Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James Dening james@************.force9.co.uk
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:55:11 +0100
Kevin said
"Everyone has a "dark side", but there is no reason to let it out for fun.
"


Au contraire, Blackadder - one of my longest lived characters (not SR),
was very similar in personality to myself, but with the nice bits removed -
i.e. witty, handsome, urbane, clever ;-), but also rather ruthless, capricious,
on occasion vicious, and sometimes downright nasty.

It *was* actually rather fun to let the Alaistair Crowley out of the box
for a while....

It's *ONLY* a game - if I want to play an Anti-paladin, I'll play a *real*
nasty one - ok, so I gloss over the detail of exactly how I do the murder-
mutilation of the ickle kiddywink[1] - it ain't important to the game, and I'm
not getting any jollies out of it, but the RP worlds, as a genre, have nasty
people in 'em....let's kill 'em, let's meet 'em, and let's play 'em! It's a
bit boring having *everyone* as the hardened mercenary with a heart
of gold...Anyway, noone seems to have a problem killing Mr Sec. Guard -
he's gotta wife'n'kids ain't he?

The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate is
interesting anyway - on one hand, it's a game that everyone should
enjoy, and having your PC backstabbed in room 1 is a bit of a pisser,
but OTOH some of the most intense sessions I've been in have involved
infighting and confrontation within the party...

J.


[1] NOTE: IT'S A GAME. IT'S NOT REAL. IT NEVER WILL BE FOR ME.
Message no. 2
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 10:39:07 -0400
At 13.55 08-17-99 +0100, you wrote:
>i.e. witty, handsome, urbane, clever ;-), but also rather ruthless,
capricious,
>on occasion vicious, and sometimes downright nasty.

To me, that ain't dark, it's just ascocial.
Look at the kinds of characters freak-boy was listing in the post that
that was in response to. People who enjoy playing those kinds of
character, IMO and IME, usually are a few quarts low on thier sanity.

>The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate is

It isn't plesant, but I've done it once or twice, becuase it was
characters that are very much me (when I start a game system, I find it
easier to use my personality with some mods) and in that situation, if a
team-member was that much of a liability, I would probably do the same.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your pholosophy."
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:39:07 -0400
At 13.55 08-17-99 +0100, you wrote:
>i.e. witty, handsome, urbane, clever ;-), but also rather ruthless,
capricious,
>on occasion vicious, and sometimes downright nasty.

To me, that ain't dark, it's just ascocial.
Look at the kinds of characters freak-boy was listing in the post that
that was in response to. People who enjoy playing those kinds of
character, IMO and IME, usually are a few quarts low on thier sanity.

>The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate is

It isn't plesant, but I've done it once or twice, becuase it was
characters that are very much me (when I start a game system, I find it
easier to use my personality with some mods) and in that situation, if a
team-member was that much of a liability, I would probably do the same.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your pholosophy."
Message no. 4
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:23:24 +700
>The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate is
>interesting anyway - on one hand, it's a game that everyone should
>enjoy, and having your PC backstabbed in room 1 is a bit of a pisser,
>but OTOH some of the most intense sessions I've been in have involved
>infighting and confrontation within the party...

Personally all of the very worst moments in gaming I've been witness to have
been as a result of infighting and confrontation within the PCs.

I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players who didn't
get personal about it on some level.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 5
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:37:48 -0500
>Personally all of the very worst moments in gaming I've been witness
>to have been as a result of infighting and confrontation within the
>PCs.

I've been doing this a long time, and I agree that a lot of the worst
moments happen like that.

Contrariwise, however, some of the very best role-playing moments I've ever
witnessed or been a part of have resulted in just exactly the same way.

A case in point: Just a couple of weeks ago, I was playing my ork ghoul
gang leader, and my bike wasn't turning over. I told one of my underlings
(the gang's resident mechanic/rigger wannabe) to get off his bike and ge
tmine running. My intention, really, was to get him off his so I could
commandeer it. He got wise to this idea and told me to bugger off; I
shoved him. He shoved back. It progressed. Being a ghoul, well...I lost
it. Grappled him, and then bit him. His character promptly kicked me in
the nuts, knocked me back, whipped out his Ares Predator, and shot my sorry
ass.

I even deserved it. Well, my character did, but you get the idea.

It was fragging beautiful. If I hadn't been laughing so hard (it really
caught me by surprise that he'd *shoot me*), I might have cried.

We've been after C.J. to actually role-play in a couple of different
campaigns since last September, and this was some of the best stuff he's
*ever* done. Of course, he's only 17 and he's still got a ways to go, but
oh, it was glorious to behold.

>I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players
>who didn't get personal about it on some level.

It kind of depends on *why* the characters are hostile towards one another.

Patrick
Message no. 6
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:10:11 -0400
Arcady <arcady@***.net> once wrote,

> Personally all of the very worst moments in gaming I've been witness to
have
> been as a result of infighting and confrontation within the PCs.
>
> I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players who
didn't
> get personal about it on some level

Exactly.

I've seen a 2 year old Vampire: The Dark Ages game fall apart because of
infighting and backstabbing politics (Then again, I tend to dislike WoD
games because they lend themselves too easily to infighting, but that's
besides the point). That game degenerated into several weeks of really,
really cool relationships between longtime friends. (The solution? Stopped
playing Dark Ages altogether :) ).

No matter how justified the killing of a PC might be, it's ultimatly
counterproductive to a good gaming atmosphere, because, while you and the
rest of the group might like it, the player getting his PC killed might take
it personally. Besides, we all killed each other a few times, and it was
even fun... When we were 10-12-14 years old and playing D&D. We had 5-6
characters at one time, we switched between games and GMs at will. Who
cared who got killed, we had fun.

But now? I have 1 PC at any time for any one game (1 SR game, 2 Rolemaster
games), and they come with a hefty 10-15 page background, developped
frienships and contacts, enemies and history. Would I mind getting killed
after 1-2 year, by another player? If it was worth it, if it would drive
the story forward, maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Frankly, the only times I enjoyed being killed by another player were the
times when I designed treacherous/backstabbing PCs with the GM, fully
knowing that it would end up in death for my character.

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca

"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus

Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 7
From: Mike & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@***.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:47:13 -0400
Trinity wrote:
> Frankly, the only times I enjoyed being killed by another player were the
> times when I designed treacherous/backstabbing PCs with the GM, fully
> knowing that it would end up in death for my character.

My comment on this issue is that I find that players who design their
characters to be abrasive and hard to be around create an unlikely situation
in the game world. The players are inclined by most GM's to "group up" and
work together to resolve the tangle in the adventure. However in the real
world, if your an asshole you often have few or no
contacts/buddies/associates. Why? Because being an asshole tends to do that.
I'm sure we can all think of that one person that we don't hang out with
because they're overly abrasive. Trying to play a game where creation of a
cohesive group is usually a basic part of it doesn't mix with such PC types.

I played in a game in Florida where a good friend of mine played such a
character and made it very hard to get along with characters and the GM was
constantly having to deal with infighting because of it. Hell, I liked the
guy personally, but he got on my nerves when he played. In a real world
situation a real person with these qualities (which he didn't, but his
character did), no one would associate with them, but being at a game table
forces the PC's to tend to try and get along with them (which can be very
stressful to the players and GM).

I also feel this way because I really don't want to run 6 separate
adventures at the same time just because everyone built a loner cynic. I
also put a clause in my house rules that PC should have at least a chance to
be team compatible.

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 8
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:37:14 -0400
At 11.23 08-17-99 +700, you wrote:
> I've almost never seen two players who didn't
>get personal about it on some level.

I've never seen it between players who don't already have a pre-existing,
long term issue. Between them. Former lovers in a gaming group is nasty.
<<shudder>>
Remember Ertle the Turtle from the old CD films? (And no, I'm not old
enough to have seen them in school outside of a history lesson, but it is
memorable.) "Duck and cover."




Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your pholosophy."
Message no. 9
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
> Kevin said
> "Everyone has a "dark side", but there is no reason
> to let it out for fun. "
>
> Au contraire, Blackadder - one of my longest lived characters (not
SR), was very similar in personality to myself, but with the nice bits
removed - i.e. witty, handsome, urbane, clever ;-), but also rather
ruthless, capricious, on occasion vicious, and sometimes downright
nasty.
>
> It *was* actually rather fun to let the Alaistair Crowley out of the
box for a while....

You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?

> It's a bit boring having *everyone* as the hardened mercenary with a
heart of gold...Anyway, noone seems to have a problem killing Mr Sec.
Guard - he's gotta wife'n'kids ain't he?
> J.

