Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:59:11 -0800 (PST)
An interesting discussion on 'Rat's SWF (Shadowrun
Writers Forum) has come up lately, prompting me to ask
you guys a question. Basically, someone wanted to know
how one would go disappearing tracelessly in SR times
- i.e. faking one's own death. Now, they all think I'm
a lunatic because I've been advocating blowing up an
aeroplane, a building, or something else packed with
people. :)

Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
players, and of your primary characters, what would
you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
For instance, would you be prepared to play a
character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
innocents in order to fake their own death
convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
moral types?

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Message no. 2
From: vocenoctum@****.com vocenoctum@****.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:27:48 -0500
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:59:11 -0800 (PST) Rand
Ratinac?<docwagon101@*****.com> writes:
> Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
> players, and of your primary characters, what would
> you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
> For instance, would you be prepared to play a
> character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
> innocents in order to fake their own death
> convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
> sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
> moral types?
>
>

Dorias (the gnome otaku) would probably minimize it, but yes, he'd wipe
out some people to protect himself. He wouldn't do it for a recreational
name-change or anything of course :-) (He's a run away from the Makah, so
it's not like he's got a long history to blot out)

Mas Hysteria is more of a subturfuge type, and wouldn't go for something
as outlandish, but not so much from a moral standpoint, as a practical
"don't wanna be labeled as a mass-murderer" type of feeling.
I've played more ammoral types (Morgan's catchline being when she asked
the Johnson "does this job entail carving up hookers, cuz we'll do that,
we're goood at it") but generally they're more friendly and try to
minimize death and such.


Vocenoctum
<http://members.xoom.com/vocenoctum>;

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 3
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:38:30 -0500
From: "Rand Ratinac" <docwagon101@*****.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:59 PM


> Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
> players, and of your primary characters, what would
> you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
> For instance, would you be prepared to play a
> character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
> innocents in order to fake their own death
> convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
> sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
> moral types?

Well, it isn't so much from a moral point of view, but needless death of
many many innocents just tend to draw the wrong type of attention. :) An
explosion in the Eye of the Needle, killing all diners, will have LS drawn
to it like flies to shit. :) Too much attention and no amount of fake stuff
is going to stand up to the investigation. :)

Personally, while my characters are not morally against killing people to
achieve their ends, it is just bad business. The easier way is just to find
a squatter of your metatype, hire a good dentist, plastic surgeon, and blow
him away in your favorite uniform. :)

>
> ====> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka
Doc' Vader)
>
> .sig Sauer
>
> Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 4
From: Josh a320@*********.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:01:20 -0600
> Personally, while my characters are not morally against killing people to
> achieve their ends, it is just bad business. The easier way is just to
find
> a squatter of your metatype, hire a good dentist, plastic surgeon, and
blow
> him away in your favorite uniform. :)

Man your a prick, but a smart one :) My entire roll-playing buddies hate me
because I tend to play the guy that "hates killing".Man they get so pissed
off when I won't blow somebody away. I love to play a moral character with
these people because it's never crossed their minds and it adds flavor and
reality. Plus what's the point? There's got to be hundreds of ways to fake
it, all without taking somebody with you. It's all about style.

When life gives you lemons, kick the crap out of it.
Josh
Message no. 5
From: Paul Collins paulcollins@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:16:15 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh" <a320@*********.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Runner Morals


> > Personally, while my characters are not morally against killing people
to
> > achieve their ends, it is just bad business. The easier way is just to
> find
> > a squatter of your metatype, hire a good dentist, plastic surgeon, and
> blow
> > him away in your favorite uniform. :)
>
> Man your a prick, but a smart one :) My entire roll-playing buddies hate
me
> because I tend to play the guy that "hates killing".Man they get so pissed
> off when I won't blow somebody away. I love to play a moral character with
> these people because it's never crossed their minds and it adds flavor and
> reality. Plus what's the point? There's got to be hundreds of ways to fake
> it, all without taking somebody with you. It's all about style.
>
> When life gives you lemons, kick the crap out of it.
> Josh
>
Morals smorals.

Who are they gonna blow away first. The runner who kills anything in site,
or the runner takes a little care to not kill anybody.

Reputation is not quite everything, but ...

(They being anybody who wants to blow the runners away of course)


Annachie


------------------------------------------------

-----Through early morning fog I see
-----visions of the things to be
-----the pains that are withheld for me
-----I realize and I can see...
-----Theme from MASH
Message no. 6
From: Damion Milliken dam01@***.edu.au
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:38:25 +1100 (EST)
Rand Ratinac writes:

> Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as players, and of
> your primary characters, what would you be prepared to do in the pursuit of
> your goals? For instance, would you be prepared to play a character who'd
> go so far as to kill hundreds of innocents in order to fake their own death
> convincingly, and are any of your main characters the sorts of people who
> would? Or do you only play the moral types?

I've always understood the premise of Shadowrun to be that player characters
were, essentially, criminals. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect
anti-social behaviour, if not downright immoral behaviour. The characters
in my games have varied betwen the "Heroic Chivalric Vigilante" to the
"Sociopathic Torturing Mutilating Homocidal Psychopath". And pretty much
everything in between. Pretty much everything in between being the vast
majority of characters. In general, even the serial killing psychos had
their limits as to what they deemed acceptable behaviour. The odd mass
murdering bloodthirsty fragger didn't seem to have any limits, however.
OTOH, the majority of characters fall somewhat short of these violent almost
inhuman killers. And a few fall into the "Honourable Vigilante" or "Self
Centered Money Grubber" who is unconcerned with the law (and societal
graces), but is otherwise a moral individual.

I've always found it interesting that while the premise of Shadowrun is to
play societal outcasts who are driven by desperation, depravity, or other
usually less than pure motives, many of the printed adventures seem to
assume that the player characters are "good guys". Sure, often the player
characters are, even in their homicidal rampage through the blood mage
circle, doing the world at large a favour, but they're still homicidal
maniacs. Vigilantes reject societies laws and step outside behavious
normally deemed acceptable, even if they are doing "good works".

I have observed that it is somewhat of an attracting factor of Shadowrun that
the player characters are, unlike most player characters in many common
RPGs, pretty much the "bad guys". Players seem to get a kick out of playing
"Mr Kick Ass Bad Dude", rather than "Mr Save the Princesses of the World
Nice Guy". OTOH, some of the coolest player characters I've seen are
exactly the heroic stereotype that is normal in other games, but as rare as
hen's teeth in Shadowrun.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: Martin Steffens marste@*********.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:35:55 -0800
From: Rand Ratinac

> Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
> players, and of your primary characters, what would
> you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
> For instance, would you be prepared to play a
> character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
> innocents in order to fake their own death
> convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
> sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
> moral types?

