| From: | Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Brutality survey (was RE: Brutality in Shadowrun (was: Re: H |
| Date: | Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:25:16 +0000 |
> Quite a nice Charakter, isn't he, but who thinks a Rigger will join a
> fight in person, if he has other means of attack???
That's not my problem. It should be easy to adapt the questions to
suit a rigger, but I won't do it, since all the situations are
possible for a rigger, mage etc. too. It's the concept that matters,
not the exact wording or alternate methods of approach.
As for stun.. well, doh. It's something very odd about 'runners'
running around with tranq guns, even when, according to the rules,
they are quite effective - often far more effective than normal
firearms. I was trying to make the point 'would you use stun instead
of killing *EVEN IF IT WAS RISKIER* - if not it wouldn't be much of a
moral question, but done as a matter of course. SR deals with that
in that manner - it isn't a moral question, it's a question of
efficiency to use stun weapons. I feel it shouldn't be - if you want
morality, you pay for it in efficiency, but if you do, more kudos to
you.
> Oh and BTW, a corp might get angry if you get your hands on their
> stuff, but those guards have friends (and other guards with that
> loyality thing) who want to make it personal after you killed their
> friend/colleauge! And they have bigger guns, better hardware and more
> men then you ever hope to get together!
> --Raven
I don't buy that. It's an argument I see often around here about why
you shouldn't kill people. It doesn't work that way. You don't need a
reason not to kill people beyond 'it's not right to kill people'. And
if you do kill, you accept the fact that then you might be killed
too. If you do, sure, you should cover your tracks well enough they
won't find you, but you would do that anyway, wouldn't you?
'that loyality thing'.. I assume you mean the rather persistent hunt
for copkillers you see today. That works differently. It is a
conscious deterrent for people not to kill cops. It works as long as
there's not that many that get killed, and as long as there's one
huge, unified police force... neither of which is the case in SR.
The SR world is also a lot more cold, more cynical, and the
likelihood that a dead colleague will be written off as an
unfortunate incident is high. They still need a deterrent, but that
would probably take the form of better equipment, armor, and the
severity of the penalty if captured. (Anyone noticed that guards in
SR is a 'bit' better armed and armored than police today? This is
the reason. A deterrent not to kill them.). If you are captured you
will be paraded and made an example of, also as a deterrent.
This is all psychology. The GM wants a deterrent for his PC's to not
kill guards. There's several avenues to go, but I feel that in the SR
world, 'copkiller hunt' is not one of them, at least not
consistently. There are exceptions. (read on.).
Keep in mind that the police is there to protect people and uphold
the law. They have a very strong moral guideline, and goes to great
lengths to capture instead of kill perpetrators. That is why the
police, today, has (in my opinion) a right to the moral indignation
and strong reaction when a colleague is killed. In SR, the guards are
there to protect items and corporate interests. If that extends to
the workers, fine, but that is not their primary function. Their only
guideline is to do as the boss orders. They resort to firearms
easily. Thus they lack a lot of the moral backbone and cohesion
necessary to do that 'loyalty thing'... at least with any
persistence.
Larger corporations with a high reputation might have that cohesion
and morality behind them, though. Ares & Knight Errant might, for
one. Lone Star, possibly. But they'd be the exception rather than the
rule.
--
Fade
And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