True, but I've played characters who've been mean and nasty without
going as far as being psychopaths or the like. And my current favourite
character is a sniper who DOESN'T kill the sec guards (he packs gel
rounds usually). He only kills bad guys and the guards are just doing
their jobs, so they ain't the bad guys. The only time he pulls out the
"real" ammo is when he's got no chance of effecting the guard with gel
rounds and even then he's sorry if he kills the guy.

No double standard there.
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 10
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Arcady wrote:

> > but OTOH some of the most intense sessions I've been in have involved
> > infighting and confrontation within the party...
>
> Personally all of the very worst moments in gaming I've been witness to have
> been as a result of infighting and confrontation within the PCs.
>
> I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players
> who didn't get personal about it on some level.

Then you're playing with the wrong people.

Marc
Message no. 11
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:42:26 +0200
> > I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players
> > who didn't get personal about it on some level.
>
> Then you're playing with the wrong people.

I agree. Infighting can, when people keep reminding themselves that it's
just a game, be very enjoyable and a good source of roleplaying. Why, I have
had an evening where I led the first 10 minutes and the next 4 hours I have
my players discussing and arguing. I could sit back and watch the show. Two
wanted to fight it out about half way through, so I had to get back to work
to oversee the fighting, but that lasted about 8-10 minutes.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 12
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:09:33 -0400
At 20.12 08-17-99 -0700, you wrote:
>"real" ammo is when he's got no chance of effecting the guard with gel
>rounds and even then he's sorry if he kills the guy.

This can be done. You need reloading gear, an assualt cannon that still
uses metallic cased chartrdiges, a case of rubber cement and a case of
tennis balls. Pour the tennis balls full with rubber cement, and put htose
ont he top of your cannon shells rather than usualy explosive heads. If
they are heavy security armour or military grade stuf, it should do nicely.

The 18D (stun) fuzzy bouncyball shooter!!!!!!!
OK, so I need a little help.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 13
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:49:13 +0200
> The 18D (stun) fuzzy bouncyball shooter!!!!!!!
> OK, so I need a little help.

Lol,...you'll probably still kill an elephant due to the overflow. :)

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 14
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:53:33 CST
>From: "Arcady"<arcady@***.net>
>Personally all of the very worst moments in gaming I've been witness to
>have
>been as a result of infighting and confrontation within the PCs.
>
>I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players who
>didn't
>get personal about it on some level.


Hmmm. I have seen it not get personal, but it's VERY rare. (They were best
friends.)

Geoff Haacke
"If you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 15
From: James Dening james@************.force9.co.uk
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:48:13 +0100
>> It *was* actually rather fun to let the Alaistair Crowley out of the
>box for a while....

>You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
>shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
>what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?

I don't think I did at all - the question was "why do it?" The answer
I posited was "Because it can be fun." It added a new dimension to
my role-playing, playing someone distinctly amoral, as opposed to
myself, whom I consider to have a fairly strict code of morals. (Apart
from when I'm on the track tho'....:-) ) And, as such, it was a
challenge, coming from a completely different mindset - it's *hard*
to really do an 'evil' character well, when I've spent XX years trying
to be nice to fellow man etc.

>> It's a bit boring having *everyone* as the hardened mercenary with a
>>heart of gold...Anyway, noone seems to have a problem killing Mr Sec.
>>Guard - he's gotta wife'n'kids ain't he?
>> J.

>True, but I've played characters who've been mean and nasty without
>going as far as being psychopaths or the like. And my current favourite
>character is a sniper who DOESN'T kill the sec guards (he packs gel
>rounds usually). He only kills bad guys and the guards are just doing
>their jobs, so they ain't the bad guys. The only time he pulls out the
>"real" ammo is when he's got no chance of effecting the guard with gel
>rounds and even then he's sorry if he kills the guy.

Well done, most laudable, but I was say you were the exception that
proves the rule - how many times have we all seen the following
scenario:

GM: "Right, there's no obvious security, just one guard scratching his
arse...."
Player:" OK, I unlimber my silenced, tripod mounted, APDS packing
Barrett with Assault Cannon ammo mod, aim for 3 hours and roll a
squillion dice. Oh, and it was an aimed shot at his head. Is he dead?"

>No double standard there.

And <gives Doc large hug>, I never said there was......;-)

James.
Message no. 16
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:51:45 +700
>> > I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two players
>> > who didn't get personal about it on some level.
>>
>> Then you're playing with the wrong people.

Many different groups over 17.5 years. Plus every game I've been witness to
as an observer including at cons. At some level or another it always gets somewhat
personal. And it almost invariably disrupts every other aspect of the game and
causes all focus to shift to the conflict and people taking sides.

Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 17
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:45:13 CST
>From: "Arcady"<arcady@***.net>
>Many different groups over 17.5 years. Plus every game I've been witness to
>as an observer including at cons. At some level or another it always gets
>somewhat
>personal. And it almost invariably disrupts every other aspect of the game
>and
>causes all focus to shift to the conflict and people taking sides.

Hmmm. That is different. I usually rpg with folks I know well. (I get so
many weird looks when so-called "normal" people hear I role-play) so maybe
my sitch is different. My experience has been about 50-50 good-bad with
interparty conflict. Ususally the bad was the result of either a newbie to
gaming or some bad roleplaying. Of course then there was the time a newbie
player got so into her character that she herself got mad during the
interparty conflict and did not get out of character (even when we stopped
for supper!)

Geoff Haacke
"If you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 18
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:01:35 -0500
> > Kevin said
> > "Everyone has a "dark side", but there is no reason
> > to let it out for fun. "
> >
> > Au contraire, Blackadder - one of my longest lived characters (not
> SR), was very similar in personality to myself, but with the nice bits
> removed - i.e. witty, handsome, urbane, clever ;-), but also rather
> ruthless, capricious, on occasion vicious, and sometimes downright
> nasty.
> >
> > It *was* actually rather fun to let the Alaistair Crowley out of the
> box for a while....
>
> You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
> shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
> what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?
>
You know, this sort of dovetails with the other discussion currently going
on, about SR devolving into criminals, criminals, criminals. You know,
criminals aren't good people. Despite any code of honor you might have, it's
still a code to keep you from totally going psycho. You're still playing a
criminal, and they're not nice people.

So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR only
focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a criminal is
bad. Could we have a consensus here?
Message no. 19
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
> > You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?
> >
> You know, this sort of dovetails with the other discussion currently
going on, about SR devolving into criminals, criminals, criminals. You
know, criminals aren't good people. Despite any code of honor you might
have, it's still a code to keep you from totally going psycho. You're
still playing a criminal, and they're not nice people.
>
> So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR
only focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a
criminal is bad. Could we have a consensus here?

You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief and
a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
few years, one'll get life).
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 20
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:53:45 -0700
Rand Ratinac wrote:

> <snip>
> You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief and
> a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
> few years, one'll get life).

No....he'll likely get death. SR doesn't account for Megan's Law and other
such things. In either case, the death penalty is coming back into style.
And is likely to stay.

John
Message no. 21
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:33:52 -0500
>>> I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two
>>> players who didn't get personal about it on some level.
>>
>> Then you're playing with the wrong people.
>
> Many different groups over 17.5 years. Plus every game I've been witness
> to as an observer including at cons.

I have to concur with Mark: You're playing with the wrong people. In the
23 years I've been role-playing, and the 25 or so years I've been gaming in
general, I've seen it work gloriously as often as I've seen it fail. If it
gets personal in game, it was personal to start with, in my experience.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 22
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
> > <snip>
> > You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief
and a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll
get a few years, one'll get life).
>
> No....he'll likely get death. SR doesn't account for Megan's Law and
other such things. In either case, the death penalty is coming back
into style. And is likely to stay.
> John

Which just emphasises my point even more.

Errr...Megan's Law?
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 23
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:32:09 -0700
Rand Ratinac wrote:

> > > <snip>
> > > You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief
> and a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll
> get a few years, one'll get life).
> >
> > No....he'll likely get death. SR doesn't account for Megan's Law and
> other such things. In either case, the death penalty is coming back
> into style. And is likely to stay.
> > John
>
> Which just emphasises my point even more.
>
> Errr...Megan's Law?

Erg. Me being from Jersey, I almost expect EVERYONE to know this. Megan's
Law is the popular name for a state (and later federal, after BIG media
coverage) law which imposed HARSH penalties for those who murder kids in
the course of committing sex crimes. It's inspired more than a few other
laws which open up the possibility of death for those who kill kids in ANY
circumstance.

John
Message no. 24
From: Owen Landgren wodin@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:53:29 -0500
Rand Ratinac wrote:
>
> > > You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
> shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
> what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?
> > >
> > You know, this sort of dovetails with the other discussion currently
> going on, about SR devolving into criminals, criminals, criminals. You
> know, criminals aren't good people. Despite any code of honor you might
> have, it's still a code to keep you from totally going psycho. You're
> still playing a criminal, and they're not nice people.
> >
> > So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR
> only focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a
> criminal is bad. Could we have a consensus here?
>
> You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief and
> a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
> few years, one'll get life).

