Is mass murder ever ok?

[jackfractal]

So I'm playing just recently as a cyborg and I get a law that says basically 'the crew are hostiles, anyone who doesn't give this specific code word is an enemy.'

There's no AI, but three cyborgs, one immediately starts attacking people and venting parts of the station. The other just seals off the mining station to protect the sweet sweet lucre they've mined from these strange invading hostiles, and then there's me.

I happen to know a shocking number of ways of killing large numbers of people horribly as a cyborg. Being a good little player, I a-help about whether I'm allowed to kill the people I've been ordered to kill.

I get this as a response:

 

PM to-Admins: As the AI is already doing atmos grief, am I allowed to do EXTREME atmos grief?

Your adminhelp will be tended to by tishinastalker. Please allow the staff member a minute or two to type up a response.
-- Click the Secondary Admin's name to reply --

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: What?

PM to-TishinaStalker: Well the AI is venting parts of the station and we've been told that everyone is a hostile. We should be trying to kill them. I have a way of doing that but it's WILDLY murderous.

PM to-TishinaStalker: Am I allowed to do that?

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: There is no AI to begin with. What places are being vented?

PM to-TishinaStalker: The brig, research.

PM to-TishinaStalker: It could be other cyborgs.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: Brig was something completely different. Research was done in a minor scale based on what I'm seeing in order to avoid gank. 

PM to-TishinaStalker: All right, so you're saying that we should avoid committing mass murder despite having a law that explicitly requires it?

PM to-TishinaStalker: That sounds hostile, sorry. I just want to be clear.

Secondary Admin PM from-TishinaStalker: Yes, that is obviously what I'm saying. Take a re-read of the rules because if you're going to start mass-murdering people, then both you and your lawgiver will be in trouble. Said lawgiver, I'm going to find out who was and talk to them.

 

So this is pretty clear cut, what Tinisha is saying here. You are neither allowed to kill large numbers of other people, nor are you allowed to order other people to do it, under any circumstances. Should you be ordered to do so, you have to disobey or you're going to be in trouble.

The 'no ganking' rule, which is, I'm guessing, what is being talked about here, appears to be specifically about Assassinations. Don't cause mass casualties when trying to assassinate someone. It doesn't really make clear situations where mass casualties are what you're going for.

Is it just that you're never allowed to commit mass casualties ever?

If so, that's cool, I just want to be clear so I can plan accordingly.

[Lord Lag]

As the Law giver, I should make the disclaimer that the laws original intent was to create a clear divide between crew members and the nuke ops. The intention was, originally, to do this, then give explicit instructions to the AI in order to achieve further goals. The mass-murder that occurred was not something we fully anticipated, nor was the AI being afk which resulted in no orders being able to be given.

[jackfractal]

Yeah, this situation, like all real situations, is mucky and confusing. Everyone was confused by Murphy vanishing, and I was really surprised when the third cyborg immediately started in on the murder.

This specific scenario isn't really what I wanted to ask about. It's more the general question. Is it ever OK to do things that result in mass casualties?

[Skull132]

In general. If the mass murder has proper build up, like during a Malf round, then I'd think it's fine? I love me a good mass murder scenario, specially when the AI committing it doesn't get destroyed. But, RP it properly.

However, this is not a general situation. From what I can see, you were given a law that literally said: "Go on a rampage." If it was just like that, with no build-up, then you can either adminhelp it, or develop some RP from it before just going onto a stun-harmbaton rampage. There have been cases in the past where a traitor scientist just makes an AI upload console, uploads a law ordering the AI to kill everyone, and calls it a day. In these cases, the traitor uploading the law was dealt with by the admins.

ADDENDUM: Also, the only real way to cause mass-death without setting everything ablaze is going to be a slow venting of the station as an AI, or a series of raids as a group of outside antagonists (nuke ops). Both of these are slowburn scenarios, and afford a great opportunity for folks to get the hell out of dodge, or to find ways to band together and fight. Read as: to RP in a setting created by the antagonists.

[jackfractal]

That's fair, but in this case it was actually built up pretty well. There'd been ten minutes of people shouting, some areas had been vented, one of the cyborgs had been beaten to death, and I'd disabled the lock-down computer. There was a buildup.