Both, I've seen characters that are quite happy to blow
up aforementioned plane to get one passenger (and cutting
short a campaign I'd made to two hours :( ). Since I
don't mind either way I let them and refuse to give them
any penalties mentioned in some adventure modules for
anti-social behaviour (shooting a little kid comes to
mind; my players blew up the whole floor without ever
noticing the kid in the first place :).

You can play SR with a strict moral attitude linked to
your PC or NPCs, but I think to demand or expect so
as a GM is ignoring the basic nastiness build into
the system.

Martin
- "Score so far 3 guards, 120 innocent bystanders"
"Ah, we're improving!" -
Message no. 8
From: Scott M Harrison Scott_Harrison@*****.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:42:33 +0100
--Apple-Mail-220431014-27
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
content-type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii

On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, at 03:35 PM, Martin Steffens wrote:

From: Rand Ratinac

> Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
> players, and of your primary characters, what would
> you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
> For instance, would you be prepared to play a
> character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
> innocents in order to fake their own death
> convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
> sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
> moral types?

Both, I've seen characters that are quite happy to blow
up aforementioned plane to get one passenger (and cutting
short a campaign I'd made to two hours :( ). Since I
don't mind either way I let them and refuse to give them
any penalties mentioned in some adventure modules for
anti-social behaviour (shooting a little kid comes to
mind; my players blew up the whole floor without ever
noticing the kid in the first place :).

You can play SR with a strict moral attitude linked to
your PC or NPCs, but I think to demand or expect so
as a GM is ignoring the basic nastiness build into
the system.

Martin
- "Score so far 3 guards, 120 innocent bystanders"
"Ah, we're improving!" -

Note that there seems to be some sort of moral code built into SR modules because there
are karma points taken away for having innocents killed, etc. Admittedly a lot of those
cases are because one needs to have those characters survive for some greater purpose.

My character once killed an innocent partly by accident, but totally within character. I
lost karma for causing the death of the innocent (and only I did - because I was separate
from the group at the time), but I also gained karma for playing my character
appropriately.

I think SR can be moral or not, depending on the GM and the players. As long as the
players are playing their characters appropriately I do not think they should be punished
for being amoral or whatever. Note that being punished means taking karma away, or other
arbitrary things. There are consequences to actions, and those do not necessarily fall
under punishment. So, if a character blows up a plane to get at one person, the
authorities will be interested in finding the character because the plane is blown up.
Just because a huge manhunt hounds the character for ever does not mean the character is
being punished - just living with the consequences of an anti-social act.

--Scott

--Apple-Mail-220431014-27
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
content-type: text/enriched;
charset=us-ascii

<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, at
03:35 PM, Martin Steffens wrote:


<italic>From: Rand Ratinac
</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>


<italic></italic></color><italic>> Which brings me to my
question. From the POV of you
as</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> players, and of your primary
characters, what
would</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> you be prepared to do in the
pursuit of your
goals?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> For instance, would you be
prepared to play a</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> character who'd go so far as
to kill hundreds of</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> innocents in order to fake
their own death</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> convincingly, and are any of
your main characters
the</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> sorts of people who would?
Or do you only play
the</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>> moral
types?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>


<italic></italic></color><italic>Both, I've seen characters that
are quite happy to
blow</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>up aforementioned plane to get
one passenger (and
cutting</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>short a campaign I'd made to two
hours :( ). Since I</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>don't mind either way I let them
and refuse to give
them</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>any penalties mentioned in some
adventure modules for
</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>anti-social behaviour (shooting a
little kid comes to</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>mind; my players blew up the
whole floor without
ever</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>noticing the kid in the first
place :). </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>


<italic></italic></color><italic>You can play SR with a strict
moral attitude linked
to</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>your PC or NPCs, but I think to
demand or expect so</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>as a GM is ignoring the basic
nastiness build into </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>the
system.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>


<italic></italic></color><italic>Martin</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>- "Score so far 3 guards,
120 innocent
bystanders"</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>"Ah, we're improving!"
-</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>


Note that there seems to be some sort of moral code built into SR modules because there
are karma points taken away for having innocents killed, etc. Admittedly a lot of those
cases are because one needs to have those characters survive for some greater purpose.


My character once killed an innocent partly by accident, but totally within character. I
lost karma for causing the death of the innocent (and only I did - because I was separate
from the group at the time), but I also gained karma for playing my character
appropriately.


I think SR can be moral or not, depending on the GM and the players. As long as the
players are playing their characters appropriately I do not think they should be punished
for being amoral or whatever. Note that being punished means taking karma away, or other
arbitrary things. There are consequences to actions, and those do not necessarily fall
under punishment. So, if a character blows up a plane to get at one person, the
authorities will be interested in finding the character because the plane is blown up.
Just because a huge manhunt hounds the character for ever does not mean the character is
being punished - just living with the consequences of an anti-social act.


--Scott


--Apple-Mail-220431014-27--
Message no. 9
From: JLantrip@******.COM JLantrip@******.COM
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:13:16 -0700
>From the POV of you as players, and of your primary characters, what would
>you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?

Well, it depends on the character. My runner with a grudge against
Aztechnology/Aztlan wouldn't hesitate much (as long as something like that
was to his advantage and "important to 'the cause'"), but, then, he also
acts as a small-time fixer and drug manufacturer....on the other hand (at
the exact opposite end of the spectrum), I have a physical adept who simply
does not kill...it's not his thing.

Each character has his/her own motivation for what they're trying to
get done (in the long run). Some of them are ruthless, some of them are
definitely not.

--J
Message no. 10
From: David Yiannakos yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:22:17 -0500
>Man your a prick, but a smart one :) My entire roll-playing buddies hate me
>because I tend to play the guy that "hates killing".Man they get so pissed
>off when I won't blow somebody away. I love to play a moral character with
>these people because it's never crossed their minds and it adds flavor and
>reality.
>Josh

Actually, my situation is the opposite - the folks I play with tend to play
very moral characters, so it's interesting and different for me to play
someone who has no problem with killing (I've never played anyone who
_likes_ it, though.) My characters wouldn't kill a large number of people
to cover their ass, but a some of them might kill a couple. Other
characters I've had, though, have never and would never kill anyone, for
any reason. (They think.)

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 11
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:40:59 -0000
>From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>
>I've always found it interesting that while the premise of Shadowrun is to
>play societal outcasts who are driven by desperation, depravity, or other
>usually less than pure motives,

I don't think so; I tend to play socially aware, intelligent and moral
runners. People who break the law are not necessarily messed up; some
runners are attracted by the way shadowrunners are portreyed on the trid
which is an aspect of popular culture in the SR world. To a certain degree
shadowrunners in SR are seen as romantic figures, that's certainly the way I
see them.

>Sure, often the player
>characters are, even in their homicidal rampage through the blood mage
>circle, doing the world at large a favour, but they're still homicidal
>maniacs.