Indeed. I actually had a character who accidentally killed a child.
The results were not pretty. He lost all his contacts, had to get a
complete redo as far as physical features were concerned in a foreign
country, and there were other complications(like the custom Savalette
Gaurdian that cost him over a 100K that he wouldn't give up, and that
almost got him killed when recognized). And this was when it happened
accidentally.

What's more, the character had a massive emotional crisis, and came
out basically a zombie. Which got really boring to roleplay, but I
couldn't get him therapy, so eventually his depression led to
overcybering on purpose. He was a fairly skilled character-- watching
him go through cyberpsychosis was not pretty.
--
Owen
Message no. 25
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
> >You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?
>
> I don't think I did at all - the question was "why do it?" The answer
I posited was "Because it can be fun." It added a new dimension to my
role-playing, playing someone distinctly amoral, as opposed to myself,
whom I consider to have a fairly strict code of morals. (Apart from
when I'm on the track tho'....:-) ) And, as such, it was a challenge,
coming from a completely different mindset - it's *hard* to really do
an 'evil' character well, when I've spent XX years trying to be nice to
fellow man etc.

Oh, if THAT'S what you meant...

Tell me, did you ever play the kind of characters AE was talking about?
(Rapists, serial killers, etc. etc.)


> >True, but I've played characters who've been mean and nasty without
going as far as being psychopaths or the like. And my current favourite
character is a sniper who DOESN'T kill the sec guards (he packs gel
rounds usually). He only kills bad guys and the guards are just doing
their jobs, so they ain't the bad guys. The only time he pulls out the
"real" ammo is when he's got no chance of effecting the guard with gel
rounds and even then he's sorry if he kills the guy.
>
> Well done, most laudable, but I was say you were the exception that
proves the rule - how many times have we all seen the following
scenario:
>
> GM: "Right, there's no obvious security, just one guard scratching
his arse...."
> Player:" OK, I unlimber my silenced, tripod mounted, APDS packing
Barrett with Assault Cannon ammo mod, aim for 3 hours and roll a
squillion dice. Oh, and it was an aimed shot at his head. Is he dead?"

Point. :)

Btw, my other favourite character is my amoral ex-corp assassin. She
doesn't do kids, though. :)

> >No double standard there.
>
> And <gives Doc large hug>, I never said there was......;-)
> James.

*Doc' eeewwwws..."Get offa me, ya freak!!"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 26
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: "Arcady"<arcady@***.net>
> >Personally all of the very worst moments in gaming I've been witness
to have been as a result of infighting and confrontation within the
PCs.
> >
> >I've never seen it handled well and I've almost never seen two
players who didn't get personal about it on some level.
>
> Hmmm. I have seen it not get personal, but it's VERY rare. (They
were best friends.)
>
> Geoff Haacke

Hmmm indeed. I've only really come across infighting once. It was a
Star Wars PBeM game and there were two people involved, myself and
another guy. Basically, my character hated all Rebels and Imperials
because he thought they'd all screwed his planet over - and the other
guy was playing the only Rebel in the group. I fixated on him, but I
EXPLICITLY STATED to him that this was just my character and that I had
nothing personally against him - just in case. Turned out he had a
really good sense of humour, so we had a bunch of fun fighting IC and
making jokes OOC and now we're really very good friends although we
haven't met (he's in America).

I think if you want to have in party conflict, you need to either plan
it out beforehand a bit, or, as soon as it starts, take a break so you
can talk it over in the group, or between the players involved and make
sure no one's going to take it personally. THAT'S where I see the
problems coming in - not because you're attacking his character, but
because he sees it as you attacking him. Or something similar.

*Doc' poses sagaciously in front of a mirror. "Hmmm...doesn't really
suit me..."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 27
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
> >"real" ammo is when he's got no chance of effecting the guard with
gel rounds and even then he's sorry if he kills the guy.
>
> This can be done. You need reloading gear, an assualt cannon that
still uses metallic cased chartrdiges, a case of rubber cement and a
case of tennis balls. Pour the tennis balls full with rubber cement,
and put htose ont he top of your cannon shells rather than usualy
explosive heads. If they are heavy security armour or military grade
stuf, it should do nicely.
>
> The 18D (stun) fuzzy bouncyball shooter!!!!!!!
> OK, so I need a little help.
> Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel
> Tengu

Yes.

You do.

A LOT of help, in fact.

8-)

Interesting idea, but impractical. This guy's also rather sneaky and
it's hard to be sneaky when you're lugging around a PAC.

*Doc' sneaks up on the bad guy carrying a giant, rubber mallet...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 28
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:13:51 EDT
In a message dated 8/18/99 8:33:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cpenta@*****.com
writes:

> > Which just emphasises my point even more.
> >
> > Errr...Megan's Law?
>
> Erg. Me being from Jersey, I almost expect EVERYONE to know this. Megan's
> Law is the popular name for a state (and later federal, after BIG media
> coverage) law which imposed HARSH penalties for those who murder kids in
> the course of committing sex crimes. It's inspired more than a few other
> laws which open up the possibility of death for those who kill kids in ANY
> circumstance.

Actually, most of "megans's law" has to do with cataloging and keeping track
of "sexual predators" more than punishing htem, for the most heartbreaking
fact was that the perp who did it had a history of this, but no one knew
about it.

Reguardless of what will / wont draw the death penalty, The assertation that
a child killer would probobly not live long is a very valid one. COps hate
perps like that, and such prisoners have been known to "die in riots" or
"Fall down a flight of stairs" and things like that. Fellow prisoners also
tend to look down on people like that, so even getting life in prison could
be tanamount to a death sentance... and either way, our not getting out of
the prison alive. The only question is how long will it be before they carry
you out in a pine box... weeks, months, or years.
Message no. 29
From: James Dening james@************.force9.co.uk
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:18:14 +0100
>You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief and
>a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
>few years, one'll get life).

Quite. It's called the Argument of the Beard:
"Assuming that two ends of a spectrum are the same, since one can travel
along the spectrum in very small steps. (The name comes from the idea that
being clean-shaven must be the same as having a big beard, since in-between
beards exist.) "

The more erudite amongst you will enjoy
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/skeptic/arguments.html

Fantastic resource for *ANYONE* on a mailing list.

J.
Message no. 30
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:49:38 +0200
James Dening wrote:
>

> The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate is
> interesting anyway - on one hand, it's a game that everyone should
> enjoy, and having your PC backstabbed in room 1 is a bit of a pisser,
> but OTOH some of the most intense sessions I've been in have involved
> infighting and confrontation within the party...
>
If PCs want to kill another PC in my game, I won`t interfere artificaly,
its a PC problem, not mine, its their way of maybe fucking the story up,
so let it be, its only realistic, the run gets fubar because of that?
not my problem, the nasties win in that case.
Shit happens RL, why not in Game?


--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 31
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:02:09 +0200
Penta wrote:
> Rand Ratinac wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
> > > > You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief
> > and a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll
> > get a few years, one'll get life).
> > >
> > > No....he'll likely get death. SR doesn't account for Megan's Law and
> > other such things. In either case, the death penalty is coming back
> > into style. And is likely to stay.
> > > John
> >
> > Which just emphasises my point even more.
> >
> > Errr...Megan's Law?
>
> Erg. Me being from Jersey, I almost expect EVERYONE to know this. Megan's
> Law is the popular name for a state (and later federal, after BIG media
> coverage) law which imposed HARSH penalties for those who murder kids in
> the course of committing sex crimes. It's inspired more than a few other
> laws which open up the possibility of death for those who kill kids in ANY
> circumstance.

Megan's Law states that everyone in a neighborhood, from the age of 1 to 99
should be informed when a known/convicted sex-offender moves there.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 32
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:29:51 -0500
> > > You missed his point, James. He didn't say people don't do it or
> shouldn't do it. He said why do it? We see so much crap in the world,
> what's the point of dwelling on it in your escapism?
> > >
> > You know, this sort of dovetails with the other discussion currently
> going on, about SR devolving into criminals, criminals, criminals. You
> know, criminals aren't good people. Despite any code of honor you might
> have, it's still a code to keep you from totally going psycho. You're
> still playing a criminal, and they're not nice people.
> >
> > So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR
> only focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a
> criminal is bad. Could we have a consensus here?
>
> You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief and
> a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
> few years, one'll get life).
>
I am horribly over generalizing, but it is an interesting point. Made you
think!!
Message no. 33
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:45:55 -0500
> > The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate
is
> > interesting anyway - on one hand, it's a game that everyone should
> > enjoy, and having your PC backstabbed in room 1 is a bit of a pisser,
> > but OTOH some of the most intense sessions I've been in have involved
> > infighting and confrontation within the party...
> >
> If PCs want to kill another PC in my game, I won`t interfere artificaly,
> its a PC problem, not mine, its their way of maybe fucking the story up,
> so let it be, its only realistic, the run gets fubar because of that?
> not my problem, the nasties win in that case.
> Shit happens RL, why not in Game?
>
Yeah. This is the approach I took in my Vampire game. Two Assamites decided
they needed to kill one of the other PCs, so they jumped him after a fight.
He died, moved on, and made a new character. The Assamites I laid a guilt
trip on. Eventually, they both retired their characters and made new ones,
all because of the guilt trip.

