Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-17, 18:49
Safe Zone: CLOSED

Sign in to follow this  
Roman

Saving a hostage

Recommended Posts

Roman    0

I would like to bring up a discussion about the topic of "saving a hostage", that could also include "good samaritan".

As it is right now, the "saviors" really doesn't have any real responsibility for the hostages life, they can indirect get the hostage killed but it's the hostage takers that will get the blame.

What I want to discuss is if there should be an addition to the rules that states that the "saviors" share some responsibility when trying to save another person.

I know that you should only use good samaritan if you are 100% sure that you will save him, but as it is now, the hostile party can't harm the victim if he's compliant, thus making the whole rule void.

It's not logical that you cannot harm the hostage if another party initiate on the hostage takers.

All I want is that if you want to save someone, then you should also have some responsibility for that persons life and not jeopardize it if there's a good chance that he could get shot (which he can't right now if he complies).

I would also ask the people that are involved in a report about this subject right now to try to see this from a unbiased perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Whazmeister   
Guest Whazmeister

In my opinion the hostage becomes the responsibility of the Good Samaratin. If they fail to free him fast enough he should be allowed to be killed and the GS will be at blame.

This wil limit the GS ability to go full rambo while the hostage is protected by silly rules. It will also have less people do that stupid action because of the OOC consequences if he fails miserably, like most do. Why throw your life away for someone you don't know anyway?

Putting the responsibility on the GS forced them to do it properly. Like set up several snipers and take the three guards that are holding the hostages out at the same time, like it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seiceps the Deceiver    309

Well some of the comments in there are nice and add to this discussion, I am just posting the whole thing as I can't find the right ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivekef    0

Well, I understand why the "Good Samaritan" rule can be a right bother in some situations but I have to ask, if you have a hostage and they are complying it should count for something. Of course if his friends are stupid enough to try and Rambo you (Yes I have heard/ seen this happen) then you should be allowed to take action against it in the form of eliminating the hostage. However there should be a few restrictions on it as I can see this rule being abused quite a lot in reports.

Now a quick thought about a few restrictions I think might help even the playing field.

1st. If the hostage is complying and being a good little hostage, I believe that should count for something in the event of his "Friends" trying to go guns blazing instead of trying to trade for him or something. Of course the end result lies with the captors as due to the Hostage's Friends trying to gun you down.

2nd. It also depends on who the individual is and if he is with a clan or you have a reasonable grudge against him. To be honest I wouldn't just shoot a random Joe or Jill that I have nothing against and has been complying to my demands just because some random gunslingers are trying to be Hercules.

3rd. In the end the decision is with the Captors and I feel they must ask themselves, "Is there a reason for me to kill this complying person we have just robbed?" if there is a solid yes and their "friends" are trying to gun you down all mass then sure execute the bastard and kill his friends. But at least try other forms of action first like, Ceasefire, Negotiation, forcing a retreat by the "Friends" or such methods as I feel the killing part should be a last resort.

Just my two very large cents on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isak    0

What if I save what I Think is a robbery from just one person. Me and the hostage then get sniped by a hidden sniper. This would be a legit kill and not the Good Samaritans fault right? Becuse ofcourse the hostage starts running away and therefor is not complying yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sin    127

Saving a hostage is an incredibly complex and dangerous thing to do.

Ideally, it should be seen as an opportunity for some top notch RP.

If you try to save a hostage by Good Samaritan rights, you better be damn sure you know what you're doing, and bloody good at it as well. Chances are you have no way of knowing whether there's more people in OpFor than you're aware of, or what contingency plans are in place. It's a fool's errand.

Saving a hostage should, in the vast majority of cases, only be undertaken by members of the hostage's clan or close friends who are willing to put their lives on the line to save him.

The best procedure would be for a member of the hostage's clan to go down unarmed to initiate negotiations. The hostage takers should allow this representative to approach and return unharmed as a gesture of good faith. Taking the negotiator hostage is nothing but a signal that negotiations are impossible and open the field for further hostile action from the hostage's clan.

It makes sense that if the hostage's clan members mount a rescue attempt via firefight without attempting to negotiate first, they share some responsibility for the life of the hostage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roman    0

Well I've been in situations where I've had a hostage and the hostages friends start shooting at my friends, I then give him the radio to tell his friends to stop shooting or I will kill their friend, most of the times it doesn't work, they usually don't care about the hostage, as I see it there should be a "No Value For Hostages Life" rule for the "saviors".


