Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2022-05-28 13:23

Good Samaritan rule changed.


The rule has turned for the worse?  

110 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just FYI

This is the new version of the rule:

The exception to this rule is known as the "Good Samaritan" exception. This exception allows otherwise uninvolved parties to try and rescue a person being robbed or otherwise threatened. A "Good Samaritan" may take lethal action if he directly witnesses a robbery or other hostile action being committed against a person and only in favor of the victim. This should only be used when you have proper motivation and are certain the victim you intend to save will not be injured or killed by any repercussion of your actions. The victim(s) may only be killed by the bandits if they do not comply or if they pose a direct threat to them.

The highlighted part is contradicting eachother.

If I see a guy gettinf robbed I can always intervene no matter what. The hostage has no gun so it will never pose a threat so it will never be shot by the bandits. This means you can always intervene and always use civilians in your favor. Even though there is a rule against baiting it is hard to prove.

In my opinion the rule is more broken now then it was before the change.

The GS rule should be:

The exception to this rule is known as the "Good Samaritan" exception. This exception allows otherwise uninvolved parties to try and rescue a person being robbed or otherwise threatened. A "Good Samaritan" may take lethal action if he directly witnesses a robbery or other hostile action being committed against a person and only in favor of the victim. This should only be used when you have proper motivation and are certain the victim you intend to save will not be injured or killed by any repercussion of your actions. The victim(s) can be shot by the bandits if they take fire, because of the fact that their friends can safe the hostage and thus being non compliant.

edit:

Does the staff even know what the purpose of holding someone at gun point is?????

Sorry to be rude, but in real life you have a hostage at gunpoint to prevent the police from shooting you. The samaritan being in this situation the police. If they fail in their rescue action the person can die. This is what is part of life and we are roleplaying a real life apocalypse.

People should stop trying to safe a person being robbed in the first place. They have no clue what is going on. It might be good guys catching bad guys and then a hero clan starts shooting at another hero clan. It just doesn't make sense. This rule is build in favor of trigger happy people so they can pew pew pew and avoid roleplaying.

Link to comment
  • El Presidente

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

Link to comment

In my opinion, however valued it may be, I think that you should be able to kill hostages you have taken. The whole purpose of the "Good Samaritan" is so that they save the hostages, and as the hostage takers you would want to render the actions of the attacker pointless by killing the hostages. Not only would RP-wise make the Samaritan fell bad as their actions actually resulted in the hostages dying and they may not have died if they did not intervene.

Link to comment

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

Read my edit, do you understand?

Another reason why its stupid:

What if I rob a person from BHM and I don't know it yet that he is BHM. They can just blindly shoot at me, because I won't shoot the unarmed person. Another reason to cover up my clan tags and run in civ clothing.

rules should be simple. You need to know when you can shoot and can't shoot. I could have shot that bmh person since he is with the clan, but I don't in fear of getting banned. Hell, the clan might even send in a civilian I know thats baiting, but I cant proof that.

(BMH, this is example could be any clan mentioned. I know you would never use a dirty tactic to send in a civilian therefore I choose you guys.)

Link to comment
Guest Maggorra

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

So what you currently mean Rolle that we will always be able use of the "Good Samaritan rule" because bandits will never be able to harm the victim.

Link to comment
  • El Presidente

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

So what you currently mean Rolle that we will always be able use of the "Good Samaritan rule" because bandits will never be able to harm the victim.

It's clearly stated when the bandits can harm the hostages, it's not never.

In my opinion, however valued it may be, I think that you should be able to kill hostages you have taken. The whole purpose of the "Good Samaritan" is so that they save the hostages, and as the hostage takers you would want to render the actions of the attacker pointless by killing the hostages. Not only would RP-wise make the Samaritan fell bad as their actions actually resulted in the hostages dying and they may not have died if they did not intervene.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time you try to use it.

Link to comment

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Not necessarily, if you have enough people and good enough aim to be able to kill the hostage takers without them really knowing what hit them, then you will have achieved your objective of trying to save the hostages as you knew that you could do it.

EDIT: Pretty much was Whazmeister said below, synchronized shooting and a planned out execution of the hostage takers.

Link to comment

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

So what you currently mean Rolle that we will always be able use of the "Good Samaritan rule" because bandits will never be able to harm the victim.

It's clearly stated when the bandits can harm the hostages, it's not never.

In my opinion, however valued it may be, I think that you should be able to kill hostages you have taken. The whole purpose of the "Good Samaritan" is so that they save the hostages, and as the hostage takers you would want to render the actions of the attacker pointless by killing the hostages. Not only would RP-wise make the Samaritan fell bad as their actions actually resulted in the hostages dying and they may not have died if they did not intervene.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Yet with the new rule hostage takers lose every way. Shouldn't it be both ways instead of just one?

Link to comment
Guest Whazmeister

In my opinion, however valued it may be, I think that you should be able to kill hostages you have taken. The whole purpose of the "Good Samaritan" is so that they save the hostages, and as the hostage takers you would want to render the actions of the attacker pointless by killing the hostages. Not only would RP-wise make the Samaritan fell bad as their actions actually resulted in the hostages dying and they may not have died if they did not intervene.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Unless you do it right? Synchronized shooting, taking allt he hostagetakers out at the same time, like a GS should.


