Of Null Rods and Shotguns

[Archie700]

So in a recent round, a captain was asking for a null rod from the chaplain for (friendly) wizard killing, then stealing it from him when they refused. The discussion at the time was whether it was a dick move to steal the item.

This got me wondering, under which conditions could the captain or security commandeer a chaplain's null rod or bartender's shotgun if the chaplain/bartender has it without it being considered a dick move.

A clear example of it not being a dick move is captain/sec stealing the null rod off an uncooperative chaplain during cult, as the null rod and the chaplain are very important tools in fighting cult, but is it the same for wizard?

As for bartender shotgun, is the captain/security allowed to commandeer it if no other weapons are available to deal with the threat?

Something similar is the warden not issuing guns during a blob situation.

[Vekter]

Does the null rod even do anything for anyone who's not a Chaplain?

As for the Bartender's shotgun, there are other shotguns in the armory and you can order ones from Cargo, there's zero reason to confiscate it unless you have literally no other option.

[NoxVS]

Does the null rod even do anything for anyone who's not a Chaplain?

Grants magic immunity, can clear runes.

[Vekter]

Does the null rod even do anything for anyone who's not a Chaplain?

Grants magic immunity, can clear runes.

Gotcha, I don't play chaplain much so I figured the rune clearing only worked for them.

I feel like it's going to depend on the scale of the issue and whether or not the chaplain is actively complying. A wizard? Probably not, it's helpful but you can fight him without it if you have the right tools. A cult? Chaplain should be actively assisting against cult, if they're not then they should at least give the rod to someone who can use it. If they're not being cooperative, I could understand sec or command taking it by force, making it an IC issue.

The distinction needs to be made between "using it to validhunt magical antags" and "fighting a round-ending threat". Wizards are not a round-ending threat, ergo, no stealy.

[Misdoubtful]

Why are the people doing this that obsessed with winning and having the winning edge at the expense of others fun?

That might be a better question to be asking.

Being a dickhead with the only justification being 'I want to win' sucks.

[Jacquerel]

I don't think you should be commandeering the null rod for a wizard tbh it's a dick move and also just not necessary
It's _maybe_ a little more understandable for cult because the chaplain really does have a reasonably important and exclusive role there but it's still not a big deal

[CPTANT]

How is this not obviously IC conflict.

Chaplain killed the wizard for obvious reasons. Captain says wizard was friendly so killing him is a crime. Losing a weapon seems like a pretty mild punishment to me for murder.

[Screemonster]

Re: the bartender's shotgun, there's precedent for security not being allowed to just take it because they want a weapon: viewtopic.php?p=661410#p661410

[Jacquerel]

Chaplain killed the wizard for obvious reasons. Captain says wizard was friendly so killing him is a crime. Losing a weapon seems like a pretty mild punishment to me for murder.

You have it the other way around.
There was a relatively friendly wizard. The Captain wanted to kill the wizard (completely justifiable).
The Captain decided that the null rod was essential for killing the wizard (it's not but ok).
The Chaplain wanted to keep their null rod, but was also not interested in fighting the Wizard.
The Captain takes the null rod from the Chaplain so they can go beat up the Wizard.

[Striders13]

The captain's actions could be fine, depending on how much opposition the wizard had. I'm very sympathetic towards him if he's the only one going against the magic dude, one man vs wizard needs all the help he can get.

[Vekter]

It's _maybe_ a little more understandable for cult because the chaplain really does have a reasonably important and exclusive role there but it's still not a big deal

I'm cool with it on cult if (and only if) the chaplain isn't being cooperative in helping get rid of the cult.

[Indie-ana Jones]

Friendly antags deserve to be atom-smashed, so anything in pursuit of that is fine by my standards.

[NecromancerAnne]

The example of the bartender's shotgun was based on a hypothetical I proposed where, in the event that there is no alternatives as a ballistic weapon (for one reason or another; code changes, in-round events, etc.), the bartender's shotgun becomes the predominant ballistic weapon one could go get.

In this hypothetical, I suggested a threat that was resistant/immune to energy weapons, like a desword user. The bartender is approached by the HoS, who demands the gun. It is the ballistic available to them. The bartender says no, and does not want to be involved in the conflict. The HoS then attempts to rob the bartender of their shotgun.