The best procedure would be for a member of the hostage's clan to go down unarmed to initiate negotiations. The hostage takers should allow this representative to approach and return unharmed as a gesture of good faith. Taking the negotiator hostage is nothing but a signal that negotiations are impossible and open the field for further hostile action from the hostage's clan.

It makes sense that if the hostage's clan members mount a rescue attempt via firefight without attempting to negotiate first, they share some responsibility for the life of the hostage.

I actually like that idea, a rule that states that you can't kill a hostage negotiator and that you should always try using a hostage negotiator before committing a hostile action.

Well, something along those lines, it would bring more RP to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fafnir    38

In my opinion the hostage becomes the responsibility of the Good Samaratin. If they fail to free him fast enough he should be allowed to be killed and the GS will be at blame.

This wil limit the GS ability to go full rambo while the hostage is protected by silly rules. It will also have less people do that stupid action because of the OOC consequences if he fails miserably, like most do. Why throw your life away for someone you don't know anyway?

Putting the responsibility on the GS forced them to do it properly. Like set up several snipers and take the three guards that are holding the hostages out at the same time, like it should.

Agree with most of the things you said, though not sure about killing the hostage since they wouldn't have any real power to stop the GS from shooting. But I do understand were you are going come from, don't want to risk your men over a hostage trying to protect/watch over them and lose men because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivekef    0

Well I've been in situations where I've had a hostage and the hostages friends start shooting at my friends, I then give him the radio to tell his friends to stop shooting or I will kill their friend, most of the times it doesn't work, they usually don't care about the hostage, as I see it there should be a "No Value For Hostages Life" rule for the "saviors".


The best procedure would be for a member of the hostage's clan to go down unarmed to initiate negotiations. The hostage takers should allow this representative to approach and return unharmed as a gesture of good faith. Taking the negotiator hostage is nothing but a signal that negotiations are impossible and open the field for further hostile action from the hostage's clan.

It makes sense that if the hostage's clan members mount a rescue attempt via firefight without attempting to negotiate first, they share some responsibility for the life of the hostage.

I actually like that idea, a rule that states that you can't kill a hostage negotiator and that you should always try using a hostage negotiator before committing a hostile action.

Well, something along those lines, it would bring more RP to the table.

I agree with both of you on this.

Having a NVHL rule would encourage a more competent approach and the hostage negotiator would be a good way to resolve it without the need for instant fire fights and they can be at least used to spy on the captors forces while negotiating if you are sneaky enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grihm    16

In my opinion the hostage becomes the responsibility of the Good Samaratin. If they fail to free him fast enough he should be allowed to be killed and the GS will be at blame.

This wil limit the GS ability to go full rambo while the hostage is protected by silly rules. It will also have less people do that stupid action because of the OOC consequences if he fails miserably, like most do. Why throw your life away for someone you don't know anyway?

Putting the responsibility on the GS forced them to do it properly. Like set up several snipers and take the three guards that are holding the hostages out at the same time, like it should.

To easy for the kidnappers to use that in their advantage and powergame it. The kidnappers are responsible for the hostage. If they don´t like to be then they should not have a hostage at all. If you take me hostage, you are responsible to keep me safe and from harm unless you have an ingame reason to kill me through actions i have taken to ensure that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gr1ves    3

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Whazmeister   
Guest Whazmeister

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.

Yeah, so we allow everyone to try and solo like 10 guys while they are pointing guns at a guy's head without any consequences, gg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roman    0

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 is that contributing to the discussion?

This is a discussion about maybe editing the rules a bit, Rolle said just a day ago or so that he wants the communities opinion on the rules since we are the ones playing it.

It's a bit more complex then what Rolle think, in my opinion at least, I also believe in challenging the rules if they are counter productive for RP.

So if you have nothing constructive to add I'd advise you staying away from this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sin    127

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.

Yeah, so we allow everyone to try and solo like 10 guys while they are pointing guns at a guy's head without any consequences, gg.

Frisia tried a Rambo move like that once. Pretty sure he got a ban out of it.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need rules. In general, staff likes to keep rules to a minimum. If people are going to try to Rambo these types of situations and go commando, they'll probably get hit with bad RP accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lue    25

I haven't been in this situation yet, myself... But I can understand that in the current ruleset, the hostage takers are at a huge disadvantage... I find it incredibly unbalanced if the hostage takers are expected to protect the hostage while simultaneously falling under fire by would-be rescuers...

