(Roleplay) Heretics may be in a similar situation to what changelings were.

[NecromancerAnne]

Hear me out. Part of the problem with changelings being restricted antagonists was because, due to their mechanics making them extremely predatory towards the crew out and out by mere existence and thus always violent in nature, and the means of containing them being effectively no better than death and there being no real way to strip them of their powers short of shoving them into GBJ's; most lings were just killed and destroyed when found. It was better for both parties to do this, because the alternative was kind of unfun for most. But this was pretty unfair given their inability to respond in kind to their attackers to justify putting so much heat on themselves. They had to focus on their objectives or their goals, even ones that aren't necessarily grounds for execution. So they were given broader freedoms to act as they pleased to make up for that.

Some of this is shared by heretics to some degree. Sure, you can remove the heart of a heretic to make them unable to locate targets to sacrifice. But you can't take away their spells (at least, their grasp) without severely maiming them to the point they aren't practically useful as crew. Unlike a traitor, whose contraband can be taken away, the heretic can just remanifest most of it back. It's at that point, why bother keeping them alive? It's not really going to be fun for them, and it isn't going to be useful to anyone else.

And if they somehow fix themselves, they are back to being a threat again. On top of that, they can still get their living hearts back, and not even pacifying them stops them from being dangerous. They are in some ways an existential threat waiting to come back by reintroducing them back into the population. They predate on the crew by their very existence. Even ignoring the ascension, which is in of itself one reason to not want them around, they can keep sacrificing to become more and more of a danger.

They are also almost always going to be violent. All heretics will be expected to do violence in some capacity to gain any headway as an antagonist. The sacrifice is violence. It can kill people even if the heretic didn't do so before they threw them onto the rune. So, the threat they pose as a violent danger is well justified. Most heretics will find themselves being targeted with lethal force and no expectation of reintroduction into the round. This is unlike traitors, whose actions can still be antagonistic without necessarily warranting lethal force due to their more dynamic objective system. Heretics do not have that.

I think, and while I don't necessarily like stripping restrictions off antagonists without good reason, believe that heretics probably need to be unrestricted. Whatever it is that they need to do to be able to gain power, they should be allowed to do. Especially given any individual action can be a benefit. Carving up dead people for components, making minions or just their sacrifices in general. They have grounds to do that. I think being too overly particular about heretics needing to focus on their sacrifices is to their detriment when the response from the crew and security will probably be death or something fairly unfun for the heretic. Notably more so than just doing them the good grace of exiting them from the round upon defeat.

[DATAxPUNGED]

I'd rather have a code change where removing their heart would remove the Mansus grasp. They could still get the heart and shit back if they pre-draw a rune, of course, but this would solve a lot of issues (Including the fact that rust heretics are incontainable without chopping off both their arms)

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Everything you said there about the Heretic can apply to the traitor.

The Ascension? Traitors have Final Objectives.

Heretic can get their heart back with work? Traitors can get their uplinks back with work.

The Tot's final objectives are all violent, and if you leave them alone they will get them. They can also choose, sure, to only go for non-violent objectives, and a Heretic can choose to only go for rifts.

I think we've coded ourselves into a corner.

[NecromancerAnne]

I don't believe that to be true. Traitors do have non-lethal objectives such as theft objectives and technically kidnapping progressive objectives amongst others, and can argue for leniency as a result. Their activities can be antagonistic while not necessarily justifying extreme measures such as round removal.

While they absolutely could get an uplink again, it doesn't come with the benefits of subtlety whatsoever. It is easier to find that replacement than the original. And final objectives are not necessarily the only end goal of traitors, nor do they necessarily get those objectives before the round ends. You can also weaken that traitor quite effectively by taking away their gadgets or TC if there is an open uplink. You can't take knowledge progress from a heretic.

You also do not have to go to any particularly extreme lengths to contain most traitors. Pacifism will stop most martial artists, and while you can't do anything for a holoparasite tot, they're not common enough to worry about. The rest can have their contraband removed and the only thing you need do from there is monitor their activity. Tracking beacons do that quite nicely.

