Rob , command that allows you to rob people.

Something that came to mind that solves lots of RP complications.

We some years back had some players RPing robbers and toll collectors and the sort. But this ideas are always hard to RP because the only way to actually rob people is to either threat them into giving it, killing them and taking from the corpse, or pry/steal.

Pry/Steal is fine, but not all robers are thieves. Some are brutes who use force and intimidation to gather their loot.

So why not have a new mechanic to accommodate this thing. It would work something like this. The rober would stand on a road, and when faced with a victim he would type the command "rob Victim". This would give a warning message like a say to the room, something like "Robber says 'Your purse or your life!' ". This will prevent silent mechanic use of a RP tool. The target would be affected by an affect that upon his defeat would auto-mercy the victim. This affect would not initiate if the victim was bellow 80% health. When the victim is defeated and at the mercy of the robber, he can use a command, and retrieve a single rare item from the victim or all gold. Cursed equipped armor, nodrop items, malforms/living weapons, cabal items or owner only items could not be robed. The effect would block Dark-Knights and Crusaders weapon gains. (The important is to avoid containers robing and robing Moderate players common items.)

This would be an excellent tool for neutrals, who wish to RP outlaws. Or simply wish to practice robbery but lack the evil convictions to murder for items. There should be a Robing score, so that we can keep track of the best robers. Like the Tribunal roll call, but in another place, and also on your score. Or some way for an outlaw to know how many roberies he has committed.

I think this would be a great addiction to the game.

Eh...

She wants to loot you without killing you. I think.

38 minutes ago, f0xx said:

Eh...

When the victim is defeated and at the mercy of the robber, he can use a command, and retrieve a single rare item from the victim or all gold.

rob

räb/

verb

verb: rob; 3rd person present: robs; past tense: robbed; past participle: robbed; gerund or present participle: robbing

1. take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force.

"he tried, with three others, to rob a bank"

synonyms:

steal from; More

informalmug, jump, roll

"he robbed an old woman"

cheat (out), swindle (out), defraud (out);

informaldo out, con out, fleece (out);

informalstiff (out)

"she was robbed of her savings"

• informal

overcharge (someone) for something.

"Bob thinks my suit cost $100, and even then he thinks I was robbed"

synonyms:

overcharge; More

informalrip off, sting, have, diddle, gouge

"if you paid $300 for that watch, you were robbed"

• informaldialect

steal.

"he accused her of robbing the cream out of his chocolate eclair"

synonyms:

burgle, burglarize, steal from, hold up, break into; More

Your lamguage is all right.  It is clear what you are proposing.

Problem is if you can beat someone and kill them.  You should just get to loot.

I'm not a fan, only because I can't think of a way I'd use it and dont think many would.  I'll be courtious and explain what I see as issues.

1. Robbing openly with a warning typically only works when you have the other person out weaponed by a large degree or have some measure of power over them.  Example: pointing a gun at an unarmed man or a 79" muscular man vs a small woman.  The attacker must feel no threat to openly engage.

2. In the world of FL getting the jump on someone is a big advantage, stopping them to rob them so that they can reapply Sanc, change weapons, quaf recall etc.. it just allows them the chance to turn on you.

3. PK is risky, the robber could lose and sure in which case they lose equipment and gold and well wish they'd just used pry.  

4. If the opponent who fought back and tried to kill you is in his knees why not just kill him and take more things that you need?

Maybe we could instead change it to this and tone down pry too:  a thief robs someone, the check is the same as blackjack:  on failure a fight starts, if he passes the room shout is announced.  The victim can accept and give one item if the thief's choosing or trust and be knocked out and hope pry fails.

20 minutes ago, Kyzarius said:

Your lamguage is all right.  It is clear what you are proposing.

Problem is if you can beat someone and kill them.  You should just get to loot.

Then kill them and loot them. This changes nothing for this case.

"1) Robbing openly with a warning typically only works when you have the other person out weaponed by a large degree"

People can give their stuff freely or not. If they don't you need to defeat them. And I expect most to not freely surrender their stuff.

1. In the world of FL getting the jump on someone is a big advantage, stopping them to rob them so that they can reapply Sanc, change weapons, quaf recall etc.. it just allows them the chance to turn on you.

2. PK is risky, the robber could lose and sure in which case they lose equipment and gold and well wish they'd just used pry.  

Tough luck, don't go around robing people, specially those you can't defeat. After all you are trying to rob them they have a perfect justification to murder you. Want to take item easy, then play a thief.