Link to comment

Like in real life, if you see 10 Somalians with Ak's around your friend, you are gunna fuck off, unless you want to die. If you see 2 bandits, its more realistic to take them both out without harming the hostage.

My point is, taking people hostage will never be the same RP wise.. As i said above, its just robbing someone and bringing them with you..

Link to comment
  • El Presidente

So what you currently mean Rolle that we will always be able use of the "Good Samaritan rule" because bandits will never be able to harm the victim.

It's clearly stated when the bandits can harm the hostages, it's not never.

In my opinion, however valued it may be, I think that you should be able to kill hostages you have taken. The whole purpose of the "Good Samaritan" is so that they save the hostages, and as the hostage takers you would want to render the actions of the attacker pointless by killing the hostages. Not only would RP-wise make the Samaritan fell bad as their actions actually resulted in the hostages dying and they may not have died if they did not intervene.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Yet with the new rule hostage takers lose every way. Shouldn't it be both ways instead of just one?

They only lose if they fail to defend themselves. It's only fair that they have to do that after initiating hostile actions upon other players.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Not necessarily, if you have enough people and good enough aim to be able to kill the hostage takers without them really knowing what hit them, then you will have achieved your objective of trying to save the hostages as you knew that you could do it.

Organised attacks like that are quite rare, I'd rather have a rule that covers all situations and does not favor those who have both numbers and tactics so they can pull it off.

Link to comment

So this means that we(SDS) stop using same skins and accent we can rescue any clanmate without worries of him beeing shot for what we do. They have to keep him alive because they dont know that SDS are fighting to help him. This makes no sense at all.

This also makes hostage RP impossible atm, because u are beeing put in such a big disadvantege

Link to comment
Guest Whazmeister

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Not necessarily, if you have enough people and good enough aim to be able to kill the hostage takers without them really knowing what hit them, then you will have achieved your objective of trying to save the hostages as you knew that you could do it.

Organised attacks like that are quite rare, I'd rather have a rule that covers all situations and does not favor those who have both numbers and tactics so they can pull it off.

Exactly, they should be. Because a single guy who dares to take on 7 Sommies armed to the teeth holding someone you don't even know on gunpoint should be rare as well.

Link to comment

It's clearly stated when the bandits can harm the hostages, it's not never.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Yet with the new rule hostage takers lose every way. Shouldn't it be both ways instead of just one?

They only lose if they fail to defend themselves. It's only fair that they have to do that after initiating hostile actions upon other players.

Effectively making the good samaritan rule useless, as you lose every time either way.

Not necessarily, if you have enough people and good enough aim to be able to kill the hostage takers without them really knowing what hit them, then you will have achieved your objective of trying to save the hostages as you knew that you could do it.

Organised attacks like that are quite rare, I'd rather have a rule that covers all situations and does not favor those who have both numbers and tactics so they can pull it off.

But this new tule is practically allowing one unanimous GS to take on 4-8 people knowing the captive will live anyways. This is now a one sided rule.

If you don't have the numbers or tactics you shouldn't even bother trying.

Link to comment
Guest Maggorra

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

So what you currently mean Rolle that we will always be able use of the "Good Samaritan rule" because bandits will never be able to harm the victim.

It's clearly stated when the bandits can harm the hostages, it's not never.

This is your own words rolle "we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at a bandit"

The hostage will 99% of the times be unarmed. I call it never.

Link to comment

Organised attacks like that are quite rare, I'd rather have a rule that covers all situations and does not favor those who have both numbers and tactics so they can pull it off.

It's meant to be rare, instead of having like others have said, just robbing someone and then taking him with you, make it so that only on occasion, a group of people manage to free hostages. If in a real apocalypse if you see 4 people surrounded by about 20 (as in the report by Caesar that sparked this) you definitely would not shoot. You don't know how many other people are there and the chances are very likely that a hostage or more will die. The rule should not completely restrict what a hostage taker can do on a hostage when under fire. Also when taker fire from a good samaritan, would hostages really just sit there? Or just lay in the middle of a field? No, they would take their chance as the hostage takers would be too occupied with the person shooting at them, and the people trying to run away would probably succeed even if the hostages had explicitly told them to stay put.

Link to comment

Why are you complaining? Banditry should be hard.

But when you hold someone captive you want something from him.

so killing him in that situation makes no sense at all.

All I see is argueing that people could be a thread lateron and got killed before they even had a chance of just getting away.

But this Rulechange doesn't matter at all for you guys. you always find a way of killing someone in a bad manner like this is.

Link to comment

No, we will not let you kill unarmed players because someone simply fires at you.

Yes, you can always intervene and either you win and rescue the hostage or you lose and you die.

How about then if you can prove that this attacker/GS is with one of the hostages, for example clan, you can kill them?

I understand by clan KOS rights you would be able to kill him already, but I wondered if that is also affected by the not killing unarmed hostages?

Link to comment

Why are you complaining? Banditry should be hard.

But when you hold someone captive you want something from him.

so killing him in that situation makes no sense at all.

All I see is argueing that people could be a thread lateron and got killed before they even had a chance of just getting away.

But this Rulechange doesn't matter at all for you guys. you always find a way of killing someone in a bad manner like this is.

Should be hard? it is already hard you have to keep moving, constantly looking over your shoulder, making sure you don't loose sight of the hostages, make sure the hostages don't have radios or any means of asking for help.... there is a lot of work put into banditry.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...