If we were to look at it from a law enforcement standpoint of hostage situations, it would revolve around a number of things... attempted negotiations... while also mounting up your forces which SHOULD be greater than those of the hostage takers... The hostage takers should be outgunned and have no options but to surrender the hostage to save their life or be killed...

As a lone survivor, I would have to weigh the situation heavily...

Do I know the hostage? Who has them as a hostage? Do I know this group? Do they have past grievances towards me? Do I have reason to even want to get myself involved? How many of them are there? Can I realistically help them? If not, could I potentially warn others and start a rescue process with the help of others?

If it was one lone robber holding up a guy in a school house and I happened to be overhearing the conversation and knew this guy was alone, would I, as a old man hobo attempt to rescue? Yes... I believe strongly in defending the meek from bigots and would likely blow the thief's brains out before he knew I was even there and flee the area with the rescued...

If I saw the entire might of some bandit clan dealing with a unfortunate soul, I would have no choice but to sit and wait... There would be no realistic reason for me to attempt a rescue against double digits with nothing more than a shotgun..

I'm not sure who said it already, but the whole point of sending in someone to attempt a negotiation is spot on... I think people underestimate the power of words... If I knew I was outgunned and wanted to attempt a rescue, I would ICly use Willy's senile madness to bluff the bigots into releasing him... I would find a vantage point where I couldn't easily be located and talk out my ass about how I have them surrounded with warriors of the merman who have fought the likes of megalodon himself and that they would be a measly morsel to ones such as them and that if they wish to keep excreting normally tomorrow, they should reconsider their actions and let the fellow go...

Most bandits would counter with "if a single shot is fired in our direction, this hostage is a dead man" or something similar... so it may go back and forth with demands for quite some time, and this could either become massively tedious and stupid, or it could provide really great RP opportunities that are full of suspense and tension beyond what you would get if someone just came in guns a-blazing rambo style....

If I had a hostage and some voice from a unknown location told me I should rethink my actions, I would probably backstep it and say "okay nevermind, f this"...

The only problem I see happening is that bandits would concede and pretend to flee and then engage from a distance once they realize they were fooled... I think as long as you keep things balanced.. such as:

A.) Bandits are allowed to kill hostages if engaged by good samaritans

then

B.) If bandits agree to release the hostage, they must in turn not be able to fire on that hostage and rescuer(s) after the agreement is made...

There shouldn't ever be a case of shooting hostages or rescuers in the back after agreeing to release them in exchange for the bandit's life... KoS rights should be dropped for both sides once the hostage situation is resolved or something of that sort...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red    238

My main issue with good samaritan is that the victim in this case CAN get saved by people are simply incapable of saving a hostage. There is no way for a victim to tell his friends or even randomers to back off. If i were to be captured, I would rather not be saved, unless I know that there are friends online who are capable of properly doing a rescue mission.

The victim should not be seen as a free kill because someone decides to save him. The victim is unarmed and no threat to the bandits group. Let the victim tell his friends to back off. Unfortunately we have players around who take advantage of the fact that bandits can't hear ts coms. People abuse the situation if they are given the radio.

I wish I was a system that allowed to transmit a message in game directly to TS. This way it could no longer be abused.

An idea would be to give the bandits consent to radio a message to the victims group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SatansNightOut    105

My main issue with good samaritan is that the victim in this case CAN get saved by people are simply incapable of saving a hostage. There is no way for a victim to tell his friends or even randomers to back off. If i were to be captured, I would rather not be saved, unless I know that there are friends online who are capable of properly doing a rescue mission.

The victim should not be seen as a free kill because someone decides to save him. The victim is unarmed and no threat to the bandits group. Let the victim tell his friends to back off. Unfortunately we have players around who take advantage of the fact that bandits can't hear ts coms. People abuse the situation if they are given the radio.

I wish I was a system that allowed to transmit a message in game directly to TS. This way it could no longer be abused.

An idea would be to give the bandits consent to radio a message to the victims group.

I was reading through this thread to find someone who posed the scenario before I decided to post.

This exactly. I've been in situations where I would NOT want to be rescued...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×