My interpretation of the situation is based on
A) Is the bartender expected to participate in combating antagonists? This isn't whether they can or not (This is server agnostic, so applicable whether it is Sybil, Terry or Manuel)
B) Is the shotgun necessary for the continued function of their role or the loss of the shotgun negatively impacts their ability to work within their space for the round
C) What leadup was there towards forcing the matter?
D) What risks exist for the bartender in doing anything that isn't consenting in this situation?

My opinion is that A) No, they're not expected to employ the shotgun against antagonists and their equipment is not relevant for this. B) This can negatively impact their ability to continue to work in their department, as the bar is a very common area for conflict between people and against the bartender himself. C) The matter probably would have to be dire enough, where the station is in a dire situation and they're struggling to stop the threat. D) The bartender really doesn't have many options. If they run, they're now being hunted by someone with greater access and weapons than them, and if they defend themselves, nothing stops other officers coming to take them out for fighting the HoS, where in the bartender has no recourse for self defense except to run, in which case they run into the former outcome of being hunted.

Without some degree of desperation in place, I think outright robbing someone of their roundstart gear is outside of the expectations of our metaprotected groups to behave appropriately in their role. Ostensibly, and in the case Archie mentioned, someone just shaking down crew for their gear to validhunt is not much better than assistants doing the same to people who happen to have this useful equipment. It's just now, in these particular roles, they have the shield of their metaprotections or implicit in-game role authority to protect them as they do so. Someone in this situation cannot adequately flex their ability to defend themselves against their apparent attacker, who both outguns them and outmans them should the HoS fail and calls in assistance against the bartender to get the gun they want. The incoming security officers cannot be resisted, just avoided.

There is an argument that the chaplain's null rod and services are necessary in some game modes, like possibly wizard and absolutely in cult (especially since the cult actively is going to target them and make themselves a problem for the chaplain). This cannot be extended to the bartender.

I think no protected role should be strong arming other players for their gear under threat of severely impacting their round (imprisonment, maybe even execution if things get bad enough) should they resist or outright losing equipment if they don't. This is a strong Rule 1 issue and a Rule 12 issue especially. There should be a strong justification to require taking this gear from players, and creating this conflict in the first place. And it should be at the very least a last ditch solution should everything else fail.

[Turbonerd]

If it's fail RP, then it's a dick move.

[Arianya]

Ultimately, where there exists a cogent reason for taking it (there is a wizard who the captain wants/needs to kill) I think they're within the rights to try. The chaplain is equally within their rights to space their rod/evade arrest/etc.

The issue more exists where someone would start stealing possessions "just in case" - if the captain was breaking into the Chapel every round and demanding the null rod without any evidence of a wizard/cult then it becomes a Rule 12 issue.

It is of course, less than fun for the hypothetical chaplain/bartender, and I'd generally argue with a view to trying to get those jobs on side before taking their equipment. I'd also say from an admin GMing perspective, it's probably not a *bad* idea to consider giving the affected job holder some form of antagonist as a natural tradeoff - you want that rod so bad? Sure, but the chaplain might come back with a vengeance.

If there exists an issue with the general idea of Captains having the ability to take the null rod, then it'd be more of a code thing to restrict some or all of its functionality to Chaplains only.

[NecromancerAnne]

I would never consider a code solution a viable answer to this problem, because I do not think the issue of the null rod protecting anyone who holds it is bad game design element. Compromising the sandbox because we, as admins, refuse to budge on a matter is an absolutely detrimental and an ill-conceived proposal.

We're in a much better position to solve this issue from an administrative end than push our problems onto developers every time we hit a roadblock.

[Arianya]

To be clear, I wasn't saying "we should code this out", more that if the consensus was "the captain/hos/security/whoever shouldn't ever be mugging the Chaplain for his null rod (to get anti-magic)" then it's better dealt with by code then admins - anything more shades of grey then that, yes, it's better dealt with administratively.

[NecromancerAnne]

To be clear, I wasn't saying "we should code this out", more that if the consensus was "the captain/hos/security/whoever shouldn't ever be mugging the Chaplain for his null rod (to get anti-magic)" then it's better dealt with by code then admins - anything more shades of grey then that, yes, it's better dealt with administratively.