So, in short, shit happens, but make 'em pay.
Message no. 34
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:50:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Patrick Goodman wrote:

> >> Then you're playing with the wrong people.
> >
> > Many different groups over 17.5 years. Plus every game I've been witness
> > to as an observer including at cons.
>
> I have to concur with Marc: You're playing with the wrong people. In the
> 23 years I've been role-playing, and the 25 or so years I've been gaming in
> general, I've seen it work gloriously as often as I've seen it fail. If it
> gets personal in game, it was personal to start with, in my experience.

I concur. The only time I've seen people get personal about
in-character interactions is when there was a problem between the people
in real life. Some people are just more mature than others, and
inter-party strife can add an interesting, challenging, and entertaining
dimension to the game. Sure, you can get carried away with it, but that's
up to the GM to curtail and control. A good GM will put the characters in
situations where their success/survival depends on working together, which
makes the conflict that much more interesting.

Marc
Message no. 35
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:14:30 +700
>> The whole "Should PCs be allowed to be evil/kill each other?" debate is
>> interesting anyway - on one hand, it's a game that everyone should
>> enjoy, and having your PC backstabbed in room 1 is a bit of a pisser,
>> but OTOH some of the most intense sessions I've been in have involved
>> infighting and confrontation within the party...
>>
>If PCs want to kill another PC in my game, I won`t interfere artificaly,
>its a PC problem, not mine, its their way of maybe fucking the story up,
>so let it be, its only realistic, the run gets fubar because of that?
>not my problem, the nasties win in that case.
>Shit happens RL, why not in Game?

Cause it's not about real life. If it was and one player had a dispute with
another player's character's actions why not just pull out a gun in real life
and 'cap off' the other player? (At least for us yanks, it's the American Way
(tm) :))

There's a couple reasons why this level of PC escalation are not good ideas:


1. It's a social environment. People who are acting out need to be reminded
of this. The people gathered are there to enjoy their time together in the
given hobby. Initiating PC on PC violence is disruptive and almost invariably
ruins someone's
enjoyment.

2. It's often illogical. A lot of people like to say 'if I was ticked off like
that in a situation like I'd do the same thing as my
character did.' But would you really? Would you really kill someone over an
argument? If you would I certainly would not
want to know you, even casually. And I would never be so foolish as to trust
my life to you in the way a team of
PCs does.

Number one outweighs number two of course. If people are playing so selfishly
as to not care about the moods and concerns and enjoyment of their fellow players
they shouldn't be there. Its not a competition after all.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 36
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
> > You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief
and a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll
get a few years, one'll get life).
> >
> I am horribly over generalizing, but it is an interesting point. Made
you think!!

No.

It didn't.

*<Alfred E. Neuman>
"What, me think?"
</Alfred E. Neuman>*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Message no. 37
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:36:48 -0700
> So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR only
> focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a criminal is
> bad. Could we have a consensus here?


Simple.

There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 38
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:07:17 -0700
> > You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a thief and
> > a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
> > few years, one'll get life).
>
> No....he'll likely get death. SR doesn't account for Megan's Law and other
> such things. In either case, the death penalty is coming back into style.
> And is likely to stay.


Not according to the rules on possession and use penalties and fines.

p273-4 of SR3
And the Lone Star book goes on at length about the prison system but I
haven't finished reading it yet.


In today's world in the USA the prison system has already become a great
source of cheap corporate labor.

We allow manufacturing companies to 'employ' prisoners at below minimum wage
with no benefits and greater than 40 hr/week schedules. The employees
obviously cannot leave and have no recourse for complaint other than a
prison riot. The media is not allowed in to examine working conditions so
what we know comes in scattered reports and from ex cons. Additionally
companies using such labor get tax breaks and other incentives from the
government.

All this in 199 USA.

Just imagine what it looks like in 2060 UCAS. The corps would do everything
they could to keep death sentences down.


Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 39
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:25:13 -0700
> Indeed. I actually had a character who accidentally killed a child.
> The results were not pretty. He lost all his contacts, had to get a


I guess not coming from '"white" suburbia' like most gamers I just don't see
the conflict.

Mind you killing an innocent child is one thing... but most of them you're
likely to find in your crosshairs are ruthless amoral monsters who'll drop
you in a heartbeat if you pause before pulling that trigger.

Most, though not all, runners come from a world which is a lot less pretty
than today's 'middle class suburbs'.

They come from a world where kids learn to kill or be killed on rough
streets. Where gangs are the rule of the day. And where you're usually in
one of these gangs for life by the age of 7 and out of it before you hit 30
from a bullet or knife.

And even the runners who come from nicer places often have to work in these
ruthless places. If your run takes you to 'the streets' then that's the
world you'll find.
Most of the 'gangs' in the books for Seattle and other places are either
horridly 'old' for gangers or you have to assume that only the leader and
maybe a second or two is that old. Most of them will be those young little
'doe-eyed' kids with a gun in their school bags...

I don't think your contacts and the runner world would bat an eye if you
killed most of the kids your likely to encounter in that world. But if you
killed the rare innocent some of them might object if they were of the moral
sort. But gangs today already kill a decent amount of 'not involved' kids in
their crossfire. And they don't get thrown out of their gangs for it.

I guess we all have our lines we won't cross. I don't go for sexual
perversion in my games. Though I know it's there in the world. I don't for a
moment suggest people should make 'offing kids' a regular part of their
games. But I do believe they should recognize that the shock of such an act
doesn't exist in the rough streets where the concept of 'the innocence of
childhood' died off in the 1970's at the latest.


Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 40
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:23:09 -0400
>
> > > You're generalising, Mark. There's a big difference between a
> thief and
> > > a psychopathic child killer. Even in the eyes of the law (one'll get a
> > > few years, one'll get life).
> >
> > No....he'll likely get death. SR doesn't account for Megan's
> Law and other
> > such things. In either case, the death penalty is coming back
> into style.
> > And is likely to stay.
>
>
> Not according to the rules on possession and use penalties and fines.
>
> p273-4 of SR3
> And the Lone Star book goes on at length about the prison system but I
> haven't finished reading it yet.
>
>
> In today's world in the USA the prison system has already become a great
> source of cheap corporate labor.
>
> We allow manufacturing companies to 'employ' prisoners at below
> minimum wage
> with no benefits and greater than 40 hr/week schedules. The employees
> obviously cannot leave and have no recourse for complaint other than a
> prison riot. The media is not allowed in to examine working conditions so
> what we know comes in scattered reports and from ex cons. Additionally
> companies using such labor get tax breaks and other incentives from the
> government.
>
> All this in 199 USA.
>
> Just imagine what it looks like in 2060 UCAS. The corps would do
> everything
> they could to keep death sentences down.

Would they though? I mean with the extraterritoriality the megas have
established and the widening gap between upper and lower classes and the
veritable disappearance of the middle class they would have access to 3rd
world countries and a much larger "Employee pool" that they could hire for
pennies a day. If a prisoner doesn't like the job he can just stop. Sure
there might be some consequences for that, but he still gets fed. In other
places where the pennies a day job you get is the only thing keeping you
(and your beloved family) from Death/disease, you cant just stop.