If I wanted to play a sick character I would play a Sabat campaign in V:TM;
that is a game about homicidal maniacs. Shadowrunners are genrally consious
of their apperance, professional and cool under pressure.

Phil

Dying is an art like everything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Message no. 12
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:57:21 -0000
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
>Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
>players, and of your primary characters, what would
>you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
>For instance, would you be prepared to play a
>character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
>innocents in order to fake their own death
>convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
>sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
>moral types?

Not that you know anythging about these characters, but...

Diamond would (and has), Amber wouldn't. But then, Diamond would never hurt
people to further his own ends, for his cause he one blew up a plane and
spent several years in prison for it. He's mellowed a bit now but given the
chance to better the treatment of orks and trolls by society he would blow
pretty much anything up.

Amber wouldn't partly becuase she has no long term goals, partly becuase she
used to use violence until a manaball of hers killed about 30 people. Since
then she has only used stunballs.

Phil

Dying is an art like everything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Message no. 13
From: Duncan dmcneill@************.edu
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:17:29 -0500
Phil Smith didst commenteth:
> >From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>
> >I've always found it interesting that while the premise of
> Shadowrun is to
> >play societal outcasts who are driven by desperation, depravity, or other
> >usually less than pure motives,
>
> I don't think so; I tend to play socially aware, intelligent and moral
> runners. People who break the law are not necessarily messed up; some
> runners are attracted by the way shadowrunners are portrayed on the trid
> which is an aspect of popular culture in the SR world. To a
> certain degree
> shadowrunners in SR are seen as romantic figures, that's
> certainly the way I
> see them.
>

There are two kinds of runners. The stupid, and the insane. The same holds
true for any other kind of violent criminal. The world of 2060 would be a
better place if every single one of them blew their own head off, and forced
the corporations to take a little more responsibility for the things that
they do to each other. The loss of deniability might even result in a
decrease in the more extreme intercorporate nastiness.

Then again, probably not. A new crop of stupid and/or insane people would
step into the gap and allow things to continue as usual.

On the subject of taking a single hostage, anyone who does so deserves to
die, quickly. A single hostage is useless. If you kill the hostage, you
have nothing to bargain with, so you can't really kill the hostage. If they
know you won't kill the hostage, they have nothing to fear, and can kill or
capture the target at their leisure.

How my characters would respond varies greatly from character to character.
Though in every case, the hostage taker gets dead. The condition is the
hostage is what varies from situation to situation.

Later,
Duncan
Message no. 14
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:48:12 -0000
>From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
>There are two kinds of runners. The stupid, and the insane.

I think I could probably say that of the characters played by people on this
list, very few fall into either of the above catagoreys.

>The same holds
>true for any other kind of violent criminal

Shadowrunners are not necessarily violent criminals; you can be a
shadowrunner without ever hurting anyone if you are fast and quiet enough.
They are professionals; two of the three runners in the game I run do not
kill when there is any other possible course of action. They break into
places, they subdue the guards, get what they want and leave. They are not
stupid and they are not insane, they are socially competent, intelligent,
rational and professional.

Shadowrunning is a method of making a lot of cash very fast. It requires
bravery, skills and a hell of a lot of luck. Mental stability and
intelligence are very, very helpful, if not essential to being a runner.

Phil

Dying is an art like everything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Message no. 15
From: Duncan dmcneill@************.edu
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:51:19 -0500
Phil Smith didst replieth:
> >From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
> >There are two kinds of runners. The stupid, and the insane.
>
> I think I could probably say that of the characters played by
> people on this
> list, very few fall into either of the above catagoreys.

I'd argue that the characters are extremely delusional. That makes them
insane.

> >The same holds
> >true for any other kind of violent criminal
>
> Shadowrunners are not necessarily violent criminals; you can be a
> shadowrunner without ever hurting anyone if you are fast and
> quiet enough.
>
> They are professionals; two of the three runners in the game I run do not
> kill when there is any other possible course of action. They break into
> places, they subdue the guards, get what they want and leave.
> They are not
> stupid and they are not insane, they are socially competent, intelligent,
> rational and professional.
>

Being rational doesn't make you sane. It makes you more dangerous.

And I notice that you said that they do kill people when the feel the need
to. Being such a complete slave to one's greed sounds like insanity to me.

> Shadowrunning is a method of making a lot of cash very fast. It requires
> bravery, skills and a hell of a lot of luck. Mental stability and
> intelligence are very, very helpful, if not essential to being a runner.

It also requires that you be greedy enough to put your own wants and needs
ahead of the rights of those around you. It requires that you have little
or no respect for the rules of society when they are at odds with your
goals. Refusing to admit that part is called denial. When denial takes
over your life, you've lost your grip on reality. Not everyone who is
insane beats their head against a wall, eats flies, and howls at the moon.

Oh, and if you're doing all these nasty things to try to make the world a
better place, that makes you a vigilante or a terrorist. I hope all of them
go to the chair, too.

Later,
Duncan
Message no. 16
From: Jonathan Choy jjchoy@*********.net
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:56:18 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: 29 November 2000 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: Runner Morals

> I'd argue that the characters are extremely delusional. That makes them
> insane.

Character history posit:
Character's family in 2000 is Amerind in the Seattle area. Father and Mother
love each other, etc, but are not economically well off. Child born in 2010
or so, family scrapes by. Mother dies in one of the VITAS outbreaks. Child
grows up learning from dad, develops a useful mechanic's skill set by
tinkering with the vehicles that have to be kept running. Joins the
salish-shidhe corp security group out of high school, becomes a finished
vehicle tech and gets assigned to a official gray ops unit; does well,
eventually gets set up as a Rigger, and a finished ordnance tech. After she
retires from active duty security around 40, she's a little older, a litle
slower, her pension is okay, but not enough to live on... so she turns her
contacts in the Council's security/military into the beginnings of a contact
network to get gray ops jobs to help pay for her setting up her own vehicle
mech shop.
This is the background we're using for my fiancee's character in the game
I'm starting...
Now, on to the points you raise...

>
> > >The same holds
> > >true for any other kind of violent criminal
Al Capone was which, then? Bugsy Seagal (sp?), perhaps... Lucky Luciano? All
violent criminals, all dramatically (or even flamboyantly) successful in
becoming romanticised... Your thoughts on them? If you are going to come
down on 'insane' then I would REALLY like to see your basis for that
reasoning - where in the DSM are you going to point for their 'illness'.
> >
> > Shadowrunners are not necessarily violent criminals; you can be a
> > shadowrunner without ever hurting anyone if you are fast and
> > quiet enough.
> >

Actually, that would be the only ones that would be hired more than once,
IMO... deniable assets are always better when you can deny knowing anything
happened.
>
> Being rational doesn't make you sane. It makes you more dangerous.
What then defines 'sane'?