1. If the opponent who fought back and tried to kill you is in his knees why not just kill him and take more things that you need?

Then kill them and loot them. This changes nothing for this case.

Unless you are a neutral, which means you can't due to your ethos, unless you wish to risk outcast. Killing for armor as stated many times by the imms is an evil act.

The warning is only there to promote RP. Anyone wishing to play a silent PKer, the dark knights guild is best suited.

Nothing would prevent the rober from killing the victim, except RP repercussions. Just like now.

It's just a tool. Sometimes you want to force people to surrender stuff, but you don't want to kill them. This gives you that option. But you still have to win.

A neutral is not allowed to steal something without rp reason, he wouldn't be allowed to rob without rp reason either.

If you are neutral, you need a solid motive to harm someone. This includes attacking, bounties, stealing.

I never understood why Syndicate could be neutral. If neutrals need a good reason to kill, and gold/armor is not a good reason, then why do they collect bounties that are paid in currency?

Always thought that was pretty inconsistent myself.  Merchant, sure, but Syndicate?

Isn't being part of a crime organization am rp reason....

I'm loyal to coin, not the forces of darkness.  If I have to kill you to get paid, so be it.  When gold talks, I listen.

Alternate:

I hate everyone equally.

Alternate 2:

I'm in it for the thrill of the hunt.  If you happen to die, that's not my fault.  It's yours for letting yourself die on my blade.

Alternate 3:

I preserve the balance.  The Knights are strong and the Nexus is weak.  When the Knights are bountied, the payment is a bonus.

Alternate 4:

I am an agent of chaos.  I am here to feed disorder.  To plant the seeds of paranoia and watch them take root.  Whisper to the Nexus and bounties populate the board.  It doesn't take much, they almost kin.  The Knights I whisper to, too.  Inform them of the plans of the Nexus and watch them scurry around like chickens with their heads cut off.  Watch them try to place bounties of their own and laugh at their frustration when the Nexus buys them out.  The syndicate is merely a means to an end.  My fingers are in many pies.  My spies are everywhere.  I am chaos.

Sure, some might be shakier than others, but you can justify almost anything.

Those all sound evil, sorry.

The I hate everyone equally one is not a valid neutral rp. 

Same with the chaos driven motives.

The greed one could be though, same as the blade for hire concept.

8 hours ago, Magick said:

I'm loyal to coin, not the forces of darkness.  If I have to kill you to get paid, so be it.  When gold talks, I listen.

Except Anume just stated above that simple greed is NOT sufficient reason for neutrals to kill people.  "I'm loyal to coin" is simply greed.  There is little difference between killing someone for the money in their purse, and killing someone because someone else is giving you money to do it.  If we want to rule that this minimal difference is the line between neutral and evil, okay, but frankly I think that's a damn thin line to draw.

If you're hunting people because you like it and NOT mercying them and letting them live, you are killing for pleasure and therefore evil, not neutral.  "Oh, you couldn't defend yourself from my attack, so you die" is not neutral.

Preserving the balance doesn't make much sense for a caballed character.  Also, would this balance Syndi simply ignore bounties to go after people without them if they're part of the ascendant faction?  Wouldn't that get them kicked out of Syndi for failure to perform cabal duties?

By the way you describe it, a neutral Chaos-follower could arguably fit within Pandemonium (though I think the Chaos servant you describe is acting like an evil, not a neut), but Syndi doesn't exist to cause chaos: it exists to make money.  Your Chaos follower may have some overall goal of spreading Chaos, but they are still joining an organization that pays them to kill people, so they are killing for gold.

I did a chaos follower.. Seemed to do alright..

4 minutes ago, Trick said:

I did a chaos follower.. Seemed to do alright..

Was weak as hell with no RP.

Let's not make this about individual characters, please.

17 minutes ago, Pali said:

Except Anume just stated above that simple greed is NOT sufficient reason for neutrals to kill people.  "I'm loyal to coin" is simply greed.  There is little difference between killing someone for the money in their purse, and killing someone because someone else is giving you money to do it.  If we want to rule that this minimal difference is the line between neutral and evil, okay, but frankly I think that's a damn thin line to draw.

 

If you're hunting people because you like it and NOT mercying them and letting them live, you are killing for pleasure and therefore evil, not neutral.  "Oh, you couldn't defend yourself from my attack, so you die" is not neutral.

 

Preserving the balance doesn't make much sense for a caballed character.  Also, would this balance Syndi simply ignore bounties to go after people without them if they're part of the ascendant faction?  Wouldn't that get them kicked out of Syndi for failure to perform cabal duties?