Ken
Message no. 41
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:28:33 -0700
> I think if you want to have in party conflict, you need to either plan
> it out beforehand a bit,

Exactly. In the few cases where I've seen it work this was how it was
handled. And usually only if it involved humor as well in some aspect.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 42
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:51:34 -0400
> > Indeed. I actually had a character who accidentally killed a child.
> > The results were not pretty. He lost all his contacts, had to get a
>
>
> I guess not coming from '"white" suburbia' like most gamers I
> just don't see
> the conflict.
>
> Mind you killing an innocent child is one thing... but most of them you're
> likely to find in your crosshairs are ruthless amoral monsters who'll drop
> you in a heartbeat if you pause before pulling that trigger.
>
> Most, though not all, runners come from a world which is a lot less pretty
> than today's 'middle class suburbs'.
>
> They come from a world where kids learn to kill or be
> killed on rough
> streets. Where gangs are the rule of the day. And where you're usually in
> one of these gangs for life by the age of 7 and out of it before
> you hit 30
> from a bullet or knife.
>
> And even the runners who come from nicer places often have
> to work in these
> ruthless places. If your run takes you to 'the streets' then that's the
> world you'll find.
> Most of the 'gangs' in the books for Seattle and other
> places are either
> horridly 'old' for gangers or you have to assume that only the leader and
> maybe a second or two is that old. Most of them will be those young little
> 'doe-eyed' kids with a gun in their school bags...
>
> I don't think your contacts and the runner world would bat
> an eye if you
> killed most of the kids your likely to encounter in that world. But if you
> killed the rare innocent some of them might object if they were
> of the moral
> sort. But gangs today already kill a decent amount of 'not
> involved' kids in
> their crossfire. And they don't get thrown out of their gangs for it.
>
> I guess we all have our lines we won't cross. I don't go for sexual
> perversion in my games. Though I know it's there in the world. I
> don't for a
> moment suggest people should make 'offing kids' a regular part of their
> games. But I do believe they should recognize that the shock of
> such an act
> doesn't exist in the rough streets where the concept of 'the innocence of
> childhood' died off in the 1970's at the latest.

I agree with that for the most part. Most of the accidental kids deaths are
just that accidental because killing a kid on purpose just isn't that great
of an accomplishment. That sounds pretty cold but it is true in a world
where reputation is almost as valuable as money.
Yes you want to be hard, but in any world killing kids brings down the worst
kind of heat and anyone with a sense of self preservation will recognize
that and distance themselves (eventually) from someone that does it other
than accidentally and any gang leader that notices a habitual kid killer
will start to think of just that...or that they are just hitting easy
targets and need to be culled from the group as a weak link (or both)

Also, I don't think that it was mentioned where the kid that was shot was.
If it was for instance a AAA security zone (Not likely to be sure but also
not impossible) there couldn't be too many additional targets which could
mean that the skills are slipping and again something like that taking place
in a zone like that would draw down the fires of hell which would explain
why all the contacts suddenly didn't know him

Ken
Message no. 43
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:47:09 EDT
In a message dated 8/21/1999 4:31:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Ken@********.com writes:

>
> > Just imagine what it looks like in 2060 UCAS. The corps would do
> > everything
> > they could to keep death sentences down.
>
> Would they though? I mean with the extraterritoriality the megas have
> established and the widening gap between upper and lower classes and the
> veritable disappearance of the middle class they would have access to 3rd
> world countries and a much larger "Employee pool" that they could hire for
> pennies a day. If a prisoner doesn't like the job he can just stop. Sure
> there might be some consequences for that, but he still gets fed. In other
> places where the pennies a day job you get is the only thing keeping you
> (and your beloved family) from Death/disease, you cant just stop.

Ken, I do believe with the information that is now in existence for the
Shadowrun Universe, even the corporations would want to keep the Death rates
down. Even for criminals. Don't you recall the selections of "shadowtalk"
in Shadowtechnology concerning stuff like skillwires and "brainwashing?"
Trust me please. They are the Lords of Necessity. And to them "CHEAP LABOR"
is a necessity.

-K
Message no. 44
From: Owen Landgren wodin@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:16:30 -0500
Ken wrote:
> I agree with that for the most part. Most of the accidental kids deaths are
> just that accidental because killing a kid on purpose just isn't that great
> of an accomplishment. That sounds pretty cold but it is true in a world
> where reputation is almost as valuable as money.
> Yes you want to be hard, but in any world killing kids brings down the worst
> kind of heat and anyone with a sense of self preservation will recognize
> that and distance themselves (eventually) from someone that does it other
> than accidentally and any gang leader that notices a habitual kid killer
> will start to think of just that...or that they are just hitting easy
> targets and need to be culled from the group as a weak link (or both)
>
> Also, I don't think that it was mentioned where the kid that was shot was.
> If it was for instance a AAA security zone (Not likely to be sure but also
> not impossible)

Actually, it was pretty damn close to that-- we were supposed to bust
up a strip mall as a distraction while someone hit the office building
about a block away. Basically we were supposed to make a lot of noise,
create a major distraction, you know.

So, my character loads up on rounds for the Mossberg CMDT(Big booms=panicked civilians),
and goes to do his job. He's busy busting up an
electronics store when he hears a burst go blasting past his head from
across the hall. On instinct, he turns around and torques off a burst
at the owner of a candystore who's shooting at him. Gets the kid
instead. Does all too much damage, the kid has no armor. Splatters him
all over the place. There weren't supposed to be casualties.

The other characters see what's happened, and get out of there quick.
The Star tries to catch the character, and gets the intrusion team for
the other building b/c we bailed early. Net result-- a run completely
screwed up. And guess what my character forgot to do?

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. No concealment whatsoever. Nothing
more than mirrorshades. Can you say screwed?

This was about the 4th time I had played. Needless to say, I learned
quickly how nasty things can get.

> there couldn't be too many additional targets which could
> mean that the skills are slipping and again something like that taking place
> in a zone like that would draw down the fires of hell which would explain
> why all the contacts suddenly didn't know him
>
> Ken

--
Owen
Message no. 45
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:21:41 -0400
> In a message dated 8/21/1999 4:31:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> Ken@********.com writes:
>
> >
> > > Just imagine what it looks like in 2060 UCAS. The corps would do
> > > everything
> > > they could to keep death sentences down.
> >
> > Would they though? I mean with the extraterritoriality the megas have
> > established and the widening gap between upper and lower
> classes and the
> > veritable disappearance of the middle class they would have
> access to 3rd
> > world countries and a much larger "Employee pool" that they
> could hire for
> > pennies a day. If a prisoner doesn't like the job he can just
> stop. Sure
> > there might be some consequences for that, but he still gets
> fed. In other
> > places where the pennies a day job you get is the only thing
> keeping you
> > (and your beloved family) from Death/disease, you cant just stop.
>
> Ken, I do believe with the information that is now in existence for the
> Shadowrun Universe, even the corporations would want to keep the
> Death rates
> down. Even for criminals. Don't you recall the selections of
> "shadowtalk"
> in Shadowtechnology concerning stuff like skillwires and "brainwashing?"
> Trust me please. They are the Lords of Necessity. And to them
> "CHEAP LABOR"
> is a necessity.
>
> -K

Thats my point. Why spend x amount of money fighting legal battles when you
can set up shop in a 3rd world country making your widgets and paying just
enough to allow folks to buy enough food to hold starvation off. Folks wont
quit due to poor working conditions because there's usually 5-6 other guys
that would be willing to step in and take your place. just go Bare Minimum
on working conditions and hold the "if they dont like it they can quit"
stance. No brainwashing required, I have something you need desperately,
and you can make something for me. Wanna trade?
Message no. 46
From: James Dening james@************.force9.co.uk
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:58:12 +0100
>> I don't think I did at all - the question was "why do it?" The answer
>><snip>

>Oh, if THAT'S what you meant...

>Tell me, did you ever play the kind of characters AE was talking about?
>(Rapists, serial killers, etc. etc.)

Hmmm....good question...nope, only in a *really* over-the-top fantasy LARP
fashion - the AP-type, torturing people to death (lots of teeny fire spells),
leaving healing salves spiked with broken glass around etc...

I take your point - I haven't played the rapist type, 'cos I don't think it's
'fun' - I'd happily play a sociopath - be more of a challenge, but the nasty
sex/paedophilia/rape/mutilation bit, makes me far to uneasy to enjoy
trying the RP it, you'll be *delighted* to know....

>Btw, my other favourite character is my amoral ex-corp assassin. She
>doesn't do kids, though. :)

I know - fidgeting little bastards - they're *impossible* to get a decent
lock on..... ;-)

J.
Message no. 47
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:38:30 EDT
In a message dated 8/22/1999 8:20:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Ken@********.com writes:

>
> Thats my point. Why spend x amount of money fighting legal battles when
you
> can set up shop in a 3rd world country making your widgets and paying just
> enough to allow folks to buy enough food to hold starvation off. Folks
wont
> quit due to poor working conditions because there's usually 5-6 other guys
> that would be willing to step in and take your place. just go Bare Minimum
> on working conditions and hold the "if they dont like it they can quit"
> stance. No brainwashing required, I have something you need desperately,
> and you can make something for me. Wanna trade?

Follow up problem to this is that this situation has been proven in the world
by both corporations and governments to NOT work, due to general satisfaction
levels. Anyone/everyone involved usually winds up having to spend more than
"bare minimum" for survival, otherwise eventually the human(metahuman?)
person simply loses various levels of desire and/or motivation to do "good
work". And in this case, "good work", is simply "passable work"
or "sellable
work".

