etc has demanded for your surrender or else you will be shot on sight.
If a security officer were to stumble upon you after that occurred, it would be acceptable for you to shoot them on sight as well, since it is reasonable to assume that they will fire upon you on sight.
An antagonist kills you without saying a word and there was no prior escalation.
Consider adminhelping the antag, as murder without RP is not allowed by the rules.
A security officer fires their taser/flashbangs you/otherwise stuns you without saying anything and there was no prior escalation.
Same as above, consider adminhelping them, since that is akin to killing with zero RP, just in reverse.
You are a security officer and a baddie has killed someone, or has otherwise demonstrated that they are dangerous.
This is similar to example 2, however the roles are reversed. You should give a chance to the antagonist to roleplay. Pulling your gun, aiming at them, and demanding a surrender is acceptable, however they may decide to fight you in response, as stated in example 2.
Same situation as above, however the antagonist has opened fire.
It is perfectly acceptable to retaliate in kind. This is also true if you are the antagonist and security is actively fighting you.
You are an antagonist, and you wish to kill someone. Your target is nearby.
It would be poor form to pull out your revolver/armblade/murder stick/etc and just end their life instantly, without any roleplay.
Instead, you should make an attempt to at least talk and interact with your victim, even if just for a minute, before ending their life, and possibly make their murder be interesting, if possible.
You are an antagonist, are about to do Bad Things to someone. They yell on the radio for help.
It would be perfectly acceptable for you to silence them by any means.
These 10 examples won't fit in all situations, but hopefully will help you get a grasp of the kind of thinking the administration does when dealing with judging if an antag's actions were acceptable. If you are unsure if something's alright or not, you can always ask us with adminhelp, any time.
If you wish to discuss this thread, you can do so here.