I would also like to add to this matter, if you want roleplay and interaction out of the experience… Probably don’t attack someone in the middle of mist? Going to the only place in the grid in which a character is threatened for simply existing in the room, to then start attacking them and then complain “Combat is not a great time for posting” when you were the one to engage in it without a word in. Probably not the wisest of decision either if you want that cooperative interaction.

Also having been involved in the discussion Matias mentions. The point of executing without waking was brought up a couple of times, to a massive response of “Do it, why risk, this, that or else to happen?”, specially because as he mentions, people knew the character was a Lt. People are not willing to risk things going south when they don’t see a clear roleplay path and everything are disadvantages, it feels like you are risking the important thing for something that none of the parties will enjoy that much.

Do I think the no roleplay kill is a good thing? By no means. I don’t think it should be something that happens even to Lieutenants as a rule of thumb, but I don’t think people can’t complain about it either when their approach to the situation has been the exact same. “I came in without saying a word and started a system inconvenient for roleplaying- But when it ended they didn’t do it either”. I don’t mean to insult or say it’s your fault or anything, I simply try and bring the perspective of, the other parties involved might have seen it as giving the same they were dealt.

So just to be clear. You would have been fine with potentially 1 to 3 hours of RP with the knowledge that you were almost certainly going to be killed at the end of it? You just wanted to be interrogated and have some slim chance of talking your way out of death?

Well the question here is…

If you encounter 63rd LT is their purpose on grid to be an antagonist and killed?

If yes, then killing them at some point is a presumption.

Obviously the killer consulted other people (Hi I am one of them) and we determined that attacking someone in the mists was a fairly aggressive act.

So you have a 63rd LT whose very existence causes Legion raids to have Lt npcs that make them difficult and who is sworn to bring Hell to earth and thus threatens all factions and societies. Then on top of this they attacked someone in the mists which is again was interpreted as a fairly aggressive act.

Now if 63rd Lieutenants are not presumed to be kill targets than this is a very different conversation. My understanding is that like Monster Guests, Legion Guests are kill targets.

I’m very confused, since I’m hearing two things here:

1.) There was a mist monster that put everyone into combat.
2.) The LT guest initiated combat.

These seem to me like really different scenarios.

However, assuming that the LT guest initiated combat, which is to say either their player is not being forthright or there was some confusion — I’m not sure how that justifies a no-RP kill as good RP manners even in the ‘worst case’ scenarios. Attacking people to render them helpless and antag them has been one of the primary ways to engage in antagonism on the game, and what we have been told about LT guests on both Ask the Staff and in the help file is that they are supposed to stir up antagonism.

Is the argument that the LT guest shouldn’t have initiated combat, and should have instead used control incapacitate, where there is no way for their opponents to escape antag? Is the argument that that LT guests aren’t worth RP at all?

I agree that at the end of the day, after some antag and RP, executing a LT guest may make sense when executing a PC member of an evil faction may not, if only because there’s (presumably) not a political capital cost. But is it your position that say, executing an I10 person without RP is okay? That executing a fleshformed character is okay?

Is there a file somewhere that says that the IC reality is that all LT guests are supposed to be hunted and killed? They don’t have their location broadcast like monsters, so something -seems- different about that in terms of code — though like Evalina, I think it’s pretty poor form to kill a monster guest without RP, too.

We’re discussing OOC etiquette, so what do you think the end game should be? Should it be that people not make monster or LT guests? Is it that they should be more aggressive, and only engage in coded aggresson without RP? What should we be incentivizing people to do, OOCly, with their LT guests?

I think its pretty clear where the uncertainty is but to walk through again.

In the mists combat happened. The Guest character attacked a PC and dealt damage to them. I think when we say soandso attacked we can assume it was not just that a fight had started but they actively dealt damage. So ambush in the mist. Considered a fairly aggressive act probably a higher threat than ambushing someone outside the mists.

The Guest character lost. The Guest character was a known 63rd Legion. The character that won the fight confirmed their identity and discussed options with characters online. (Hi again). Given a mist ambush and a known Legion character the discussion was basically. Well Legion are trying to bring Hell to earth. They are extreme threats in boroughs the Legion controls. We have one. Do we A) interrogate them and kill them. B) Kill them. (note it is my understanding their purpose is to pose a significant obvious threat which justifies killing similar to that of monsters). Advice swings towards well we are probably going to kill them because they are obviously evil and foolishly attacked someone who could handle them. Do we want to interrogate them and subtextually do they want to be put through interrogation with little to no chance of surviving. I guessed not.

Lop of their head. Proceed with the day. Another one bites a dust Lieutenants be warned.

Was it ideal. Nope I said as much above. Was it wrong. I do not think so based on my understanding of the purpose of T4 Guests that are actively working for hell with powers that far exceed other T4s.

Could I be totally wrong and I am a dick for the advice I gave. Sure! I accept that and normally I would have been in the camp of let do some token RP but that just not how the chips fell.

So the questions from the above series of events.

1. Are Guest characters that have an obvious reason to kill them: Monsters / Legion need any reason beyond we caught you to justify killing them? Ideally with RP which I agree is best practice.

2. Warnings of if you kill Guests they are just going to kill you kind of miss the point of Guest character as a tool for players to create content. They are not regular characters. They are free every 2 months (it seems) and so I would say the bar to any extreme action against them is lower than a regular PC and they owe regular PCs content because that is why they exist right?

3. Lets assume there was 1-3 hours of interrogation with a 99.9% chance of killing the Guest character. Would that have been better? If it was better would it be acceptable? If not acceptable, why not?

4. Looks like I may have misread this because it is in the Lieutenants helpfile which made me believe it happens because Lieutenants exist but help lieutenants final paragraph. I see now re-reading it that it could just be them saying Lts exist in raids forever regardless of whether a Guest Lieutenant exists. Maybe ATS but I think I probably misread it.