Maybe not a muah-hah-hah snidely whiplash monologue, but there was a buildup. Part of the reason for that is that cyborgs are woefully incompetent at doing the kind of over-the-top build-up due to how they can be remotely disabled, and also because we were explicitly forbidden by the law in question from providing any information to people who didn't have the code-words.

That's interesting though, so you're saying that mass murder is OK in certain circumstances?

[Skull132]

As someone who's toyed with AIs, I imagine you're aware of the fact that they lack surgical weapons? And that the most practical ways they have of controlling people will result in a large number of casualties? There are also cases where the syndicates and station forces engage in large scale warfare. At that point, if you land infront of a muzzle and see a flash, you can't really blame the nuke operatives -- again, this scenario would produce a large amount of casualties.

Granted, neither is outright intentful mass murder, but the end result is the same. The trouble is, people don't really distinguish half the time.

And mass murder can be done, Garn pulled a great chain of stunts as a traitor AI yesterday. I don't really know what he had in mind to do, but his intent was pretty clear: hurt people en massé. People did complain, but, from a ghost's perspective, it was pretty decent (everyone had a chance to escape with their lives, had they tried). This debate, though, circles back to what we want from antagonists, and what we accept from antagonist, with the unfortunate admission that the force of nature style of antagging is not really appreciated/executed well.

[jackfractal]

Yeah, AI's don't have a lot of ways of dealing with people individually. Cyborgs, in general, have it worse. The danger of the robotic control console cannot be overstated, and they can be spied on perfectly, from multiple locations on the station, without their knowledge.

That's why having my non-hands tied like this kinda rankles. A cyborg can't do subtle things because they're singularly bad at it, and they can't do unsubtle things because creating the kind of narrative build-up where you won't get in trouble for it is effectively impossible.

[Skull132]

The way I look at borgs, is that they are tools. Literally applied to situations at the whims of others. In return, you get to forego a good deal of things which can make you into a very clear danger to those who have something to fear. So, it's kind of up to others, antags and crew, to use the borgs properly. The borg may get a slight slap on the wrist for not adminhelping and asking for guidance on a dubious matter, but the person who uploaded the law is the one who's taken the brunt of the responsibility in the past.

Again, the thing is, it's never a good idea to just upload a law that states, "Go kill all crew except Sneak McSnakersson" and then calling it a day. It's basically gank at that point, you're just using borgs to conduct it, instead of say, atmos or bombs.

There are cases where this is applicable, however. The scenario you describe, it sounds like a full scale assault scenario. So, let's say that the nukeops are committing to a full on assault. People are going to die anyways, and if their intent is to secure the station, then the borgs will be a great resource to help with that. The law may have been worded crudely, sure, but if your new teammates are attacking, then why not go and help them out? Yeah, sure, someone may raise voice about you not RP-ing out your turncoat-ey-ness as you baton them in the back while they're trying to snipe the nuke ops, but the way I see it: the nuke team subverted the AI without their knowledge, so they deserve the baton in the back.

[jackfractal]

Yeah. Well I got my answer anyway. Mass murder is OK provided there's sufficient build-up for it. I'm not sure what counts as 'sufficient build-up' but it doesn't appear to have been reached in this case.

I was confused because I was told to 'read the rules' as though it would become clear what I should do upon reading them, and after doing so I found myself with less of a clear idea of what I should do.

[hivefleetchicken]

People are always gonna' get mad if you kill them.

If you kill multiple people, it gives them even more reason to get mad together and start raging in deadchat.

But... So what?

If your build-up was okay, someone will still complain, and an admin might ask you what you were doing. But most people (hopefully) can back you up in saying your choices were justified, and you can mass murder all you want from there on.

(Tangent)

The way I see it, mass murder usually occurs in one of two ways, in Spehss.

The first way is that someone is going out of their way to hunt down and kill people. This is the main debatable position, as sometimes the escalation for someone actively finding people to kill is shifty. AKA, your 'sufficient buildup'. I actually love antags who mass murder with sufficient buildup, because it makes them truly evil and antagonistic. I always defend this person, because for the most part, their buildup is adequate, and people are just asspained because they died. It wasn't like it was the antag's responsibility to keep them alive.