This is not true of heretics. They don't have reasonable deniability about their objective path. It is a straight arrow and it is all about doing a lot of harm along the way.

I think there is no reason to change how heretics behave code wise, we just have to accommodate what they are policy wise.

[dendydoom]

i'm saying it: the design of progression antags are incompatible in general with the mindset we're expecting around all restricted antags on mrp.

[blackdav123]

i'm saying it: the design of progression antags are incompatible in general with the mindset we're expecting around all restricted antags on mrp.

[sinfulbliss]

So, first of all I think NecroAnne is making a valid point. Heretics absolutely are not the same as traitors. Traitors you can completely nullify by confiscating their uplinks — they become at worst unhinged crewmembers when released. Heretics will always have a way of getting their full kit back, relatively easily, and always have a goal to sac and ascend.

I would be a bit careful with unrestricting them though. On LRP (like most antags) they are unrestricted, and many people use heretic as free antag, to make bombs or murderbone (although it is significantly harder to murderbone as a heretic so this might not be a big concern). Particularly heretic I think ends up this way since many people dislike the grind and difficulty of sacs and rituals, and would prefer to just relax and grief.

The second component is I’d wonder exactly what unrestricting them would do for them. AFAIK you are allowed to kill with any reason at all now on MRP, as long as there exists a reason, and stealing organs, killing witnesses, killing people in departments that may hinder your sac attempt — all seem perfectly valid already.

[Striders13]

maybe restricting antags is just a bad idea if we're gonna keep making antags unrestricted

[DaydreamIQ]

If we keep unrestricting antags because security can't handle them due to code issues we're basically gonna end up with the restricted rules not mattering in the slightest. Heretics DO need a way to be subdued non-lethally but making them valid is just gonna open up more people's antag rounds getting game ended by non-sec, heretic is a pain in the ass for people who don't have a billion hours in it as is.

[MooCow12]

Did.....security forget chemical/tracking implants exist, were they removed? the reason it doesnt work on lings is because they can survive it easily, most heretics are completely mortal and while they wont be 100% unable to eventually counter or deal with the chemical implant its still a massive setback that they have to play nice until they either remove it or find a way to overcome whatever chemical mix you put into it.


Its literally a remote injection of chems and you can do even more if you also add bci circuit to it, fully restricting someones movement isnt necessary if you have a button that remotely kills them or knocks them out.

[TheBibleMelts]

i'd personally rather not unrestrict them on MRP. they're an incredibly common antagonist type, in addition to some concerns raised in this thread already. i think it's an issue with how few options there are to 'nullify' them in the code, as well as their inherent objectives being an issue.

[DATAxPUNGED]

Did.....security forget chemical/tracking implants exist, were they removed? the reason it doesnt work on lings is because they can survive it easily, most heretics are completely mortal and while they wont be 100% unable to eventually counter or deal with the chemical implant its still a massive setback that they have to play nice until they either remove it or find a way to overcome whatever chemical mix you put into it.


Its literally a remote injection of chems and you can do even more if you also add bci circuit to it, fully restricting someones movement isnt necessary if you have a button that remotely kills them or knocks them out.

This is also a VERY good point. If detained, sec may choose to put an implant on you that can just KILL YOU FROM A DISTANCE. I personally don't use it because i do like giving antags second chances, but if you want to completely nullify one, this is an option that already exists

[MooCow12]

It does get countered by multiver but you could always feign using it on the radio, say some funny monologue about how they were bad and now they are dead, and theyll probably panic drink it and then you kill them 5 minute later.


Or have multiple death doses so they drink it on the first one, the first fake dose could just be a bci injector with some nasty chems in it but thats just the first resort.

[Higgin]

i'm saying it: the design of progression antags are incompatible in general with the mindset we're expecting around all restricted antags on mrp.

Well-said.

There is no stopping rule for them becoming a round-ending threat or, for that matter, using relaxed escalation to incidentally RR people while still being on their face "restricted."

In the case of progtots, they also get more powerful by doing things which might not invite direct intervention by the crew - if somebody goes and shoots Ian, Citrus, and Poly dead, we'd still probably raise our eyebrows and say "validhunting much?" if a doctor came over from medical to rock their world.