>
> And I notice that you said that they do kill people when the feel the need
> to. Being such a complete slave to one's greed sounds like insanity to
me.
Depends on his definition of 'when there is any other possible course of
action'. If it comes down to a situation of killing or letting some whackjob
drop a couple liters of VITAS cultures into the reservoir.... doesn't seem
to meet the criteria of 'greedy' to me.
There are reasons to kill, and reasons to kill...
>
> > Shadowrunning is a method of making a lot of cash very fast. It
requires
> > bravery, skills and a hell of a lot of luck. Mental stability and
> > intelligence are very, very helpful, if not essential to being a runner.
>
> It also requires that you be greedy enough to put your own wants and needs
> ahead of the rights of those around you. It requires that you have little
> or no respect for the rules of society when they are at odds with your
> goals. Refusing to admit that part is called denial. When denial takes
> over your life, you've lost your grip on reality. Not everyone who is
> insane beats their head against a wall, eats flies, and howls at the moon.
Rights of who around me? Microsoft? AOL/Time-Warner? McDonalds?
Or the waiters at Denny's, the schoolteacher that works at the
semi-correctional institution, the lawyers and bank employees who _DO_ help
people get into houses at a reasonable cost...
I see the posited 'non-violent' runners doing plenty that respects or even
advocates the rights of the people in the second group - while damaging
(some) members of the first group -- _AT THE BEHEST OF THEIR COHORTS_...
(and incidentally, their cohorts will then be the target of further runs,
etc, welcome to the vicious circle, cycle, and jungle...)

If you have the skillset to do this quietly, with minimal violence
(protecting bystanders from things like poorly placed manaballs and
hellblasts!), then wouldn't it be delusional to think that by NOT running
you're protecting society in some fashion? Someone, somewhere, IS stupid and
insane, and WILL be paid to do a run.. or we're not playing in a Shadowrun
world. What you mentioned as the 'world being a better place' - perhaps. Or
perhaps it would be a 'quieter' place where ALL of the people only receive
the information that yonder media giant (AOL/Time-Warner for example) feeds
them.
>
> Oh, and if you're doing all these nasty things to try to make the world a
> better place, that makes you a vigilante or a terrorist. I hope all of
them
> go to the chair, too.

Or a revolutionary. Or a hero. And a lot of those go to the chair or are
otherwise executed as well - sometimes tragically.

To use American history (hey, when you live there, you use it), Washington
was most definitely doing 'nasty' things that you would label 'terrorist'
now. Where is the moral high ground you're trying to stand on, again?
>
> Later,
> Duncan

Duncan, it sounds like you don't like this game's concept... if so why are
you on the list?
What are 'good' reasons to be runners?

Tetsujin no Oni
Jonathan Choy
'Of course I feel dirty... I'm from the Horde!'
Message no. 17
From: DemonPenta@***.com DemonPenta@***.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:15:44 EST
In a message dated 11/29/00 8:41:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dam01@***.edu.au writes:

> I've always understood the premise of Shadowrun to be that player characters
> were, essentially, criminals. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect
> anti-social behaviour, if not downright immoral behaviour. The characters
> in my games have varied betwen the "Heroic Chivalric Vigilante" to the
> "Sociopathic Torturing Mutilating Homocidal Psychopath". And pretty much
> everything in between. Pretty much everything in between being the vast
> majority of characters. In general, even the serial killing psychos had
> their limits as to what they deemed acceptable behaviour. The odd mass
> murdering bloodthirsty fragger didn't seem to have any limits, however.

Even prison inmates have limits as to what they'll accept; As my sociology
teacher pointed out (him being a former corrections officer), even they
consider those who commit crimes against kids to be lower than low.
Message no. 18
From: Duncan dmcneill@************.edu
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:37:38 -0500
Jonathan Choy didst proclaimeth:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
> To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
> Sent: 29 November 2000 3:51 PM
> Subject: RE: Runner Morals
>
> > I'd argue that the characters are extremely delusional. That makes them
> > insane.
>
> Character history posit:
> Character's family in 2000 is Amerind in the Seattle area. Father
> and Mother
> love each other, etc, but are not economically well off. Child
> born in 2010
> or so, family scrapes by. Mother dies in one of the VITAS outbreaks. Child
> grows up learning from dad, develops a useful mechanic's skill set by
> tinkering with the vehicles that have to be kept running. Joins the
> salish-shidhe corp security group out of high school, becomes a finished
> vehicle tech and gets assigned to a official gray ops unit; does well,
> eventually gets set up as a Rigger, and a finished ordnance tech.
> After she
> retires from active duty security around 40, she's a little older, a litle
> slower, her pension is okay, but not enough to live on... so she turns her
> contacts in the Council's security/military into the beginnings
> of a contact
> network to get gray ops jobs to help pay for her setting up her
> own vehicle
> mech shop.
> This is the background we're using for my fiancee's character in the game
> I'm starting...
> Now, on to the points you raise...
>

Most rational, healthy, well adjusted people won't decide to supplement
their retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate dirty
work for money. Most people who get too old to "work for a living" join
company management and end up either bossing around the people who're still
young, or training them.

> >
> > > >The same holds
> > > >true for any other kind of violent criminal
> Al Capone was which, then? Bugsy Seagal (sp?), perhaps... Lucky
> Luciano? All
> violent criminals, all dramatically (or even flamboyantly) successful in
> becoming romanticised... Your thoughts on them? If you are going to come
> down on 'insane' then I would REALLY like to see your basis for that
> reasoning - where in the DSM are you going to point for their 'illness'.

They're dead. I'm glad they're dead. And they were all megalomaniacal
psychos who killed and stole their way to power. My definition of insanity
is anyone who thinks in a radically different way from the societal norm.
But if you're denying that they were some sick fucks, I can sort of see why
we disagree.

> > >
> > > Shadowrunners are not necessarily violent criminals; you can be a
> > > shadowrunner without ever hurting anyone if you are fast and
> > > quiet enough.
> > >
>
> Actually, that would be the only ones that would be hired more than once,
> IMO... deniable assets are always better when you can deny
> knowing anything
> happened.
> >
> > Being rational doesn't make you sane. It makes you more dangerous.
> What then defines 'sane'?

"Of sound mind. Mentally healthy." www.dictionary.com

Granted, it's relative. But it's relative to the mindset and thought
processes of the society in which the person lives.

> >
> > And I notice that you said that they do kill people when the
> feel the need
> > to. Being such a complete slave to one's greed sounds like insanity to
> > me.
> Depends on his definition of 'when there is any other possible course of
> action'. If it comes down to a situation of killing or letting
> some whackjob
> drop a couple liters of VITAS cultures into the reservoir.... doesn't seem
> to meet the criteria of 'greedy' to me.
> There are reasons to kill, and reasons to kill...