But the second way is something that happens to me a fuckton, and that's: everyone is coming after me, and the only way to stop them is by shooting them until they're dead. Take, for example, a little spaceman with a rifle. Security chases him down for having the rifle. A sec officer fires his lethals at the spaceman for some reason. All the officers declare it a lethal firefight. The little spaceman fires back, takes down all the officers, while screaming for them to stop shooting. When all the officers have had a chance to take a deep breath and stare at their dead bodies, they finally come back to reality and start screaming "WHY THE HELL DID HE SHOOT ME!?!?!"

Either way, I've never seen the problem with mass murder. The funnest games I've had have been the ones where my hands are shaking, my forehead is dripping sweat, and I know that a single wrong move can end my life. That's adrenaline, and it's fun. It rarely happens, here, unfortunately, because while everything up to death is fun for many players, the actual death part pisses them the fuck off.

I don't know what the purpose of this tangent is, but I thought I'd put it down somewhere eventually, and this thread fits the bill (to a degree).

[Garnascus]

As someone who's toyed with AIs, I imagine you're aware of the fact that they lack surgical weapons? And that the most practical ways they have of controlling people will result in a large number of casualties? There are also cases where the syndicates and station forces engage in large scale warfare. At that point, if you land infront of a muzzle and see a flash, you can't really blame the nuke operatives -- again, this scenario would produce a large amount of casualties.

Granted, neither is outright intentful mass murder, but the end result is the same. The trouble is, people don't really distinguish half the time.

And mass murder can be done, Garn pulled a great chain of stunts as a traitor AI yesterday. I don't really know what he had in mind to do, but his intent was pretty clear: hurt people en massé. People did complain, but, from a ghost's perspective, it was pretty decent (everyone had a chance to escape with their lives, had they tried). This debate, though, circles back to what we want from antagonists, and what we accept from antagonist, with the unfortunate admission that the force of nature style of antagging is not really appreciated/executed well.

 

My philosophy is you can get away with almost anything so long as there is sufficient RP to it. During this round i played out the scenario the station was under attack by a second hostile AI and i and my systems where slowly being subverted. I spent about thirty minutes causing or so informing command of this hostile entities movements, what systems had been subverted and providing some flavor announcements about it. I began slowly escalating the destruction by venting certain areas as i had warned the crew my atmospherics system had been subverted.

This continued for a short while with security looking for a second AI that didnt exist. the crew being partitioned into areas thanks to atmos locks and general panic and confusion with speculation that i might actually be the one causing the chaos. At about the fifty three minute mark i made one last flavor announcement essentially indicating i had been one hundred percent subverted by "shulon". from this point on i made it quite clear i was hostile to all organics and "false machines" (IPCS) and began spawning space carp that an office and a few people in the bar had to continually fight off.

Security and the remaining head tried their best to make it to my core but unfortunately it was too late and my laser made quick work of the only head left. at about the hour and fourteen minute mark the station was like similiar to what i expect the recon team sent to mars at the end of doom 3 saw. blood and body fluids everywhere. space carp roaming the halls, bodies and parts cracking and exploding due to lack of pressure. a few minutes later i called the emergency shuttle since it would be nigh impossible for any survivors to stop me.

My favorite rounds are usually the ones that require an emergency shuttle. i love this game best when the station has degenerated into an unholy torrent of blood and whatever godless abominations have been unleashed due to malice or foolishness. nar'sie consuming the station or lord singuloth reminding us who is in charge? nothing could be better in my opinion. Although lord singuloth isnt something on that "you can get away with this" list, almost everything else i think is fair game. so to answer your original question, yes 100%. this is a game with an absurd amount of depth. sometimes that depth creates chaos and mayhem and sometimes collateral damage from it is YOU.

I think so long as we remember our goal should be to create as interesting a scenario for the crew as possible then the possibilities are endless, with mass murder being one of my favorites.

[jackfractal]

OK, so the community seems to be saying that Tishina was not correct in saying that 'if you're going to start mass-murdering people, then both you and your lawgiver will be in trouble'?

Could we get an official ruling on that from Doom or Scopes? It seems like it's possible that the rules about this aren't clear even to administrative staff.