That's a reasonable distinction, and I definitely wouldn't advocate for the scenario having no justification to exist, nor do I think I like the alternative either. It's just, I do think there needs to be implicitly strong grounds to require commandeering the equipment.

My real concern, and this has become a problem in the past, is when something becomes common place enough it starts to shape player behaviour towards 'incidental conflict arising organically' to 'this is expected behaviour, and anyone deviating from this behaviour is a problematic player, justifying severe action for non-compliance'. Basically, creating a meta that saps the fun out of the experience at the expense of a player who took a role expecting certain privileges, and therefore kind of forcing developers hands just because we couldn't stop the problem getting out of hand.

We have the ability to deal with players who take it to extremes, or do it so frequently that it starts to negatively impact the experience of the game and peoples experience. But being on the same page about this does help.

This can possibly come up more frequently now than it has in the past; heretics are a magic-based role and can in fact be encountered more commonly than cult or wizard. The null rod will certainly help considerably in taking down a heretic who is particularly ahead of the curve, but any heretic poses enough of an existential threat to warrant being immune to their spells when hunting them. I think it is best we be careful about being too willing to overlook the conflict as IC if it might become an assumption that the chaplain has to start surrendering their null rod every other round; or start softly encouraging them to be security-lite (they're very much on the cusp as it is) else find themselves on security's bad side.

Oh, and some null rods require really invasive methods to take off the chaplain, so this isn't even necessarily a harmless interaction either. Some chaplains literally would need to have their limbs removed to take their gear off them, and whoever takes it would also need to have this done to give it back, so it becomes a much greater hassle to transfer it back if it even gets to that point. I wouldn't want to negatively encourage chaplains taking certain null rods (and yes, I am extremely biased in this instance due to the fact that I introduced one in the form of the Vorpal Scythe).

[Jacquerel]

In terms of it being a code issue, the null rod already isn't the only way for crew to acquire antimagic. Holymelons also have it, no?
Is it justified for a Captain to attack and arrest a miner who refuses to hand over their Berserker Armour in order for the Captain to fight a Wizard?

[dendydoom]

on MRP we have a rule about staying in your lane and I think I would invoke that rule in this situation. a captain is expected to delegate and command, not do the job themselves when there is a perfectly alive and functioning chaplain who can do it themselves. depriving someone else of their job is a very inconsiderate thing to do to the player, and even in an instance where the chaplain was being an outright dick about it and refusing to do their job at all, i would rather make someone else the chaplain and then let them do it than do it myself. it would just feel wrong.

there's also a rule against "playing to win" but it's difficult to invoke because it's questionable to ask players to act against their own best interests in order to appease the rules, so it rarely feels like a good or fair idea to push this on people when they're in an intense situation.

[wesoda25]

Unless there’s an ongoing pattern of play2win behavior I think this sort of thing should be left IC. There’s so many potentially valid reasons for taking the rod that I question what actual use you would even get out of a ruling here. Admins should use their discretion (while erring on the side of caution, as ever) and explore DM solutions such as arinya suggested

[TheBibleMelts]

enforce this per rule 1, adjusting with the context each unique situation provides.

[Archie700]

Unless there’s an ongoing pattern of play2win behavior I think this sort of thing should be left IC. There’s so many potentially valid reasons for taking the rod that I question what actual use you would even get out of a ruling here. Admins should use their discretion (while erring on the side of caution, as ever) and explore DM solutions such as arinya suggested

The problem just leaving it IC is that Captain and security have advantages that chaplain doesn't (metaprotections, access to better weapons), so chaplain has to either fight (not a good idea), seek help from others to retrieve it peacefully (unfavorable), or grin and bear it.

[Pandarsenic]

Maybe y'all motherfuckers could roleplay with the chaplain and try to convince them to help instead of insisting that they join your crusade and resorting to violence instantly if they don't go along with you

[Vekter]

Maybe y'all motherfuckers could roleplay with the chaplain and try to convince them to help instead of insisting that they join your crusade and resorting to violence instantly if they don't go along with you

[Cheshify]

The head admin response around this entire issue has been a pretty conclusive "Rule 1 issue"

For the love of fun don't just steal someone's job content because you want to kill antag better, stop being dicks to eachother.

Cheshify - Why would this ever be an okay thing to do
TheBibleMelts - Rule 1 Issue
FIkou - Rule 1 Issue