If you killed a whack job who was going to kill everyone in the city, that's
not being a shadowrunnner. That's a vigilante. Your example is irrelevant.

> >
> > > Shadowrunning is a method of making a lot of cash very fast. It
> requires
> > > bravery, skills and a hell of a lot of luck. Mental stability and
> > > intelligence are very, very helpful, if not essential to
> being a runner.
> >
> > It also requires that you be greedy enough to put your own
> wants and needs
> > ahead of the rights of those around you. It requires that you
> have little
> > or no respect for the rules of society when they are at odds with your
> > goals. Refusing to admit that part is called denial. When denial takes
> > over your life, you've lost your grip on reality. Not everyone who is
> > insane beats their head against a wall, eats flies, and howls
> at the moon.
> Rights of who around me? Microsoft? AOL/Time-Warner? McDonalds?

The people who's work you've stolen? I know I'd be exceedingly pissed if
someone had broken into my lab, stolen 6 months of research data, then sold
it to someone who was going to pass it off as their own.

Corporations are made up of people. Most of those people are hard working,
law abiding citizens. Refusing to see that you are willing harming these
people to satisfy your own greed is delusional.

> Or the waiters at Denny's, the schoolteacher that works at the
> semi-correctional institution, the lawyers and bank employees who
> _DO_ help
> people get into houses at a reasonable cost...

I don't see how you're helping these people by facilitating the corporations
doing all the nasty stuff that they do. But they do have rights, and you'd
have to be horribly out of touch with reality to think that you're doing a
good thing by stealing from them, especially to sate your own greed.

> I see the posited 'non-violent' runners doing plenty that respects or even
> advocates the rights of the people in the second group - while damaging
> (some) members of the first group -- _AT THE BEHEST OF THEIR COHORTS_...
> (and incidentally, their cohorts will then be the target of further runs,
> etc, welcome to the vicious circle, cycle, and jungle...)

It doesn't respect or advocate them. Not killing someone, and respecting
their rights are two very different things. And when you're willing to
waive the "no killing" part when it best serves your own greed, you're not
thinking like most of society. And thinking in a way radically different
from most people tends to be what insane is defined as.

> If you have the skillset to do this quietly, with minimal violence
> (protecting bystanders from things like poorly placed manaballs and
> hellblasts!), then wouldn't it be delusional to think that by NOT running
> you're protecting society in some fashion? Someone, somewhere, IS
> stupid and
> insane, and WILL be paid to do a run.. or we're not playing in a Shadowrun
> world. What you mentioned as the 'world being a better place' -
> perhaps. Or
> perhaps it would be a 'quieter' place where ALL of the people only receive
> the information that yonder media giant (AOL/Time-Warner for
> example) feeds
> them.

"I really should steal that car, because if I don't someone else will
carjack the owner and kill him."

Say it to someone. See if they don't look at you like you're nuts.

And if these people didn't exist, the world would be a better place. The
disappearance of deniability would mean that any corporation to take such
outrageous action would be ripe for retribution from their peers, and from
the Corporate Court. A lot of risk versus reward analysis would be done,
and then a lot of nastier activities would cease.

> >
> > Oh, and if you're doing all these nasty things to try to make
> the world a
> > better place, that makes you a vigilante or a terrorist. I hope all of
> them
> > go to the chair, too.
>
> Or a revolutionary. Or a hero. And a lot of those go to the chair or are
> otherwise executed as well - sometimes tragically.
>
> To use American history (hey, when you live there, you use it), Washington
> was most definitely doing 'nasty' things that you would label 'terrorist'
> now. Where is the moral high ground you're trying to stand on, again?

They declared our independence, raised an army, fought a war, and won.
That's how things are done. Comparing them to a few sickos who blow up a
church full of children is absurd.

> >
> > Later,
> > Duncan
>
> Duncan, it sounds like you don't like this game's concept... if so why are
> you on the list?
> What are 'good' reasons to be runners?
>

I love the game's concept. That's why I've been playing it for nine years.
It gives me a chance to slip out of being a happy, productive member of
society for a few hours to be that overly glamorized bad guy. But no matter
how cool they may seem from time to time, they're still people who does bad
things for bad people for money. I think that makes them bad people. If
they don't see that, they're delusional. If they do, then they're just
plain nuts.

Later,
-Duncan
Message no. 19
From: Paul J. Adam ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:34:10 +0000
In article <20001129045911.16444.qmail@******.mail.yahoo.com>, Rand
Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> writes
>Which brings me to my question. From the POV of you as
>players, and of your primary characters, what would
>you be prepared to do in the pursuit of your goals?
>For instance, would you be prepared to play a
>character who'd go so far as to kill hundreds of
>innocents in order to fake their own death
>convincingly, and are any of your main characters the
>sorts of people who would? Or do you only play the
>moral types?

I don't think I've played anyone as a PC who'd kill so many for
convenience, simply because it defeats the object of the exercise - such
carnage invites attention, especially if a notable and wanted criminal
is one victim. (I've GMed NPCs who've used such a tactic though :) But
usually to replace nonentities rather than disappear wanted
shadowrunners)



My homicidal PCs have tended to be coldly rational and very aware of the
risks of being caught (this being the main if not only brake on their
violence) because otherwise they didn't last long enough to be worth
playing :).

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 20
From: Walter Scheper ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:18:20 -0500
On 29 Nov 2000, at 19:37, Duncan wrote:

> Jonathan Choy didst proclaimeth:
>
> Most rational, healthy, well adjusted people won't decide to supplement
> their retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate dirty
> work for money. Most people who get too old to "work for a living" join
> company management and end up either bossing around the people who're still
> young, or training them.
>
I'll agree that most people in todays society do not "supplement their
retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate dirty work for
money." However, I do not accept the point that management is made up of
people "who get too old to 'work for a living.'"

> They're dead. I'm glad they're dead. And they were all megalomaniacal
> psychos who killed and stole their way to power.
Again, I'll agree with this.

> My definition of insanity is anyone who thinks in a radically different way from
> the societal norm. But if you're denying that they were some sick fucks, I can
> sort of see why we disagree.
>
Okay, so you're condemning Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Hobbes, Locke,
Nietzsche, Ghandi, Dali, Picasso, Leonardo De Vinci, Jesus Christ, Buddha,
Napoleon, (do I really need to continue?) and a host of others who have
thought "in a radically different way form the societal norm." I'm sorry, but
that is an incorrect and bogus definition of insanity. Since society's point of
view is so important to you, I have to point out that your definition of insanity
is insane by your own definition. Most of society believes that insanity is
whacking your head on the wall and thinking your Napoleon. Clinically
speaking, insanity is something completely different from what you think and
from what society as a whole thinks. I would like to point out that large
portions of my fellow Americans think some totally whacked out and
completely wrong things. Just because those who know differently, like
pyschologists on the topic of insanity, don't think like society, its ludicrous
to say that they are in some way insane. Now, if you meant something else
by "thinks in a radically different way" then by all means tell me.