Even if they took all those TC and used them to walk into medical and clap everyone on their way to get Runtime next. Still technically restricted. :^)

E1: Given this thread is about heretics, the same thing applies to heretics saccing people or doing rituals elsewhere.The lack of viable containment and nullification put them in a worse spot than traitors, more like changelings, and to me makes the case that they should be unrestricted too. Getting caught out early sucks, but it's hard to blame people wanting to run their shit at that point when failing to do so means you'll be dealing with a 3+ blade shield murder monster if you don't.

If the point of restricting them was to make more room for people to do gimmicks or what have you, it doesn't work. Progression antags - Hell, even antags with very loose escalation requirements - push people to behave brutally if they don't know that the person on the other end will play ball with them going anything less than hard.

[EmpressMaia]

If we keep unrestricting antags because security can't handle them due to code issues we're basically gonna end up with the restricted rules not mattering in the slightest. Heretics DO need a way to be subdued non-lethally but making them valid is just gonna open up more people's antag rounds getting game ended by non-sec, heretic is a pain in the ass for people who don't have a billion hours in it as is.

+1 on this.

[Higgin]

If you're just going to play the antag straight around its ability to do its mechanical objectives and loop, you don't deserve protections that exist for people doing something else or something more.

A way to deconvert rather than kill would be good for pretty much all our antags. That'd lower the cost of trying and failing.

MRP should not be a soft-play area for the people who just want to play the game competitively. Even with restrictions, the stakes for crew are never not RR, even with sacrifices, or close to just as bad.

Until they're not, unrestrict them.

[Vekter]

Yeah, this isn't the solution to any problem we're having for many of the reasons already specified.

[NoxVS]

A way to deconvert rather than kill would be good for pretty much all our antags. That'd lower the cost of trying and failing.

This has repeatedly been asked for, and it is a terrible idea. If there is a way to deconvert antags, it is the best option available and will quickly become the default action when you find an antag. Saw someone putting up posters? Deconvert them. Someone took a guy hostage? Deconvert them. Mad bomber took out a department? Deconvert them. There is no reason to perma someone, or let them off with a warning, or execute them, or release under heavy surveillance, or any of the other ways you can deal with an antagonist when you have the magic "I win" button you can press to solve the issue entirely.

A way to deconvert rather than kill all or most all antags would be an awful addition to the game that actively makes every interaction involving antagonists worse.

[Higgin]

A way to deconvert rather than kill would be good for pretty much all our antags. That'd lower the cost of trying and failing.

Saw someone putting up posters? Deconvert them. Someone took a guy hostage? Deconvert them. Mad bomber took out a department? Deconvert them. There is no reason to perma someone, or let them off with a warning, or execute them, or release under heavy surveillance, or any of the other ways you can deal with an antagonist when you have the magic "I win" button you can press to solve the issue entirely.

RRing them is already the button you're talking about, and how is it remotely preferable for that to be the case?

The problem with the 'deal with people in proportion to their crimes' rule alongside the supposed 'restricted' status of those antags is that any of those deeds might plausibly be tied back to them having antag status and confirmed by the use/presence of antag gear. They scale, and they have effectively no stopping rule.

Nothing says poster boy is just going to be poster boy. Nothing says bomberman isn't going to be a problem if you don't turn them into paste or try to turn them into a cyborg, at which point they might suicide or ghost out. They have a different status, they play by different rules.

Only in the most egregious cases of going out of your way to kill and RR people is an antag going to be 'restricted' ime, and the possible warrants for them doing so are far and wide - primary objectives, secondary objectives, being in the way, Hell - even just having desirable gear might be good enough to justify jumping somebody from what I've seen.

And then if you're a heretic or traitor, your reward for getting to the 'end' of your progression is exemption from even those nominal restrictions.

Deconverting might end your antag run, but it doesn't end your round. When you kill somebody as an antag, by in large, there's no tag attached to it saying you have to leave them to be brought back; similarly, there's no reason you have to deconvert antags even if you have the ability to, but I don't doubt a lot of people on both sides would prefer having the ability to let others keep playing rather than being (effectively or literally) removed.