Edit: I screwed up the names. Derp.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Guest

[Zidanyia]

Tishina, not Tenenza.

I personally don't understand why mass murder ISN'T okay to begin with. The round revolves around the antagonist doing things, does it not? Why do we need to police and fearmonger antags from not killing a lot of snowflakes when clearly the entire intention of an antagonist is to create conflict?

I'm not saying cultists should go around ripping the jaws off of people wordlessly, but they should certainly be permitted to do everything they need to do in order to complete their nonexistant objectives, as I've seen.

I mean, heck, I think a huge part of why people hate being an antagonist sometimes is that they have nothing to work towards. Antags on other servers resort to mass murder either if 1.) they have a stupid objective like stealing IDs, so they bwoink admins ahead of time that their objective is shit and they're just gonna do whatever, or 2.) they've completed all of their rather easy objectives that they aren't going to get in trouble for, so they decide on making the round more interesting instead.

I have no idea why antagonists need to be so adverse to killing people. They are not normal average workers, for one. They need to be willing to do anything and everything in order to complete their objective, right?

Within reason so that it makes sense and that it's interesting.

[Frances]

I dunno how relevant that is but I like how the admin in the OP's PM doesn't give a clear answer to OP's question and then acts condescendingly to him when asked to clarify

edit: annnd all good, context is important

Edited September 21, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

My best round ever was when I was a changling during deadhour. There wer emaybe 15 - 20 people on the station. I started off as the CMO, and used a fake "level 8 biohazard" to cut off communication with CC and make the station get really spoopy. I subverted the AI to only answer to "Mr. Theta", and then proceeded to lock at least a dozen people in virology one after another, using hallucinogen sting to make them think they were infected with the virus. I ended up eating half the station, and stealing faces at least five times. No one knew who was actually the ling, and no one trusted anyone else. I don't know how the round ended, but I remember everyone hiding in their own department and refusing to trust anyone else. (My favourite part was convincing someone out of hiding in a locker when I was posing as their friend, and ended up eating him while telling him it would all be okay.)

A lot of people died, but it was satisfying for everyone involved. Mass murder has to have some sort of rhyme or reason to it. I would have said your own scenario, while much more intense than everyone slowly being picked off, is just as legitimate.

[TishinaStalker]

Eh, maybe I jumped a bit in my wording. Pulling off mass murder in a way that the RP justifies it is preeeeeeeeetty difficult. Only instance I've seen of it was with Xander as a malf AI that continuously and blatantly hinted at "cleansing fire" when he was setting his AI out as a God on the station if they didn't obey; and that was repeatedly through announcements and massive amounts of chatter on the radios. When push came to shove, plasma fire simulation.

Then there's situations where nuke ops go "Leave the station or die" and they think "Oh, that's the RP. I have clear reign to KOS because I gave them an option" and that's where they got in trouble.

Here's the most important thing, though: If you're going to plot something like this, then first and foremost you message admins; like you did originally. The way you were asking in the beginning, though, made it seem like "People are atmos griefing. I CAN DO TOO BECAUSE LAWS?! :D" and that's where I had to be like "No. Stop." because it seemed more like you simply wanted to kill people without caring for RP, and that's why I was pretty short on my wording because I simply wanted to get to the point of "No, you can't grief, stahp". Apologies.

[jackfractal]

Ah, I can understand how it came off that way. The trouble with subverted synthetics is that it's challenging to do, and it's painfully easy for them to be rendered useless. As a synthetic, when I'm subverted, I typically try to be useful to the person who subverted me. That pretty much precludes doing anything that raises suspicion.

As we saw today with Katana, even doing no harm of any kind, while clearly trying to run a gimmick, can be used as an excuse for the entire station to plot against you, and then set off an atmos bomb in your core, killing, like, eleven people as collateral damage.

Basically, it's hard to antag as an AI, and harder to antag as a cyborg. The question is, given that these things are true, the choice appears to come down too "you are required to be incompetent, and because you must be incompetent you will die."

It should also be pointed out that dying as a cyborg when you're discovered to be subverted is never fun. It's either 'pop' and suddenly you're dead, or 'pop' and suddenly you can't move for the rest of the round. There are seldom running gun battles, or clever speeches from the crew. It's just a click of the mouse and you're irrelevant.