> "Of sound mind. Mentally healthy." www.dictionary.com
>
> Granted, it's relative. But it's relative to the mindset and thought
> processes of the society in which the person lives.
>
Uhm, I think there are some people who work in the field of psychology who
would disagree with you. Many forms of insanity are actually physical
problems caused by chemical inblances in the brain; problems that have
nothing at all to do with the "mindset and thought processes" of society.

> If you killed a whack job who was going to kill everyone in the city, that's not
> being a shadowrunnner. That's a vigilante. Your example is irrelevant.
>
No, that's someone who just saved a million or more people. That's a hero in
my book.

> The people who's work you've stolen? I know I'd be exceedingly pissed if
> someone had broken into my lab, stolen 6 months of research data, then sold it
> to someone who was going to pass it off as their own.
>
> Corporations are made up of people. Most of those people are hard working, law
> abiding citizens. Refusing to see that you are willing harming these people to
> satisfy your own greed is delusional.
>
So is refusing to accept the sentience of shapeshifters so that you can
preform painful experiments on them, something that has been alluded to in
FASA cannon, I believe. Whats your point? That people sometimes ignore
the side effects of their behavior? Big deal, most people do that all the time.

[snip]
> It doesn't respect or advocate them. Not killing someone, and respecting
> their rights are two very different things. And when you're willing to
> waive the "no killing" part when it best serves your own greed, you're not
> thinking like most of society. And thinking in a way radically different
> from most people tends to be what insane is defined as.
>
Quick question: what do you mean by greed? If you mean monetary or
material acquisition then I'll have to agree that most people aren't willing to
kill for small amounts of income. Course if they were offered a million dollars,
or less for some people, then I think you'd see changes in behavior.
Especially, if they were capable of not getting caught. Here's a great idea:
most people are law abiding, not just because they're sane but because
they're sane enough to realize that they'll get caught. The consequences of
their actions, and their rational understanding of those consequences, are
what makes most people "law abiding." Take away those consequences and
most people would be violent and immoral. Thomas Hobbes said that, you
should go read _Leviathan_ if you haven't already.

[snip
> They declared our independence, raised an army, fought a war, and won.
> That's how things are done. Comparing them to a few sickos who blow up a
> church full of children is absurd.
>
But most of British society thought they were nuts. Guess what, the Brits
that thought that were wrong. They were terrorist, from the perspective of the
British Empire, and criminals to boot. If they'd lost the war, we'd probably be
taught that in school. What about Yasser Arafat? He led a terrorist campaign
against a sovereign nation. If the peace process ever works in the Middle
East in his life time he will be the George Washington of an independent
Palestine. If he dies before then, whoever takes over after him will probably
also have been a part of the terrorist campaign against Israel. Arafat isn't
insane. He fully understood what he was doing, and he understood the
consequences of his actions. That is the legal definition of sane. However, he
did things that "society" doesn't. I'm sorry Duncan, but your definition of
insane is wrong. No if, ands or buts to it.

Shadowrunners aren't all insane. Criminals I'll accept, but according to
American law you actually can't be a criminal unless your sane.

That is all
-Walter
Message no. 21
From: GSW13 darklordsatin@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:21:14 -0500
Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his or her
group?

/*----------------------------------------------------------------
GSW13, George, Mr. Peabody, DL (Darklord) Satin, The God of Nothing, etc.

"Wo ist Dein Hobo Führer?" <---- If my german is wrong correct me
----------------------------------------------------------------*/
Message no. 22
From: GSW13 darklordsatin@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:33:35 -0500
> If I wanted to play a sick character I would play a Sabat campaign in
V:TM;
> that is a game about homicidal maniacs. Shadowrunners are genrally
consious
> of their apperance, professional and cool under pressure.
>
> Phil
>

Phil, I have to agree with you here and take the opportunity to plug my
personal bias in.

It is my opinion that Shadowrun is a better game than V:tM as a result of
not having the moral gaming rules. The behavior of Shadowrunners is not
controlled by some outside conscience constructed for game balance and
control, it is controlled by the society in which they exist, which is in
turn controlled by the GM's perception of the Shadowrun universe.

If I have a character kill an innocent in Shadowrun, what happens? Either
someone seeks retribution (Lone Star, Family, CorpSec, etc.) or I get away.

If I have a character kill an innocent in V:tM, what happens? I have to
worry about failing rolls and having my characters conscience haunt me the
player.

If I have a character kill an innocent in D&D what happens? I have to worry
about alignment changes, and other stuff.

One of Shadowrun's true graces is that I make my character's morals and
conscience, and I get to Role Play without restrictions.

Sorry if I ranted for a bit long, but I played V:tM for a short while and
then the annoyance of feeding and the damn moral restrictions turned me off
to it.

/*----------------------------------------------------------------
GSW13, George, Mr. Peabody, DL (Darklord) Satin, The God of Nothing, etc.

"Wo ist Dein Hobo Führer?" <---- If my german is wrong correct me
----------------------------------------------------------------*/
Message no. 23
From: GSW13 darklordsatin@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:44:01 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 03:51 PM
Subject: RE: Runner Morals


> Phil Smith didst replieth:
> > >From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
> > >There are two kinds of runners. The stupid, and the insane.
> >
> > I think I could probably say that of the characters played by
> > people on this
> > list, very few fall into either of the above catagoreys.
>
> I'd argue that the characters are extremely delusional. That makes them
> insane.
>
> > >The same holds
> > >true for any other kind of violent criminal
> >
> > Shadowrunners are not necessarily violent criminals; you can be a
> > shadowrunner without ever hurting anyone if you are fast and
> > quiet enough.
> >
> > They are professionals; two of the three runners in the game I run do
not
> > kill when there is any other possible course of action. They break into
> > places, they subdue the guards, get what they want and leave.
> > They are not
> > stupid and they are not insane, they are socially competent,
intelligent,
> > rational and professional.
> >
>
> Being rational doesn't make you sane. It makes you more dangerous.
>
> And I notice that you said that they do kill people when the feel the need
> to. Being such a complete slave to one's greed sounds like insanity to
me.
>
> > Shadowrunning is a method of making a lot of cash very fast. It
requires
> > bravery, skills and a hell of a lot of luck. Mental stability and
> > intelligence are very, very helpful, if not essential to being a runner.
>
> It also requires that you be greedy enough to put your own wants and needs
> ahead of the rights of those around you. It requires that you have little
> or no respect for the rules of society when they are at odds with your
> goals. Refusing to admit that part is called denial. When denial takes
> over your life, you've lost your grip on reality. Not everyone who is
> insane beats their head against a wall, eats flies, and howls at the moon.
>
> Oh, and if you're doing all these nasty things to try to make the world a
> better place, that makes you a vigilante or a terrorist. I hope all of
them
> go to the chair, too.
>
> Later,
> Duncan
>

Ok, I want to reply to this whole damn thing, by saying you ought to take a
course on sociology Duncan. Sanity and morals are a product of the society
in which one exists. The society of Shadowrun (one of corporate dominance,
and ultra-capitalism) fosters greed and a belief in the importance of the
many, not the one. For example, think about wars, is it the rights of the
enemy soldier that matter or is it the rights of the nation you are fighting
for? Now take that example and apply it to mercenary soldiers hired to fight
in a war.