You have to *spend* money to *make* money, and that fact holds true on even
the manufacturing scale of things...not just the marketing one.

-K
Message no. 48
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:19:57 -0500
> > So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR only
> > focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a criminal
> is
> > bad. Could we have a consensus here?
>
>
> Simple.
>
> There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.
>
Is there? Hitler would have been right if he'd won. Thank God he didn't but
the truth is the same. Robin Hood killed many Englishman simply doing their
job to overthrow the shackles of a sham king. Hitler killed many other races
to overthrow a tired government and become 'king.' The difference lies in
which side you're on.

But that's really not the point. I just thought I'd make you think a little.
(just a little).
Message no. 49
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:15:05 +700
>> > So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR only
>> > focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a criminal
is
>> > bad. Could we have a consensus here?
>>
>> Simple.
>>
>> There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.
>>
>Is there? Hitler would have been right if he'd won. Thank God he didn't but

>the truth is the same. Robin Hood killed many Englishman simply doing their

>job to overthrow the shackles of a sham king. Hitler killed many other races

>to overthrow a tired government and become 'king.' The difference lies in
>which side you're on.
>

You cannot morally justify or morally unjustify actions that easily.

If we assume (which may or may not be a big assumption) that the actions of
these two figures were completeley as per history and legend records them then
we have the following assumptions:

Robin Hood:
Robbed the taxes of the English aristocracy to support the local peasantry and
to oppose the rule of a tyrant.

Hitler:
Waged a war of genocide and agression across europe and africa in attempt to
give his nation global supremacy and wipe out the Jewish and Gypsy ethnicities
as well as those who's genetics or philosophy did not suit well with his plans
of global race-based fascist domination.

If we assume as history with regards to Hitler and Lore with regards to Robin
Hood do that these are the correct deeds of these individuals; then it is very
clear that one is clearly on better moral ground than the other.

Or we could just say:

There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.

And be done with all the useless rhetoric.

Arcady Resume: http://resumes.dice.com/arcady <0){{{{><
Art: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 50
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
> >> I don't think I did at all - the question was "why do it?" The
answer <snip>
>
> >Oh, if THAT'S what you meant...
>
> >Tell me, did you ever play the kind of characters AE was talking
about? (Rapists, serial killers, etc. etc.)
>
> Hmmm....good question...nope, only in a *really* over-the-top fantasy
LARP fashion - the AP-type, torturing people to death (lots of teeny
fire spells), leaving healing salves spiked with broken glass around
etc...

Well, those guys are fun villains, but I've never actually played them
as PCs. The funny thing is, despite my own morally ambiguous nature at
times (we're all flawed, after all), but I ALWAYS play heroes (flawed
heroes in SR, but still heroes). I dunno - I guess I like being the
good guy. :)

> I take your point - I haven't played the rapist type, 'cos I don't
think it's 'fun' - I'd happily play a sociopath - be more of a
challenge, but the nasty sex/paedophilia/rape/mutilation bit, makes me
far to uneasy to enjoy trying the RP it, you'll be *delighted* to
know....

Well, it's not THAT bad...but I'd be worried if you were playing a guy
like that in a LARP. :)

> >Btw, my other favourite character is my amoral ex-corp assassin. She
doesn't do kids, though. :)
>
> I know - fidgeting little bastards - they're *impossible* to get a
decent lock on..... ;-)
> J.

Personally, for me it's the "puppy-dog eyes" thing. I can't shoot dogs
or kids who look at me like that, though.

I can and do enjoy shooting cats, though. Self-righteous pricks.

*Doc' gnaws on the bones of his latest furry victim...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Message no. 51
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 07:36:49 -0400
Mark--

>Is there? Hitler would have been right if he'd won.

No, he would not have been 'right' if he had won. He would still be
evil, he would still have done terrible things to other human beings, and
he would still be condemned and damned.
History may be written by the victors, but this kind of
justification does not eliminate or make 'right' the fact that Hitler
commited great atrocities in a depraved and evil manner.
Hitler was evil. Regardless of the outcome of the war. Regardless
of the propaganda machine he had behind his back.
In the same way, the Spanish Conquistadores were evil. They
thought they were on the side of right, but if you look at their actions
you realize that they were just as evil as Hitler, only less organized.
They were the victors in Central America and Mexico, but that doesn't
make them 'right' or 'virtuous', it only makes them the victors.

>Hitler killed many other races to overthrow a tired government and >become
'king.'

You have the order wrong. FIRST Hitler took power. THEN he
started his "final solution." Once he had power, he didn't need to
start the Holocaust, nor did he need to start World War II.

Let's not forget the *other* difference between Robin Hood and
Hitler. Hitler was real. Robin Hood is not. While there is a "Robin
of Lochsley" in the historical record, and while he was a bandit, the
tale of Robin Hood is fiction.


Yes, Shadowrun does focus on the criminal underside of a world
dominated by corporate politics. Yes, most runs are variations on corporate
espionage, sabotage, and other criminal activities. Yes,
committing crimes is wrong. BUT this is only a game.
I would look askance at anyone who would play a depraved and
hardened version of Charles Manson, and would not let such a character
in my game. If someone had their character act like that, I would
reduce his karma award appropriately. I would not stop playing Shadowrun
just because it's about being a criminal, because I and the people I
play with can distinguish between a game and reality very easily.
I do have a friend who stopped playing Shadowrun because he
didn't see any moral potential in the game; "What point is there in
playing Shadowrun if you can only be a criminal?" were the words he
used. Of course, the first adventure he participated in was something
like "Get a desk set of Mt. Fuji from a warehouse." Our team ended up
killing 15 or 20 guards before the run was over... and all for a small
model of Mt. Fuji with a pen and pencil holder. He never played in a
"Bug City" campaign, or a "DocWagon" campaign, or a "Lone
Star"
campaign.
Some people like the idea of the Shadowrun world, and some
people don't. That's life. Shadowrun products focus on the aspect of
Shadowrunning, because that's the major theme of the game, and that's
fine by me.

Shadowmage
Message no. 52
From: James Dening james@************.force9.co.uk
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:25:03 +0100
Tarek said "I do have a friend who stopped playing Shadowrun because he
didn't see any moral potential in the game; <snip>"

Dear Lord! It's a game fer gawd's sake - I don't play RPGs or computer games
to uplift my soul, or to release my moral potential - I do it for fun. To
enhance my moral potential, I discuss ethics, or read philosophy

What does he do to improve his cooking skills - watch football???

J.
Message no. 53
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:01:44 -0500
> You cannot morally justify or morally unjustify actions that easily.
>
> If we assume (which may or may not be a big assumption) that the actions
> of
> these two figures were completeley as per history and legend records them
>
I'd also like to mention that history is written by the victors. Robin Hood
won, Hitler didn't. But, that's not your point, so continue...

> then
> we have the following assumptions:
>
> Robin Hood:
> Robbed the taxes of the English aristocracy to support the local peasantry
> and
> to oppose the rule of a tyrant.
>
Robbed the taxes of the English aristocracy to remove their backing so the
'real' King of England would come back and rule.

> Hitler:
> Waged a war of genocide and agression across europe and africa in attempt
> to
> give his nation global supremacy and wipe out the Jewish and Gypsy
> ethnicities
> as well as those who's genetics or philosophy did not suit well with his
> plans
> of global race-based fascist domination.
>
And led his country out of the greatest depression it had ever known,
started Volkswagen, and improved the lot of his people

> If we assume as history with regards to Hitler and Lore with regards to
> Robin
> Hood do that these are the correct deeds of these individuals; then it is
> very
> clear that one is clearly on better moral ground than the other.
>
> Or we could just say:
>
> There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.
>
> And be done with all the useless rhetoric.
>
Good point. I concur. I just hate it when people look at only one side of an
issue. Hitler did a lot of good things. It's just they were overshadowed by
the really, really horrible things he did.
Message no. 54
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:20:02 +700
>Tarek said "I do have a friend who stopped playing Shadowrun because he
>didn't see any moral potential in the game; <snip>"
>
>Dear Lord! It's a game fer gawd's sake - I don't play RPGs or computer games

>to uplift my soul, or to release my moral potential - I do it for fun. To

>enhance my moral potential, I discuss ethics, or read philosophy

There are some of us who look to fiction for the 'epic of the mythic hero' and
all that. I am also one of those. I will play a criminal. But I won't play a
villain.

I also make that a rule in games I GM. Including Shadowrun.

If a player does go from criminal to villain in one of my games they get stern
looks from me. If that fails they learn that the world may dislike criminals;
but it actively targets villains.

For me the gaming experience is about exploring they ideals of the heroic journey
in all it's various forms and shades. I find Shadowrun to have the potential
of being the hero in a dark world. Or even the dark hero who tries to deny their
good side or tries to overcome their dark side. But who in the end is shown
to be heroic.

