Roleplay: What the fuck is a spy?

[TheRex9001]

Spies dont really have any roleplay rules at the moment, so I want to open this thread to discuss what they can and can’t do. Like can a spy kill the captain for their id to steal more things? Regardless of outcome they should be put on the table with other antags.

[BonChoi]

It's probably not a good idea for a spy to be taking out high ranking members of the station's crew if they can help it because I would feel that avoiding getting caught should be their main priority in order to be able to cause as much damage / gather as much intel as possible. Going on rampages and killing sprees would also be high profile crimes that would not be fitting to their character. All of this, however, should be able to be superseded by their objectives when applicable.

[xzero314]

I think spies should be restricted on MRP. High pop rounds with spies are too chaotic in my experience. There are too many of them, and it is very easy for them to find each other and work together. Spy activity alone is enough to bring the round to an end when they work towards their objectives. This isnt really an issue I notice during low pop.

[dendydoom]

i checked the restricted antags table and spies aren't actually on it. they should be. it makes 0 sense to have them unrestricted.

personally i put spies just under traitors. yes, if the situation calls for it, they can be destructive and loud. but imo they should try to be a SPY.

[ItzRiumz]

personally i put spies just under traitors. yes, if the situation calls for it, they can be destructive and loud. but imo they should try to be a SPY.

I very much disagree with spies being under traitors. Spies were created with the intent of having lower impact yes, but that's mainly due to them not having a final objective that will obliterate the station once they reach it. Spies are supposed to emulate old traitors with their open ended objectives which can be as simple as being an annoying ass to causing mass destruction. Restricting spies further than traitors puts them in the same spot that thieves were in, a not impactful antagonist which causes headaches within the community due to constant policy arguing and bickering.

[dendydoom]

personally i put spies just under traitors. yes, if the situation calls for it, they can be destructive and loud. but imo they should try to be a SPY.

I very much disagree with spies being under traitors. Spies were created with the intent of having lower impact yes, but that's mainly due to them not having a final objective that will obliterate the station once they reach it. Spies are supposed to emulate old traitors with their open ended objectives which can be as simple as being an annoying ass to causing mass destruction. Restricting spies further than traitors puts them in the same spot that thieves were in, a not impactful antagonist which causes headaches within the community due to constant policy arguing and bickering.

traitors are capable of ending the round, therefore their threat to the station is higher than the spy. this is all i was implying with this. the definition of a spy is someone deployed for the purposes of espionage.

[Jacquerel]

As far as I am aware the code intent for what Spies can or should be doing is "anything a progression-less traitor would be doing", policy can disagree if it wants though.

[DaBoss]

It's probably not a good idea for a spy to be taking out high ranking members of the station's crew if they can help it because I would feel that avoiding getting caught should be their main priority in order to be able to cause as much damage / gather as much intel as possible. Going on rampages and killing sprees would also be high profile crimes that would not be fitting to their character. All of this, however, should be able to be superseded by their objectives when applicable.

The design of the antag doesn't lead itself toward stealthy play beyond the minimum requirement of being able to break into departments. It doesn't work with the objectives, which besides the cruft roleplay prompts are largely varients on 'destroy a department' or 'incite a mutiny' (if this is ruled to not include shooting the captain dead and stealing all his items then it's the mother of all ban baits). It doesn't work with the tools the antag gets, which are skewed towards highly visible and lethal weapons for some reason (elite nukie modsuits and bulldog shotguns 20 minutes in, lol if you expect anything other than a rampage) and only given *after* a successful break-in to secure areas which obviously means you aren't using your rewards to break into places.

I think spies should be restricted on MRP. High pop rounds with spies are too chaotic in my experience. There are too many of them, and it is very easy for them to find each other and work together. Spy activity alone is enough to bring the round to an end when they work towards their objectives. This isnt really an issue I notice during low pop.