Shodowrunners are a product of the society not insanity.

/*----------------------------------------------------------------
GSW13, George, Mr. Peabody, DL (Darklord) Satin, The God of Nothing, etc.

"Wo ist Dein Hobo Führer?" <---- If my german is wrong correct me
----------------------------------------------------------------*/
Message no. 24
From: Duncan dmcneill@************.edu
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:12:02 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.com]On Behalf Of Walter Scheper
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:18 PM
> To: shadowrn@*********.com
> Subject: RE: Runner Morals
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2000, at 19:37, Duncan wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Choy didst proclaimeth:
> >
> > Most rational, healthy, well adjusted people won't decide to supplement
> > their retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate dirty
> > work for money. Most people who get too old to "work for a living"
join
> > company management and end up either bossing around the people
> who're still
> > young, or training them.
> >
> I'll agree that most people in today's society do not "supplement their
> retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate
> dirty work for
> money." However, I do not accept the point that management is made up of
> people "who get too old to 'work for a living.'"

The "working for a living" part was a joke. I have nothing against NCOs, or
anyone else who moves from another department into middle management.

> > My definition of insanity is anyone who thinks in a radically
> different way from
> > the societal norm. But if you're denying that they were some
> sick fucks, I can
> > sort of see why we disagree.
> >
> Okay, so you're condemning Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Hobbes, Locke,
> Nietzsche, Ghandi, Dali, Picasso, Leonardo De Vinci, Jesus
> Christ, Buddha,
> Napoleon, (do I really need to continue?) and a host of others who have
> thought "in a radically different way form the societal norm."
> I'm sorry, but
> that is an incorrect and bogus definition of insanity. Since
> society's point of
> view is so important to you, I have to point out that your
> definition of insanity
> is insane by your own definition. Most of society believes that
> insanity is
> whacking your head on the wall and thinking your Napoleon. Clinically
> speaking, insanity is something completely different from what
> you think and
> from what society as a whole thinks. I would like to point out that large
> portions of my fellow Americans think some totally whacked out and
> completely wrong things. Just because those who know differently, like
> psychologists on the topic of insanity, don't think like society,
> its ludicrous
> to say that they are in some way insane. Now, if you meant something else
> by "thinks in a radically different way" then by all means tell me.

I will concede that my definition of insanity includes some truly great
minds. But it also includes people like Hitler, Ted Bundy, Mengele,
Sherman, and numerous other self righteous people who cut a bloody swathe
through the course of history.

I'll also concede that my definition of crazy varies from some clinical
psychologist's definitions. But as I've defined being crazy, being
intensely delusions counts as crazy.

> > "Of sound mind. Mentally healthy." www.dictionary.com
> >
> > Granted, it's relative. But it's relative to the mindset and thought
> > processes of the society in which the person lives.
> >
> Uhm, I think there are some people who work in the field of
> psychology who
> would disagree with you. Many forms of insanity are actually physical
> problems caused by chemical imbalances in the brain; problems that have
> nothing at all to do with the "mindset and thought processes" of society.

Then they think weird ways because their brains are working differently. If
that difference in how their brain works allows them to do a lot of bad
things for bad people for bad reasons, does it invalidate my original claim
that all runners are either crazy or stupid?

> > If you killed a whack job who was going to kill everyone in the
> city, that's not
> > being a shadowrunnner. That's a vigilante. Your example is irrelevant.
> >
> No, that's someone who just saved a million or more people.
> That's a hero in
> my book.

I'd consider him a hero as well. But that would hardly be an objective
observation of the situation. It doesn't change the fact that the example
has nothing to do with debate at hand.

> > Corporations are made up of people. Most of those people are
> hard working, law
> > abiding citizens. Refusing to see that you are willingly harming
> these people to
> > satisfy your own greed is delusional.
> >
> So is refusing to accept the sentience of shapeshifters so that you can
> preform painful experiments on them, something that has been
> alluded to in
> FASA cannon, I believe. What's your point? That people sometimes ignore
> the side effects of their behavior? Big deal, most people do that
> all the time.

True. People turn a blind eye to the wrongs going on around them. But most
of them aren't actively taking part in the vivisection of shapeshifters. I
consider the ones who do to be sick fucks, too.

> Quick question: what do you mean by greed? If you mean monetary or
> material acquisition then I'll have to agree that most people
> aren't willing to
> kill for small amounts of income. Course if they were offered a
> million dollars,
> or less for some people, then I think you'd see changes in behavior.
> Especially, if they were capable of not getting caught. Here's a
> great idea:
> most people are law abiding, not just because they're sane but because
> they're sane enough to realize that they'll get caught. The
> consequences of
> their actions, and their rational understanding of those
> consequences, are
> what makes most people "law abiding." Take away those consequences and
> most people would be violent and immoral. Thomas Hobbes said that, you
> should go read _Leviathan_ if you haven't already.

Read it back in high school. I can't dispute most of what Hobbes says. But
speculating about what people might do for an inordinate amount of money is
very different from evaluating actions already taken. But that is also
beside the point.

My point is that refusing to accept that they're not good people means
they're deeply delusional, which fits into my definition of crazy.

> [snip
> > They declared our independence, raised an army, fought a war, and won.
> > That's how things are done. Comparing them to a few sickos who
> blow up a
> > church full of children is absurd.
> >
> But most of British society thought they were nuts. Guess what, the Brits
> that thought that were wrong. They were terrorist, from the
> perspective of the
> British Empire, and criminals to boot. If they'd lost the war,
> we'd probably be
> taught that in school. What about Yasser Arafat? He led a
> terrorist campaign
> against a sovereign nation. If the peace process ever works in the Middle
> East in his life time he will be the George Washington of an independent
> Palestine. If he dies before then, whoever takes over after him
> will probably
> also have been a part of the terrorist campaign against Israel.
> Arafat isn't
> insane. He fully understood what he was doing, and he understood the
> consequences of his actions. That is the legal definition of
> sane. However, he
> did things that "society" doesn't. I'm sorry Duncan, but your
> definition of
> insane is wrong. No if, ands or buts to it.