 

By the way you describe it, a neutral Chaos-follower could arguably fit within Pandemonium (though I think the Chaos servant you describe is acting like an evil, not a neut), but Syndi doesn't exist to cause chaos: it exists to make money.  Your Chaos follower may have some overall goal of spreading Chaos, but they are still joining an organization that pays them to kill people, so they are killing for gold.

It might be a thin line to draw, but there's a difference between the potential of loot and guaranteed payment.  Killing randomly won't guarantee you get any money from a corpse.  It won't guarantee any items of worth, either.  Killing randomly for the express reason to loot is, as I see it, an evil act.  A bounty on the other hand is absolute and quantifiable.  Go for the higher paying jobs.  Or not.  Coin is coin and one in the hand is worth two in the bush.  If we want to go with the letter of what Anume said, it was that they need an RP reason to steal/rob someone.  Being a klepto is reason.  Blackjack, pry, walk away.  Hell, drop the item three rooms away.  A solid reason could simply be "you're in Syndicate, it's your job."  While that's a bit ambiguous, taking pleasure in the kill would certainly be less so.

Additionally, it wouldn't matter the reason the bounty was placed either.  A sword is just as likely to kill in the hands of a saint as much as a sinner.

Using mercy after attacking and letting them go for the hunt .. I absolutely agree with you.  Not all classes get mercy and not everyone that does remembers to turn it on.  Out of the five I quickly exampled, this would be in my eyes the one slightly above "hate everyone".

For the question you asked on the third, one could always prioritize killing of the ascendant faction in job order over some of the other bounties available.  If forced to remove one of the weaker, they could "balance the scales" as appropriate.  The balance doesn't have to be only for those that have logged on, though a number of people do tend to limit their sights in this aspect; I know I have.  This RP I'm sure would need fairly strong history, motivation and would be watched closely by the Imms.  It's a fine line to walk.

Alternately, they could "half heatedly" chase after a bounty from the weaker faction.  The effort is there and if they're found, to be collected.  However, for the aforementioned ascendant faction, they'd pursue the bounty with a zealous fervor that would be hard to express in words alone and with the hopes to clear the entire list before noon.

Trick: The spirit was there, I hope.

In any case, all I did was offer a snippet.  What you may see with one interaction of a character.  I should have said as much, sorry.  If three of the four of these was the only reason a one-dimensional character had then yes, it probably won't fly.  If it did, it wouldn't likely be for long.  But if you used it as a seed to develop the character, you'd stand on more solid ground.

At the end of all this, it really depends on the history and overall RP of the character itself.  Some characters will have more of a problem or need more of a reason to do something than others.  Some will take a fair bit of thought.  All of it can be justified.  If you're wondering if a particular RP is/was/will be justified, we have the Prayer Forum.  After all, they're the ones you have to convince.

I agree that there is a practical difference between randomly killing people to go through their pockets and killing people because it gives you a guaranteed paycheck, but I don't know that I see much of an ethical difference.  Regardless, unless I'm misunderstanding her post, even non-lethal theft simply for the sake of acquiring money was stated above by Anume as not being acceptable - if it is evil to simply steal from someone for the sake of acquiring wealth, how is working a job that requires you to kill people for money not inherently evil itself?  This is the inconsistency I take issue with - personally, I think stealing simply for gain should be considered neutral, and the proposed rob command would give non-thief neutrals a way to steal without killing, but I care far less about where the line between neutral and evil is drawn than I do that the line be a consistent one.  Having a rule that neutrals can't steal or kill simply for personal profit is not consistent with having a cabal open to neutrals where your primary duty is to kill for personal profit.

The problem I see with your balance guy in Syndicate is that who he kills isn't a matter of his beliefs in Balance, it is a matter of who Syndicate demands he kill to get his paycheck - yes, he can bring his Balance beliefs into play if he's got multiple bounty options to decide from, but that is why my presented hypothetical was between an ascendant without a bounty or the weaker with one, because here his status as a Syndicate dictates a target that conflicts with what his beliefs say he should do, and if he does his job then he is NOT killing for Balance, he is killing for his job, aka killing for money.  

A bit of fun history: this is not so hypothetical for me.  Back in 1.0 I played one of I think only two goods who ever joined Hunter, and I joined with a hunting RP.  Later, because I had a sworn truce with a bountied neutral, instead I hunted down a demon since I was also Purity.  I got kicked out of the cabal for it, and the cabal IMM ordered the rest to hunt me down for betraying my duties.