Arcady Resume: http://resumes.dice.com/arcady <0){{{{><
Art: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 55
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:26:00 -0500
> No, he would not have been 'right' if he had won. He would still
> be
> evil, he would still have done terrible things to other human beings, and
> he would still be condemned and damned.
>
Would he? I don't see anyone jumping all over out Presidents for enslaving
the Indians here in our own country, yet that is what they did.

> History may be written by the victors, but this kind of
> justification does not eliminate or make 'right' the fact that Hitler
> commited great atrocities in a depraved and evil manner.
>
Of course it's not right. It doesn't mean that it won't be glossed over,
though.

> Hitler was evil. Regardless of the outcome of the war. Regardless
> of the propaganda machine he had behind his back.
> In the same way, the Spanish Conquistadores were evil. They
> thought they were on the side of right, but if you look at their actions
> you realize that they were just as evil as Hitler, only less organized.
> They were the victors in Central America and Mexico, but that doesn't
> make them 'right' or 'virtuous', it only makes them the victors.
>
>
Message no. 56
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:20:55 -0400
James--

>Dear Lord! It's a game fer gawd's sake - I don't play RPGs or
>computer games to uplift my soul, or to release my moral potential
>- I do it for fun. To enhance my moral potential, I discuss ethics,
>or read philosophy
>What does he do to improve his cooking skills - watch football???

Now now, just because he's not on the list doesn't mean that
you get to descend to personal attacks... <g>
He likes to be able to play the "good guys" in a game when
he's a player. He's a terrific role-player, and a darn good GM. He
just didn't see the "good-guy" potential in the game and didn't get
to play some of the "Do what's right vs. getting paid" adventures.
Some of the best plots he's run have involved moral choices; do you
do what is best for everybody or do you damn yourself for personal
gain? He likes horror, but he missed out when we ran through Missing
Blood and Queen Euphoria. I think he would have changed his mind.
Let's face it; it's not a very moral thing to go out and
steal the fruit of some shaikujin's hard labor. If that were all
there was to Shadowrun, I probably would get bored out of my skull
playing it. There's also the fact that the GM running that campaign
started out with nothing but a series of snatch-and-grabs; that got
old fast.

Shadowmage
Message no. 57
From: Walter Scheper Ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:20:23 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:01:44 -0500, Mark Fender <markf@******.com>
wrote:

>>
>And led his country out of the greatest depression it had ever known,
>started Volkswagen, and improved the lot of his people
>
Not to argue too much, but frankly I don't think Hitler improved the
lot of his people. First off, war time economies aren't that fun to
live through. Things that we take for granted, like butter, cloth,
etc are extremely hard to find and you have to deal with the threat of
being bombed, especially if you live in a large city. When Hitler
left Germany to whatever lower hell was awaiting him, he left behind a
country that was totally devastated by war, had no industrial capacity
left and was occupied by four foreign countries. Yeah, he improved
their lot a great deal.

Usually I would agree with you, it is very hard to say that someone
led a totally repulsive life. As for Hitler, if he did anything
positive in his life it did not involve the German people or any other
large group. Maybe he did alright by Goering :).
Message no. 58
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:54:34 -0500
> Tarek said "I do have a friend who stopped playing Shadowrun because he
> didn't see any moral potential in the game; <snip>"
>
> Dear Lord! It's a game fer gawd's sake - I don't play RPGs or computer
> games
> to uplift my soul, or to release my moral potential - I do it for fun. To
> enhance my moral potential, I discuss ethics, or read philosophy
>
> What does he do to improve his cooking skills - watch football???
>
Hey, watch it there. While I don't follow this attitude, I know plenty of
people who don't like the game for this very reason. They like to play
heroes. Shadowrunners aren't necessarily heroes. They're guys who commit
illegal acts to destroy corporations that could be bad or could be good.

I see this attitude as being a primarily fantasy aspect, as so many fantasy
stories and games are written around the hero concept. I don't have a
problem with playing an anti-hero, but many people do, especially those from
a superhero or fantasy background.

And yet these same people worship Han Solo....Hmmm.
Message no. 59
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:07:26 +700
>I see this attitude as being a primarily fantasy aspect, as so many fantasy

>stories and games are written around the hero concept. I don't have a
>problem with playing an anti-hero, but many people do, especially those from

>a superhero or fantasy background.
>
>And yet these same people worship Han Solo....Hmmm.

Han Solo is a classic Hero Archetype.
He's the unwilling hero. He tries to deny his good side but when it comes time
to make the really tough calls he sides with his conscience and does the right
thing.


Arcady Resume: http://resumes.dice.com/arcady <0){{{{><
Art: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 60
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:40:17 -0500
> >And led his country out of the greatest depression it had ever known,
> >started Volkswagen, and improved the lot of his people
> >
> Not to argue too much, but frankly I don't think Hitler improved the
> lot of his people. First off, war time economies aren't that fun to
> live through. Things that we take for granted, like butter, cloth,
> etc are extremely hard to find and you have to deal with the threat of
> being bombed, especially if you live in a large city. When Hitler
> left Germany to whatever lower hell was awaiting him, he left behind a
> country that was totally devastated by war, had no industrial capacity
> left and was occupied by four foreign countries. Yeah, he improved
> their lot a great deal.
>
> Usually I would agree with you, it is very hard to say that someone
> led a totally repulsive life. As for Hitler, if he did anything
> positive in his life it did not involve the German people or any other
> large group. Maybe he did alright by Goering :).
>
His art was pretty good.
Message no. 61
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:47:01 -0500
> >And yet these same people worship Han Solo....Hmmm.
>
> Han Solo is a classic Hero Archetype.
> He's the unwilling hero. He tries to deny his good side but when it comes
> time
> to make the really tough calls he sides with his conscience and does the
> right
> thing.
>
He's the antihero for the piece however.
Message no. 62
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:10:52 +700
>
>> >And yet these same people worship Han Solo....Hmmm.
>>
>> Han Solo is a classic Hero Archetype.
>> He's the unwilling hero. He tries to deny his good side but when it comes

>> time
>> to make the really tough calls he sides with his conscience and does the

>> right
>> thing.
>>
>He's the antihero for the piece however.

That's what I said.

Anti Hero != The villain (unlike D&D's Anti-Paladin)
Anti Hero = The guy who is a hero despite not wishing to be or
not wishing to be at the outset of the story.

In many ways Hans Solo is the most dynamic hero of the three middle episodes
of the Star Wars saga. He is the one who goes through a journey of the soul.
Luke just goes through the journey of apprentice to warrior.

Though I suspect that if we ever got all 9 episode's from them Anakin would
be the true mythic hero. We see his rise, then his fall, and only a moment of
his redemption at present. (though we only see part of his rise so far).

Anyway, that's off topic...

From what we see of him though, Hans Solo is a classic hero motiff.


Arcady Resume: http://resumes.dice.com/arcady <0){{{{><
Art: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/
Message no. 63
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:52:30 -0400
> > > So, essentially in one conversation we have people saying that SR only
> > > focuses on criminals, and anther thread saying that playing a criminal
> > is
> > > bad. Could we have a consensus here?
> >
> >
> > Simple.
> >
> > There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.
> >
> Is there? Hitler would have been right if he'd won. Thank God he
> didn't but
> the truth is the same. Robin Hood killed many Englishman simply
> doing their
> job to overthrow the shackles of a sham king. Hitler killed many
> other races
> to overthrow a tired government and become 'king.' The difference lies in
> which side you're on.
>
> But that's really not the point. I just thought I'd make you
> think a little.
> (just a little).
Yes there is a difference.

While Robin Hood did indeed kill englishmen who were just doing their job,
what he didn't do was decide that all Normans were the cause of all their
Problems and decide to kill them all. Hitler made the Jews the universal
scapegoat just after Germany started running into problems in WW2. After
all it couldn't be the fault of the Master Race now could it?
Message no. 64
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:03:46 -0700
>
>Anti Hero != The villain (unlike D&D's Anti-Paladin)
>Anti Hero = The guy who is a hero despite not wishing to be or
> not wishing to be at the outset of the story.

Anti hero is more than that imho..look at Elric, he just not an unwilling hero
he is an evil sob, very ruthless. And though he has reasons which are valid to
him he is not a nice person.

--Lomion
Message no. 65
From: GreyWolf sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:03:42 +1000
> For me the gaming experience is about exploring they ideals of the heroic journey
> in all it's various forms and shades. I find Shadowrun to have the potential
> of being the hero in a dark world. Or even the dark hero who tries to deny their
> good side or tries to overcome their dark side. But who in the end is shown
> to be heroic.

*Cheers from the Gallery*

Thats something I've been trying to say for a long time.