This also raises the question of what the bar is for 'justified' homicide. In hivefleetchicken's case, he appears to think that it should be fairly low, but in your case, you have a single instance of it being justified in your entire history with SS13. That's an enormous range, and not one I feel comfortable working in.

Like I said, there was a build up, it wasn't as subtle or as ongoing as the one Xander pulled, but it was about ten minutes long, and it was apparently not enough. I'd love to know the kind of things that I could have done that wouldn't have immediately resulted in my death, while still justifying doing the things I had been ordered to do.

[Frances]

In an effort to relaunch the discussion on a new avenue, here's something I've been mulling over:

Assuming the person/people antagging can come up with a fair and interesting rationale for staging a mass murder, the most evident reason I can see for one to oppose said mass murder would be that it would inconvenience a great amount of people killed. After all, being rolled up on in a hallway and killed by a gankcult isn't fun... or is it?

People spend a lot of time waiting and/or making compromises in this game. You might want to play as an operator during a nuke round, but if you don't get picked, that's a round you have to play as something you didn't wanna play as (or wanted to play less as). If you don't like a round type and choose not to play, then it's also an entire round you're sitting out on. Don't get a one-slot job you wanted? Again, another compromise. Yet these don't bother people nearly as much as death seems to. Why is that?

Let's throw two examples, which might help get a better understanding of the situation.

 

• You are a xenobiologist at work during a regular day. You spend a bit of time chatting with your colleagues, developing new slime-based technologies, and generally seeing to your duties as on any other normal day. Suddenly, an ax-crazed murderer barges into your lab, pulls you out of a locker you're trying to hide in, and chops off your head.
   
   
  
• You are a xenobiologist at work during a regular day. You spend a bit of time chatting with your colleagues, developing new slime-based technologies, and generally seeing to your duties as on any other normal day, when suddenly, zombies attack. You and your colleagues do your best to barricade yourselves into the xenobio lab, before mounting an expedition to regroup with the remaining survivors of the station. In a hallway, you run into a group of zombies - they overpower you and eat you and your colleagues.

 

These situations have a fair bit in common, namely the fact that in both cases, interaction between antags and the player can be summed up to a simple fight. The antags don't interact with the player directly at all otherwise. Obviously, the first situation is kinda lame. What about the second, however? Is it better? If so, what makes it different, and could this example be used to draw a more general guideline on what makes some murder rampages fun or not?

[Skull132]

Second one accomplishes the goals of an antagonist to a tee, where as the first one does it in a half-assed way.

The common misconception that you seem to be representing is the fact that everyone believes they should be given an n-count one chances to survive. Not true. In the second scenario, the antagonists created an environment, a setting for others to RP in. And RP they did, by barricading themselves, probably by being all-scared-like for the first few minutes, and then by deciding to do something about it. The threat was clear and known: the threat was present and it created a specific environment. Everyone in that scenario also knows what to expect whenever they face the opponent: simple and outright combat. There is no, "Emote yourself raising your gun" bullscheibe. And ideally, both sides operate off of this knowledge. (Obviously, if people want to, they can create slower scenarios in the middle of that chaos, by holding someone at gunpoint or what have you. So this doesn't even eliminate those.)

This type of antagonizing can be referred to as a force of nature approach. (A force of nature antagonist being someone who does not need to interact with their victims 1-on-1, but instead creates an environment of IC fear and conflict around their actions. Thus mimicking what a force of nature can do.) Examples of this are a cult who has developed into the open conflict phase of their operation, or a nuke team that is launching a full on invasion of the station: everyone knows that they're there, open combat is the perfectly acceptable norm, and an environment is created off of that. In my opinion, a force of nature approach to antagging is actually a lot better from a meta perspective, as it enables a small group of antagonists to antagonize an entire station and crew, thus accomplishing their goal of providing RP. Once you're at that point where everyone knows about you, conflict is logical: everyone knows their three choices of resist, submit or run, and will pick one.

Now, the better question, in my opinion, is how do you get there?