If they don't want to play without being an antag after having blown their wad, they can ghost/suicide and do what they would've done otherwise - wait for a headbanger ghost role/midround to pop and go back to causing mayhem.

How is it fair to the people who didn't roll antag to act like those that did can't or won't do what they can?

As much as the call here is for Heretics to be unrestricted because they're treated like it, my experience has been that they're also allowed to act like it to an extent that calls into question the whole use of that distinction.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I don't believe that to be true. Traitors do have non-lethal objectives such as theft objectives and technically kidnapping progressive objectives amongst others, and can argue for leniency as a result. Their activities can be antagonistic while not necessarily justifying extreme measures such as round removal.

And the Heretic can argue for leniency that they're just a drainer. All they do is drain rifts. They can be """antagonistic""" by tiding into places for the rifts, if you don't go purely off of objectives they can still fuck with people in other ways, like poisoning the food with their weird eldritch flasks.

This is not true of heretics. They don't have reasonable deniability about their objective path. It is a straight arrow and it is all about doing a lot of harm along the way.

Except is it really? If the Heretic doesn't care about Ascension, then they don't need need to sacrifice anyone. They can just hit rifts and the time-gates for their Knowledge. They won't Ascend, but the Traitor will probably run out of non-violent objectives along the way, too.

I think there is no reason to change how heretics behave code wise, we just have to accommodate what they are policy wise.

My point was more of an issue with Traitor than Heretic. Progression Antags are coded into a corner, we started with unrestricting lings, now it's Heretics, next it WILL be Traitors. Progression Antags are arguably incompatible with the MRP ruleset, both in Restrictions and Punish In Accordance To Severity Of The Crime.

The point of everything I said before this last one is to show that you COULD make similar arguments for Traitors, to predict the upcoming "Unrestrict Traitors" if this passes.

[NecromancerAnne]

I suppose given the direction of this conversation, I get the sense there is a sentiment that both Heretic, as it mechanically functions, and progressive antagonists as they stand aren't operating smoothly on the roleplay servers due to how they mechanically work. Personally, I don't believe either of those sentiments to be true, nor do I think the problem is necessarily with Heretic in of itself. Is it because people feel as though it is dishonest to catch and release either antagonist, even when you take steps to hamper or severally weaken them? Is there a desire for, mechanically enabled, the first capture to be a resolved threat for the rest of the round? Is that healthy for the game?

The sentiment from Higgins somewhat suggests that might be partially the case, but I'm going to echo the warning that this is a problem that is not solved by a definitive declawing of antagonists back to normal crew. Nor do I think either system warrants the extermination of progressive antagonists (barring maybe heretics because of their specific progression tracks design) upon capture because of their progression. I think most of us are able to at least make reasonable judgement calls about the overall health of the game in a given moment by choosing the less optimal choice, and it isn't some kind of failing on the part those who take that option.

But if that is what the belief is, has this been brought to discussion by headmins to maintainers? And is there any consensus from the team about progressive antagonists, heretics or traitors, and their problems with current policy? Most changes that would affect roleplay for the roleplay rules sake would need to be largely negligible in its impact on the main servers, after all. Most tend to be anyway.

[MooCow12]

It seems like a lot of what`s talked about in this thread is based on the actions of the heretics themselves rather than the tools that the security team has, like having to give a heretic the amongus treatment if he picks rust.

Not entirely on topic and more of a possible code thing, but what if heretics could choose to make their sacrifice trial easier or shorter to lessen the urgency of their sacrificing?

Sacrificing people is murder right? And as heretics pursue their sacrifices they will sooner rather than later rack up bodies and confirmed kills, couldn`t they go down a slightly friendlier route and send their victim to a literal hug box with candy and rainbows? Maybe give the heretic a little smiley sticker for each person that survived their sacrifice, give security the hints they need to punish literal hugbox heretics slightly less?

Also i noticed that heretic is alittle bit snowbally similar to cult, is this the issue? That you cant let them do anything or else theyll be too strong so you cant afford them leniency? Maybe thats something that could be specifically addressed in a healthy way that isn`t just a nerf.