GreyWolf


--
"I don't know, Scotty. Maybe it's just the _idea_ of an inflatable
rubber starship that bothers me."
Message no. 66
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:11:48 -0400
Walter Scheper wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:01:44 -0500, Mark Fender <markf@******.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >And led his country out of the greatest depression it had ever known,
> >started Volkswagen, and improved the lot of his people
> >
> Not to argue too much, but frankly I don't think Hitler improved the
> lot of his people. First off, war time economies aren't that fun to
> live through. Things that we take for granted, like butter, cloth,
> etc are extremely hard to find and you have to deal with the threat of
> being bombed, especially if you live in a large city. When Hitler
> left Germany to whatever lower hell was awaiting him, he left behind a
> country that was totally devastated by war, had no industrial capacity
> left and was occupied by four foreign countries. Yeah, he improved
> their lot a great deal.
>
> Usually I would agree with you, it is very hard to say that someone
> led a totally repulsive life. As for Hitler, if he did anything
> positive in his life it did not involve the German people or any other
> large group. Maybe he did alright by Goering :).

Well, yes, at the end he ruined Germany, but what about in 1939? If he
hadn't made the teeny tiny mistake of misjudging the appeasement policy
(something which was also France and England's fault, not just Germany's,
but I digress), what would Germany be like?
And for those who say "Hitler was evil. He would always be evil, even
if Germany won WWII," I have to say "NO!" We'd read in the history books
about those evil Jews and how they tried to ruin the pure Aryan race and
how the great Adolf Hitler (I don't know his middle name, don't care to
know it) saved it and us from "pollution" and how the aggressive French
and English attacked the GREAT EMPIRE but how we heroically fought back
and there'd be a spin on everything that happened so Hitler came out
smelling like daisies.
The reasons we are able to even criticize the explorers is because we
live in a free society. Accept that fact, and love it because you are able
to criticize anything. In Communist Soviet Union (gone, I know, but just
go with me) would you be able to criticize the "Great Father" Joseph
Stalin for his purges? NO. But I'm going to get off my soapbox before
Gridsec knocks me off ;^).

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the
chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+)
gm+ M-
Message no. 67
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:43:24 -0400
Ken wrote:

> ><SNIP>
> > > There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.
> > >
> > Is there? Hitler would have been right if he'd won. Thank God he
> > didn't but
> > the truth is the same. Robin Hood killed many Englishman simply
> > doing their
> > job to overthrow the shackles of a sham king. Hitler killed many
> > other races
> > to overthrow a tired government and become 'king.' The difference lies in
> > which side you're on.
> >
> > But that's really not the point. I just thought I'd make you
> > think a little.
> > (just a little).
> Yes there is a difference.
>
> While Robin Hood did indeed kill englishmen who were just doing their job,
> what he didn't do was decide that all Normans were the cause of all their
> Problems and decide to kill them all. Hitler made the Jews the universal
> scapegoat just after Germany started running into problems in WW2. After
> all it couldn't be the fault of the Master Race now could it?



--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 68
From: Lomion lomion@*********.org
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Strago wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
> > ><SNIP>
> > > > There's a difference between a Robin Hood and a Hitler.
> > > >
> > > Is there? Hitler would have been right if he'd won. Thank God he
> > > didn't but
> > > the truth is the same. Robin Hood killed many Englishman simply
> > > doing their
> > > job to overthrow the shackles of a sham king. Hitler killed many
> > > other races
> > > to overthrow a tired government and become 'king.' The difference lies in
> > > which side you're on.
> > >
> > > But that's really not the point. I just thought I'd make you
> > > think a little.
> > > (just a little).
> > Yes there is a difference.
> >
> > While Robin Hood did indeed kill englishmen who were just doing their job,
> > what he didn't do was decide that all Normans were the cause of all their
> > Problems and decide to kill them all. Hitler made the Jews the universal
> > scapegoat just after Germany started running into problems in WW2. After
> > all it couldn't be the fault of the Master Race now could it?


don;t forget the gypsies, christian..basically anyone not in the Aryan
stereotype. Also histroy books not withstanding...attempted genocide in
any for of by anyone is evil. I don;t care who the victor is.

--lomion



>
>
>
> --
> --Strago
>
> The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.
>
> SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
>
>
>
>
>
Message no. 69
From: Walter Scheper Ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 02:32:02 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:11:48 -0400, Strago <strago@***.com> wrote:

[snip]
> The reasons we are able to even criticize the explorers is because we
>live in a free society. Accept that fact, and love it because you are able
>to criticize anything.
Amen to that, brother. :)

Walter
Message no. 70
From: Angelkiller 404 angelkiller404@**********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:22:38 -0400
>> > While Robin Hood did indeed kill englishmen who were just doing
their job,
>> > what he didn't do was decide that all Normans were the cause of
all their
>> > Problems and decide to kill them all. Hitler made the Jews the
universal
>> > scapegoat just after Germany started running into problems in
WW2. After
>> > all it couldn't be the fault of the Master Race now could it?
>
>
>don;t forget the gypsies, christian..basically anyone not in the
Aryan
>stereotype. Also histroy books not withstanding...attempted genocide
in
>any for of by anyone is evil. I don;t care who the victor is.


Perhaps. It could be evil, but we could be made to forget about it.
Or not even care. History notwithstanding, we can simply push nasty
little things like genocide from the "Oh my God, that's despicable! I
can't believe those bastards even tried that!" opinion to the "Well,
they're still around, and we did give them a place to live, so who
cares? Now what's on TV?" opinion. Or even the "Well, I wasn't alive
back then, and everyone thought differently back then, so it's not my
fault and I don't have to apologize for jack!" opinion.

Hitler got it bad because he lost; losers tend to be villains.
Victors can move repeated attempts of genocide from the front pages of
evil ito the footnotes. Throw the poor suckers a bone now and then,
keep them happy, and pretend all is forgiven.

I speak of American Indians, of course.

Just throwing in my two UCAS cents there.

-----
AK404

http://freespeech.org/ak404/
http://gibbed.com/parasiteve/
ICQ: 2157053

"You fool, pain is my friend! Allow me to introduce you to him!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"
Message no. 71
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:06:55 -0400
At 00.43 08-25-99 -0400, Strago wrote:
> Problems and decide to kill them all. Hitler made the Jews the universal
> scapegoat just after Germany started running into problems in WW2. After
> all it couldn't be the fault of the Master Race now could it?

Excuse me? Someone hasn't been doing his out-of-class reading. Hitler's
platform was based on anit-semitism first, economics second, from the first
time he started speaking in public.
Read his writings and speeches, starting from the time he was thrown out
of art school. It's all available, although they are the only books I
would condone burning after you've read them.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 72
From: Mad Hamish h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:59:09 +1000
At 19:03 24/08/99 -0700, lomion wrote:
>>
>>Anti Hero != The villain (unlike D&D's Anti-Paladin)
>>Anti Hero = The guy who is a hero despite not wishing to be or
>> not wishing to be at the outset of the story.
>
>Anti hero is more than that imho..look at Elric, he just not an unwilling
hero

Not in Moorcock's view.

>he is an evil sob, very ruthless.
> And though he has reasons which are valid to him he is not a nice person.

Ruthless ain't the same as evil.
--
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws
h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au
h_laws@******.net.au
Message no. 73
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:01:25 -0400
> At 19:03 24/08/99 -0700, lomion wrote:
> >>
> >>Anti Hero != The villain (unlike D&D's Anti-Paladin)
> >>Anti Hero = The guy who is a hero despite not wishing to be or
> >> not wishing to be at the outset of the story.
> >
> >Anti hero is more than that imho..look at Elric, he just not an unwilling
> hero
>
> Not in Moorcock's view.
>
> >he is an evil sob, very ruthless.
> > And though he has reasons which are valid to him he is not a
> nice person.
>
> Ruthless ain't the same as evil.


True. Look at Harry Calahan. Not too interested in being a hero...ever.
Also the poster child for Ruthlessness. Nothing like a .44 toting cop who
isn't afraid to cause some property damage

Ken
Message no. 74
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Harrowing of Focus (sic)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:44:35 -0400
At 20.01 08-25-99 -0400, you wrote:
>True. Look at Harry Calahan. Not too interested in being a hero...ever.

Or Stalone's character from Cobra.
Actually, running a "zombie squad" of LS officers might be kind of
interesting. Small, mainly covert, self contained magic, matrix and heavy
weapons support, and you don't look like cops.
Oh, yes, definantly sound like something to look into, especially if you
can get a good copy of the openning litany to play at the start of the
first session for this group. Or, make up your own, and use a computer
that can read text files to read it. (Most of them sound pretty cheesy
too....)


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Harrowing of Focus (sic), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!