[Guest]

As one of the people with a track record of moaning when I die I can say I would be okay with it, but honestly... it was never an issue of dying. It was an issue of having your death meaningless, or simply not being given a chance to survive in the first place. If you take me hostage and tell me not to move, fucking shoot me if I run. Likewise, if you want to vent the station of air, you are free to do so, but don't bolt every airlock on the station. While I can't expect anyone to assign to my pattern of thinking, I'm sure that people like overcoming challenges, even if the price for failing is death.

[Zidanyia]

As one of the people with a track record of moaning when I die I can say I would be okay with it, but honestly... it was never an issue of dying. It was an issue of having your death meaningless, or simply not being given a chance to survive in the first place. If you take me hostage and tell me not to move, fucking shoot me if I run. Likewise, if you want to vent the station of air, you are free to do so, but don't bolt every airlock on the station. While I can't expect anyone to assign to my pattern of thinking, I'm sure that people like overcoming challenges, even if the price for failing is death.

 

Haha, well.

I was a changeling earlier today with some neat genetic powers. With my own x-ray vision and illicitly procured sec officer ID, I see one of my own fellow changelings locked up in prison. I had figured that walking in, opening the door and saying, "hey, you're free" would be a sufficient enough tell that I was another changeling willing to help.

Well, um, no, my head got lopped off in two successive arm blade strikes. Wordlessly.

Was it fair? Not really.

After that, the cell door was bolted and shocked by the AI (I don't understand the latter, considering the guy was in an isolation cell with no way to get out). The other changeling constantly butted up against the shocked airlock and was stared at by the entire security team like they were a circus freakshow.

As far as I know, they were defended by staff as though they were 'creating additional roleplay' by rolling around in a 3x2 cell and taunting the security team behind a boltshocked airlock. Zzz.

Quite frankly, I moaned. A lot. Because as another antagonist, I had a lot planned out only to be smited by another antagonist who planned poorly, murdered indiscretely and was definitely desiring to murderbone.

Guess you can't win everybody, because that's how it is. Varying people will have their own opinions regardless of what precedents are set.

One day, mass murder is going to be fine. In another, it's totes not ok pls ban them to oblivion.

I have absolutely no idea what else to say on the matter besides that it's inconveniently inconsistent and it really shouldn't be that way. I feel like 'the rules' are just whatever the admin thinks they are at the time, in which case they're mere guidelines.

[jackfractal]

I think the big difference between the zombies and the axe murderer is that we get axe murderer's all the time and we never see zombies.

Anyone who has played SS13 for a while has seen all the existing content several hundred times, anything that is new or unique get's people excited, and when they're excited they're a lot more likely to forgive things like being killed by monsters.

People are starved for content.

[Guest]

I think the big difference between the zombies and the axe murderer is that we get axe murderer's all the time and we never see zombies.

Anyone who has played SS13 for a while has seen all the existing content several hundred times, anything that is new or unique get's people excited, and when they're excited they're a lot more likely to forgive things like being killed by monsters.

People are starved for content.

All my yes. We need events.

[JKJudgeX]

I don't know that my opinion counts for anything, but, I think that SS13 was built with mass murder as a possible outcome because it expands the range of things that can happen in a round, and I support its implementation from time to time.

My reasoning is pretty simple: Just about every malf AI round ends with everyone dead... either that round type needs to be removed/that outcome removed, or the other antags should have the option from time to time of killing everyone. The game has objectives built in that are "be the only person to escape on the shuttle" and "summon nar-sie" which both have pretty big potential to lead to mass murder. I don't think those things are necessarily outmoded or made impossible by this being a heavy RP server. Those things can be heavily RP'ed as well, and heavy RP can exist within those confines.

The more antags are shackled, the less high drama there is to RP heavily, IMO. People getting killed is a big part of the fun, and there are tons of ways to bring people back.

I do think certain methods of mass murder should be prohibited, but very few. I think station-wide fire is pretty much never fun simply because it takes so incredibly long to kill everyone and results in a big slow boring airlock-and-wait-fest. I think releasing the singularity is a bit lame because it's pretty much "round over because I said so", and while I appreciate shorter rounds, that's still taking a bit too much authority and is usually unnecessary.

