The issue is that they cause bleeding, not the damage.
It is more for RP reasons than anything.
Perhaps it should be ammended to say that if you don’t have any other tool, you are allowed to “slap back” with whatever you have as long as it isn’t lethal. But you can’t go on a one-on-one fist fight with someone as a lizard, unless you have gloves or some other weapon that deals low blunt damage.
That’s gonna open up too mant complaints I feel. Can already see someone making a scene about getting slapped a bit by a lizard when they provoked it. Requiring gloves or let things escalate further before much can be done puts an undue burden on the lizard.
Now it would be nice if claws could be sheathed or something, toggled on or off, but that’s just extra code bloat.
I’d lean towards just telling lizards to remember they have claws other people don’t and take that into account. If they abuse it that can be resolved other ways.
The bleed involved too isn’t too extreme, especially for a handful of swipes you’d expect in anything less than a dedicated kill attempt. If someone sticks around and is still trying to fight after they’ve started to bleed, that’s just consequence.
Vox have the same thing too I’m pretty sure, claws that cause bleed. I don’t think most vox are interested in carrying around gloves as well as everything else just in case they need to slap some tider for something, lest they be accused of overescalating.
What is with the antagonist categorization and limits ? I thought rule 2.9 addressed this aspect, and in some instances directly contradicts the rules written here (for example mass sabotage for evac, murder for theft, etc…)
Not really, again, if they slap you once, you can hit back and you are even. If they hit you again, it is war and you can escalate to dangerous.
Because objectives do not make clear what does and does not count for helping your objective.
Killing everyone in med with a china lake would help you kill the CMO, but it is overboard for a traitor.
If you are discovered in maints and try to kill a witness and somehow escalate to 5 witnesses that heard the commotion, that is also not allowed.
A thief CANNOT kill someone else trough direct action (like a harmful drug which they can use).
Revs could destroy med to prevent command from healing, but are not allowed to.
I think there might be some kind of misunderstanding, I’m not talking about escalation anymore, but what is and isn’t allowed for antagonists. There is no need to put these limits in the escalation rules as those are the domain of another rule.
Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be a difference between syndicate agents and thieves when it comes to handling steal objectives.
For example, from the specific rule :
Examples
Acceptable:
4 : Permanently round removing a single person so that you can impersonate them to make it easier for you to complete a steal objective.
6: Sabotaging a department’s power 10 minutes into the round to make a steal objective easier to accomplish. (Such as cutting the departments MV power, or removing/destroying the substation.)
7: Permanently round removing many people who have demonstrated a persistence and a capability to either kill you or interfere with the completion of your objectives.
(note that since thieves do have a pacifism implant, that implies that they could/would use violence to steal without it, like with explosives and chemicals items in there kits)
8: Killing an unrelated person in order to steal items held by said person, such as killing an engineer for their hardsuit and tools.
When an example is for a specific antagonist, it is specified, like with
3: Killing anyone you see while playing as nuclear operative(s).
or
9: As a traitor, buying a singularity attractor to guide the singularity to a kill target when it is already loosed.
I hope that these example help clarify what I meant, and that it is unwise to include antagonist specific limitation in the escalation rules, especially when they are contradictory to the antagonist specific rule.
It is a it off topic, but they are intrinsic to each other.
Because there are 2 aspects to this.
First what you CAN do to further your objective, and then what you are ALLOWED for that objective.
Escalation plays a key part in that because with them being in constant conflict, the situation can always escalate to larger and larger destructiveness. My points are to mark a clear line as to how far a given antag can go to fulfill their objectives and when they are expected to bail out off the conflict instead.
Again, if you are a traitor with a china lake and your objective is in the middle of medbay, you can’t just spam it until your target dies even tho it would further your objectives. You have to be more precise with your actions to not make such excessive collateral damage.
A few people being caught in a cross fire is fine, murderboning is not.
Once again, that seems to contradict rule 2.9, which is called : As an antagonist, do not cause excessive death, damage, or destruction beyond your objectives
For the china lake example, I think this example covers it, though it is up to interpretation :
10: Bombing an entire department provided it is an attempt to kill a designated target within said department.
In any case, the argument is going in circles now, I just think that antagonists restrictions are already in place, so it is unnecessary to include it in escalation, especially when it is contradictory. Instead, you can argue to change rule 2.9 to include your changes if they are vital to escalation.
I’m gonna rewrite this again, probably sinplify it even further.
The exception for 2.9 is there because the action is taken in effort to complete the objective without destroying the entire station.
If a traitor gets a Holy Hand Grenade or L6 in a surplus, they should be allowed to use it, provided it’s directed at the assigned objective.
We don’t want traitors to take a L6 and shoot literally everyone they see if it’s not related to completing their objective. If they’re coming at you, shoot them, if not, don’t pursue people unrelated to the job at hand unless they’re obviously capable of stopping your objective completion.