[Screemonster]

A way to deconvert rather than kill would be good for pretty much all our antags. That'd lower the cost of trying and failing.

Saw someone putting up posters? Deconvert them. Someone took a guy hostage? Deconvert them. Mad bomber took out a department? Deconvert them. There is no reason to perma someone, or let them off with a warning, or execute them, or release under heavy surveillance, or any of the other ways you can deal with an antagonist when you have the magic "I win" button you can press to solve the issue entirely.

RRing them is already the button you're talking about, and how is it remotely preferable for that to be the case?

With RRing them you have to at least be reasonably certain that they're actually an antagonist before you do it because getting it wrong can have consequences.
If there were some sort of harmless deconversion then you'd see sec doing it to any and all criminals and even random people "just to be sure" and treating an unwillingness to go through with their loyalty measures as being inherently suspicious because why would an innocent crewmember object to having their nonexistent antag status removed hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[dendydoom]

we had an enlightening discussion on this in adminbus yesterday and i'll try to re-iterate what i said there.

it's worth considering that on mrp heretics were disabled at one point because they caused massive issues with our expectations around the mrp mindset in general. this was "fixed" by greatly reducing the lethality of sacrificing so that the consequences of them doing their role was less impactful when we tried to enforce the "proportionate response" aspect of mrp rules. in this before-time, if you showed lenience to a possible heretic, then you'd likely find yourself gibbed in some maint dungeon.

the problem has not gone away really, but the impact of the problem was lessened to the point that people could overlook it to an extent. i think the progression of heretics is interesting as their defining aspect to make them a unique antagonist, so it's a little concerning to me to see this sort of antag design carry over into other antags. in the discussion progtots came up around this, and my thoughts on that were:

pre-progtot felt like giving a toybox to someone and saying "now make the round interesting" and then wagging our finger at the salivating validhunting crew and saying "play nice because one you've eaten them you won't get another!" but now it seems like we're forcing the crew to slowly watch someone build a nuclear bomb and saying "well, it's technically not a bomb yet, so you can't stop them!"

and to be honest i feel like that's the crux of the issue when you try to enforce the mrp mindset around them. it feels like people are motivated by their considerations toward the endgame of progression antags, rather than acting purely on what their IC crimes are. this is through no fault of their own, but rather that they're implicitly being asked to think that way by the very nature of progression antags. it feels like an example of a disconnect between the gameplay style we want to encourage from the rules and the reality of the impact these antags have on the round if you don't try to stop them, which leads to frustration.

this is most prevalent in ahelps when i ask "do you think that was a reasonable response to their crimes so far?" and they often respond with "yes, because in 20 minutes they're going to ascend and depopulate the station." i find it hard to argue with that reasoning beyond a certain point, because we allow players to know ICly how antags work, and there is the strong implication that with enough evidence to identify someone as a heretic beyond a reasonable doubt it would be in your best interest to kill them immediately to protect the station. even in instances where you don't kill them, they are often pacified to the point that they may as well be dead anyway if their motivation for participating was being able to play their antag role. to me it highlights that there is direct conflict between the mindset we're trying to enforce around mrp and the reality of the antag's abilities and impact on the round.

another quasi-related point i wanted to bring up is an observation i had around progtot in specific:

it's also a weird kind of carrot-on-a-stick mentality created in antag players themselves. before, the gimmick they come up with would be the payoff stretched across the round. now they have one distant big goal on the horizon and everything is a means to that end: a way of backloading the payoff.

but i understand this thread is for heretics and this may be another issue for another essay-filled thread.

[BrianBackslide]

and to be honest i feel like that's the crux of the issue when you try to enforce the mrp mindset around them. it feels like people are motivated by their considerations toward the endgame of progression antags, rather than acting purely on what their IC crimes are. this is through no fault of their own, but rather that they're implicitly being asked to think that way by the very nature of progression antags. it feels like an example of a disconnect between the gameplay style we want to encourage from the rules and the reality of the impact these antags have on the round if you don't try to stop them, which leads to frustration.

Perhaps Space Law in some modified form should be canonized as policy then? That'd both tie the hands of sec simply executing while also serving as a guide for what the punishment should be.