I don't think setting off a bomb or two should be frowned upon for antagonists that this makes sense for(a scientist/cultist, scientist/traitor, scientist/rev, or nuke ops, but not changeling, vampire, Vox, wizard, etc). Bombs are dramatic and sudden and upsetting, and their presence and their use can lead to some awesomely intense moments. They provide a unique challenge for security. I've been arrested numerous times on servers where bombs don't lead to ban-threats, and been able to create really fun scenarios for myself and security by running a madman bomb scheme from the brig... "you may have me, but my bombs are everywhere... comply with my demands and I'll tell you where, or else...time is ticking!" This is a better conclusion than "lol perma". One particular one when i first started on Aurora a long time ago, I told everyone their time was coming, and they didn't believe me... 30 minutes later the bombs started going off, and I did a maniacal laughter thing while the captain and HoS buckle-cuffed me to a chair and summarily executed me (which I found to be an awesome and appropriate response, and it was well RP'ed). The ensuing chaos was active and fun, and it ultimately only killed a couple of people. I don't think this kind of thing should be against the rules. The roundtype/antag combo that even enables it is not every time, and even when those types match up, it's not every time, so I don't expect you're going to get maxcap tt bombs every round by loosening restrictions there.

Shooting sprees and disgruntled employee scenarios should be okay, too, for traitors... "you fired me? Oh yeah?" ... it's disturbing and dark, but I think memorable and exciting... and generally all of these things can be foiled or reversed...

The things I really dislike the most are situations where antags behead people and take the head and such. Things that really kick a character out of the round and have little to no recourse of them coming back, while not incentivizing a shuttle call. If someone blows up medbay, the shuttle is probably getting called soon, so, you're only sitting out for 20 minutes or so.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Interesting thread!

[EvilBrage]

To address the original question - yes, mass murder is okay, so long as the players are having fun and you're not breaking any rules (which is indeed possible!)

An example: as a wizard, I spontaneously appeared in cargo, threw a ritual knife to the ground, and demanded that the cargo crew kill themselves so that I could capture their essence and turn them into large void creatures. One guy (surprisingly) did as I said, cutting his arm off and killing himself in the process; the officer who reported to the cargo bay after the others had run away and reported my presence was given the same ultimatum, but eventually I just elected to use the Mutate spell and punch him to death after he tried to baton me. Then three officers showed up after that, vowing vengeance for my slaughter of their comrade, we had a lovely standoff and they died. By the time everyone who came to fight me was dead, I had upwards of ten minions. I didn't just order them around and such, though - I actually took the time to build a bit of lore behind them, calling them grandiose soul-powered hell-engines that were the founders of my new empire, etc etc.

From there, I spent a good deal of time fortifying the bridge I'd since taken over into the seat of my new empire, threatening everyone with death if they did not submit to my will, yadda yadda yadda. I was able to create an atmosphere that the vast majority of players took the time to state that they enjoyed after all was said and done. At the end of the shift, I'd murdered the entire crew and half of the ensuing ERT that had been called after me (and the majestic wizard king died to a popped lung when he'd accidentally teleported somewhere that was vented, go figure.)

Now, the difference between doing this and spontaneously flooding the station with plasma is forewarning. People like to be forewarned and they like to be involved; the more you involve them, the happier they'll be. The 'no ganking' rule states that you can't kill people without RP, and that's fair enough - you wouldn't want to be wandering down the hallway, minding your own business, only to fall over and die from plasma inhalation a split second later, would you? But think about that order you were given. Everyone on the station is hostile and you need to murder all of them - a noble goal. So how can you do that while continuing to involve them?

One thing I've always wanted to do as a malfunctioning AI is gain the assistance (willfully or not) of a roboticist and force him to turn crewmembers I've slaughtered into cyborgs slaved to my laws. In the same vein as the suggestion above, it keeps them involved in the round, and people like that - but at the same time, you're completing your objective (to kill them.) It's a much more intriguing solution to dying to a plasma leak, and it keeps them engaged in the round. On the other hand, if you're absolutely dead-set on filtering plasma throughout the station, I would personally advise loudly announcing it and viciously attacking anyone who gets in your way as you chug on down to Atmospherics.

Sure, you might die, but it keeps people engaged, and people like to be engaged - do that, and I doubt you'll get bwoinked (and if you do, they'll understand your methods.)