The intent is that the spies kill each other for loot but this doesn't happen in practice for a bunch of reasons. Spies tend to meet up early in the round when they're seeking the same bounty, and killing a rival spy at that point is both difficult (you aint got guns yet) and pointless (they aint got guns yet). So almost always you get the spies either ignoring each other or working together to get greater amounts of loot and splitting it.

[NecromancerAnne]

I just think we forgot to update the list tbh.

[PapaMichael]

Given that spy rolls spawn fucking 6–8 of them, I really think they oughta be restricted; it already feels like spies always are the most significant antag on every round that they spawn.

If spy spawned 2–4 spies (which it definitely should), it should still probably be restricted, but it would be a much closer shave imo.

[Constellado]

Treat spys in the rules like a traitor. Easy, simple.

Less spys more heretics

[Higgin]

Spies dont really have any roleplay rules at the moment, so I want to open this thread to discuss what they can and can’t do. Like can a spy kill the captain for their id to steal more things? Regardless of outcome they should be put on the table with other antags.

restricted antag on MRP
as far as the open-ended objectives go, like with other objectives, let them go as far as they can defend it - we still get people set up with Hijack or arriving to a similar state of carnage as restricted antags. killing somebody for their things (or the access to get more things you're directly kept from otherwise) seems in keeping with restriction, going on a random bone with anything but His Grace does not.

i'd like to see them get some more deuteragonist objectives like Protect though - we've got spy, we're halfway back to spy vs. spy. "frustrate or neutralize the other Spies aboard the station if any" would be a fun addition to the mix

[TheRex9001]

I agree with them being restricted, but there isnt anything on the rules that say they are. They also have access to stuff like bulldogs, rpgs etc which further muddies the waters.

[NecromancerAnne]

I suppose, is it better to assume where a role is absent on the list to treat it as restricted or unrestricted? Personally, I think we should treat anything not on the list as restricted until stated otherwise.

[Higgin]

I suppose, is it better to assume where a role is absent on the list to treat it as restricted or unrestricted? Personally, I think we should treat anything not on the list as restricted until stated otherwise.

This seems reasonable to me, honestly, this just came up with fucking Frieza. If Frieza had been presumptively restricted to "DESTROY THE APES" or something, we'd have been a lot healthier off - and starting from restriction lets you focus more on the actual stated objectives and flavor text than on "restricted or not?"

[Constellado]

I suppose, is it better to assume where a role is absent on the list to treat it as restricted or unrestricted? Personally, I think we should treat anything not on the list as restricted until stated otherwise.

hmm, would this then apply to admin event antags? When they want it to be non restricted, would all admins have to specify every time they make it that they can murderbone?

Honestly I wouldn't mind that though

[Vekter]

I suppose, is it better to assume where a role is absent on the list to treat it as restricted or unrestricted? Personally, I think we should treat anything not on the list as restricted until stated otherwise.

hmm, would this then apply to admin event antags? When they want it to be non restricted, would all admins have to specify every time they make it that they can murderbone?

Honestly I wouldn't mind that though

If an admin is explicitly creating an antag that doesn't fit into one of the usual categories, they should ideally be telling that antag what they expect from them.

[TheRex9001]

I suppose, is it better to assume where a role is absent on the list to treat it as restricted or unrestricted? Personally, I think we should treat anything not on the list as restricted until stated otherwise.

I agree, and I think we are treating it like that. There is a little bit of case-by-case to it though.

[carshalash]

Spy is 8 threats for 6 antags; why should they be unrestricted? The concept of unrestricted antags is ass in general, too many people abuse it in bad faith.

[MooCow12]

They should be unrestricted from rule 8 its cliche for a spy to sleep with someone wealthy or powerful to gain favors and advantages and if I have to be captain's favorite kitten in order to get that greentext then call me garfield.



Another cliche of spies is manipulation of information, even if we restrict them couldnt we let them indirectly cause chaos by pitting everyone against eachother?

[kieth4]

"they're restricted so you will need a reason to cause death and destruction with the items you receive, but admins should be more lenient on gimmicks which rely on an item the spy was able to gain through bounties. we don't expect spies to work for items and then never get to use them."