The very nature of Heretics (and all progression antags) is the complete lack of plausible deniability. Heretics have immediate valid tells and are mostly forced to carry them around. (foci, blades, etc.) In the case of traitors, their secondary objectives are immediate valid tells and coders have shown a marked desire to remove all secondary sources of antag gear. (From ruins or other places) I feel security would be more lenient if they couldn't be certain that they're dealing with a Heretic versus, say, a BB or an Obsessed.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

it's worth considering that on mrp heretics were disabled at one point because they caused massive issues with our expectations around the mrp mindset in general. this was "fixed" by greatly reducing the lethality of sacrificing so that the consequences of them doing their role was less impactful when we tried to enforce the "proportionate response" aspect of mrp rules. in this before-time, if you showed lenience to a possible heretic, then you'd likely find yourself gibbed in some maint dungeon.

I think this is weird to talk about in the past tense because in my experience with heretics they still play the exact same way? Heretics round remove me any time I die to them, sometimes cutting cams and using my office as a base too if I'm out of the way, which is why I kill them mercilessly on sight with no quarter if I'm playing a role that's supposed to give a shit like HOS.
Its not very fun to be an unarmed crewmember working on a project when a wordless guy with a super deadly weapon and stunhands walks in, zaps me, cuts my head off then gibs me on a rune, but that's part of the fear of being alone in ss13. Likewise, its not very fun to get beaten to death by a HOS with a stunbaton after turning the wrong corner with your heretic sickle thing out, but that's part of the risk/reward balance for playing a mass-murder antag.

[Cheshify]

It's a code issue that every single antagonist turns into Goku after an hour of leaving them to their own devices, in my opinion.

[sinfulbliss]

pre-progtot felt like giving a toybox to someone and saying "now make the round interesting" and then wagging our finger at the salivating validhunting crew and saying "play nice because one you've eaten them you won't get another!" but now it seems like we're forcing the crew to slowly watch someone build a nuclear bomb and saying "well, it's technically not a bomb yet, so you can't stop them!"

and to be honest i feel like that's the crux of the issue when you try to enforce the mrp mindset around them. it feels like people are motivated by their considerations toward the endgame of progression antags, rather than acting purely on what their IC crimes are. this is through no fault of their own, but rather that they're implicitly being asked to think that way by the very nature of progression antags. it feels like an example of a disconnect between the gameplay style we want to encourage from the rules and the reality of the impact these antags have on the round if you don't try to stop them, which leads to frustration.

this is most prevalent in ahelps when i ask "do you think that was a reasonable response to their crimes so far?" and they often respond with "yes, because in 20 minutes they're going to ascend and depopulate the station." i find it hard to argue with that reasoning beyond a certain point, because we allow players to know ICly how antags work, and there is the strong implication that with enough evidence to identify someone as a heretic beyond a reasonable doubt it would be in your best interest to kill them immediately to protect the station. even in instances where you don't kill them, they are often pacified to the point that they may as well be dead anyway if their motivation for participating was being able to play their antag role. to me it highlights that there is direct conflict between the mindset we're trying to enforce around mrp and the reality of the antag's abilities and impact on the round.

another quasi-related point i wanted to bring up is an observation i had around progtot in specific:

it's also a weird kind of carrot-on-a-stick mentality created in antag players themselves. before, the gimmick they come up with would be the payoff stretched across the round. now they have one distant big goal on the horizon and everything is a means to that end: a way of backloading the payoff.

but i understand this thread is for heretics and this may be another issue for another essay-filled thread.

Those are both pertinent points, but I don’t feel that mentality is the right one for MRP at all. Even on lowpop and low chaos LRP rounds I would consider that a bad mentality, although not rulebreaking.

“Deal with antagonists in proportion with their crimes” does not care at all about the fact the antag may, eventually, become a dragon if you let him go on too long. It’s irrelevant whether you know OOCly the heretic will sac someone as soon as he can when you release him. Your character is supposed to be an officer that only punishes for the crimes committed, and it would be a failure of the MRP player to let their OOC fear of the antag determine their actions.

Even on LRP I would consider RR’ing a heretic or tot on an otherwise low chaos round, just because you know they eventually may become super dangerous, to be somewhat boring, but if someone really feels this is necessary for heretics, just play LRP where it’s allowed.

I think progression antags in general are bad for SS13 because it forces or heavily influences the antag into a fixed, cookie cutter loop where everything is a somewhat predictable and predetermined pathway, instead of something they create themselves in the spirit of a roleplaying game.

[EmpressMaia]

Prog antags and their consequences

[Constellado]

Permaing heretics works for most heretic types, as long as they are not knock or rust. The others will have to break out of perma the normal way, which honestly is fine to me.
I am one of the few Manuel players that LOVES playing heretic. It is fun to me, I can't put into words exactly why but I prefer it over being a syndie. I definitely do not want it unrestricted though. There is a reason people play in Manuel, (yay I don't get murderboned every round!!) And making heretic unrestricted would destroy that. I also DO NOT want it removed would make me very sad.

Also the ability to change your objectives now is amazing and has helped a lot with the issues stated here. I have used it as a progtot to put my objective to fill the station with flying vending machines and it worked suprisingly well.

[dendydoom]

Those are both pertinent points, but I don’t feel that mentality is the right one for MRP at all. Even on lowpop and low chaos LRP rounds I would consider that a bad mentality, although not rulebreaking.

“Deal with antagonists in proportion with their crimes” does not care at all about the fact the antag may, eventually, become a dragon if you let him go on too long. It’s irrelevant whether you know OOCly the heretic will sac someone as soon as he can when you release him. Your character is supposed to be an officer that only punishes for the crimes committed, and it would be a failure of the MRP player to let their OOC fear of the antag determine their actions.

Even on LRP I would consider RR’ing a heretic or tot on an otherwise low chaos round, just because you know they eventually may become super dangerous, to be somewhat boring, but if someone really feels this is necessary for heretics, just play LRP where it’s allowed.

thanks for sharing, i absolutely agree with the sentiment here - the resolution to these incidents is more often than not an enforcement of the RP ruleset, where i'm expecting them to make the effort to act proportionately. but after seeing this incident a number of times, it becomes very difficult to not empathize with the player and their frustration. to them, they are making quite sensible deductions and decisions in the moment to moment chaos of the round, and it can oftentimes feel unfair to not take this onboard. this is where i'm noticing the disconnect between what we're asking of players and the reality of what they're seeing in the round, i suppose.

I think progression antags in general are bad for SS13 because it forces or heavily influences the antag into a fixed, cookie cutter loop where everything is a somewhat predictable and predetermined pathway, instead of something they create themselves in the spirit of a roleplaying game.

absolutely, i could not agree more. i've posted before about how i dislike anything that restricts player action into rote and predictable gameplay, because it often creates rote and predictable responses to it. this is not the sort of game where we should be expecting 1 course of action and 1 viable response to it. it goes against the game's strengths in being an open, creative storytelling sandbox.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I think a lot of people (myself included!) would probably go back to the state where "Yeah, Heretic can ascend if we let them live, but I'm willing to overlook that" if it wasn't for ProgTot.

With ProgTot, it's EVERYTHING is going to spiral out of control and EVERYTHING is going to go catastrophically wrong and EVERYTHING will become something that, on its own, we can't handle without the entire team.

When it was JUST Heretic that could do that, it wasn't too bad.

But again, Code Issue.

[RedBaronFlyer]

I’m a bit worried we’re slowly going to make all the antags unrestricted. It makes sense for things like the ling because the ling is on the level of spiders of xenos where it’s a sentient predator. You could argue to make every antag unrestricted because they all rely on violence.

[Cheshify]

Head Admins have unanimously decided to keep Heretics Restricted. It's a little ridiculous for us to just allow every antag to do anything just because the code dictates that Heretics turn into an unstoppable force an hour into a shift. Security has a LOT of tools (chem implants, tracking implants, exile implants, pacification, brainwashing) to shut down antagonists, and they are absolutely allowed to use them.

Cheshify - Do not unrestrict
Fikou - Agreed
TheBibleMelts - Seconded