Maybe it was the biased accounts, but I don't recall reading about the
fledging continental army blowing up buildings full of civilians. Compare
the mess in Yugoslavia, or anyplace else in the former Soviet Union to our
revolution, but the mess in Israel is not the same. When the Palestinians
raise an army and defeat the IDF in the open desert then sue for peace and
decent sized chunk of Israel then I'll put them in the same catagory.

Later,
Duncan
Message no. 25
From: Burke, Tim Tim.Burke@***.gov.au
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:31 +1100
****************************************************************
IMPORTANT

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended
recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in
severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error
please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation
Office, telephone 13 2869 and delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.

****************************************************************
Apologies for compulsory employer disclaimer.
(Gurth, if I had any way I could post that
wouldn't add it I would. We have e-mail only
and no internet access otherwise I'd use a
web based account.....sorry.)

-----Original Message-----
From: GSW13
Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his or her
group?

----------------------------------------------------------------*/

Oh yeah....

We had a situation where we were vastly outnumbered and
surrounded by very twitchy gangers with guns. We'd come
to see their leader who had information that we needed
and we thought that we'd try the respectful approach
first and ask nicely and try and buy the info rather
than the 'beat the crap out of him' approach.

Well we had this munchkin that was playing with us
(the reason why we still can't remember, or no-one
wants to admit....perhaps comic relief) that had
a character that would always shoot first and ask
questions later. Munchkin X announced loudly to
the GM that he was going to shoot the ganger leader
whilst our 'face man' was negotiating the deal.

GM gets us all to roll for initiative and it came
up that the 'face' got the drop on Munchkin X.
Munchkin X declared again that he was going to
shoot the gang boss, which would've resulted
in a reservior dogs ending for us all. We'd been
playing these characters for over two years and
avoided death and dismemberment.

'Face' did the only thing that would save us all.
He shot Munchkin X dead. And I mean dead. I've never
seen so many sixes in my time. Once Munchkin X's
body hit the floor we holstered up and continued
negotiations, rather successfully I might add.

We laughed ourselves senseless. Needless to say
Munchkin X never played with us again...

It was so funny in that we all wished we could
do it but we never actively sought to kill the
player's character. Face did what he did reactively
and in character. Still it was funny....

***********************************************
Manx // timburke@******.net.au // #950
"The problem with the world is that
everyone's a few drinks behind."
- Humphrey Bogart
***********************************************
Message no. 26
From: Damion Milliken dam01@***.edu.au
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:12:32 +1100 (EST)
Phil Smith writes:

> I don't think so; I tend to play socially aware, intelligent and moral
> runners. People who break the law are not necessarily messed up; some
> runners are attracted by the way shadowrunners are portreyed on the trid
> which is an aspect of popular culture in the SR world. To a certain degree
> shadowrunners in SR are seen as romantic figures, that's certainly the way
> I see them.

I get the impression that this is somewhat the way FASA intended them to
be. And many player characters that I see are like this. OTOH, the
somewhat dark world of shadowrun tends to breed player characters who are
not so 'lighthearted' (for lack of a better term) about how they go about
the business of shadowrunning. Also, I feel that 'breaking the law' and
'moral', while not mutually exculsive, are often very difficult to
reconcile, at least to the mind of most (supposedly sane?) persons. By this
I mean that while some shadowrunners might be quite moral, they are still
big time lawbreakers, with little or no respect for other people (or at
least their property, livelihoods, and so on). They may be able to explain
to themselves or their accomplices why they carry out such actions, but I
would expect that the majority of "folks on the street" who heard the
explanation would think that the runner was "just nuts". Maybe not
"psycho", like another next runner who revelled in eviscerating security
personnel during runs, but certainly not normal either.

> If I wanted to play a sick character I would play a Sabat campaign in
> V:TM; that is a game about homicidal maniacs. Shadowrunners are genrally
> consious of their apperance, professional and cool under pressure.

<grin> At least the one's who survive for any length of time are. Although
there seem to be a fair number who are not. Shadowrunning, being somewhat
of a meat grinder of an occupation, usually manages to perform fast
evolution on prospective runners and weed out the less 'professional' ones.

OTOH, it's often the 'less professional' runners that make the most
memorable, fun characters. Too much cool, calm, cold professionalism gets
kinda boring. :-) Besides, it's less fun as a GM if every run goes as clean
as clockwork because the runner team operates as smoothly as a well trained
special ops strike force. Wacky characters and personalities, often (at
least in SR) criminally insane or violent types, make the game much more
fun, at least for the GM! :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 27
From: Keith Duthie psycho@*********.co.nz
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:38:05 +1300 (NZDT)
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Duncan wrote:

> It doesn't respect or advocate them. Not killing someone, and respecting
> their rights are two very different things. And when you're willing to
> waive the "no killing" part when it best serves your own greed, you're not
> thinking like most of society. And thinking in a way radically different
> from most people tends to be what insane is defined as.

Quite frankly, you have an overly high opinion of people in general. If
someone could make a considerable sum of money by killing me, and wouldn't
even be suspected, let alone convicted of the offence, I'd be dead. People
aren't nice - most of us consider risk versus reward when we do something
(those who don't _are_ insane), and if the reward outweighs the risk then
we do it.

Now, the risk could involve intangibles as well as things like
imprisonment or injury, and the reward could involve intangibles as well
as material gain, but we still consider risk versus reward.

And shadowrunners, in general, don't think the risks are too great.
--
Understanding is a three edged sword. Do you *want* to get the point?
http://www.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this message are unlikely to
be mine, let alone anybody elses...
Message no. 28
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:18:37 +0100
According to Phil Smith, on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 the word on the street was...

> If I wanted to play a sick character I would play a Sabat campaign in V:TM;
> that is a game about homicidal maniacs. Shadowrunners are genrally consious
> of their apperance, professional and cool under pressure.

Why not go all the way and play Kult?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Bartitis -- Kei-erg!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 29
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:14:38 +0100
According to GSW13, on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 the word on the street was...

> Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his or her
> group?

Oh, yes... The most infamous instance in my current group happened when one
player wanted to retire his character, and take most of the group's wealth
with him when he disappeared. It turned into such a big mess that we still
try not to bring it up too often. (I was GMing at the time and was the one
technically responsible for most of the PC deaths, but if it hadn't been
for the retirement plan of another player, they wouldn't have died in the
first place.)

Another time when my character actively killed other PCs was the one time I
played along with Martin Steffens' group, five years ago. I managed to kill
three out of four PCs (aside from mine) before the last one got me. This
one was partly to blame on the GM, who'd secretly given my character a
different mission than the other PCs, and on one player whose characters
kept making jokes at my character's expense.

But one of the best times this happened in a game I was in, was when the
PCs had just had a firefight with some bad guys, and the PC shaman goes
over to the survivors to heal them (he was weird that way :) So as the
shaman approaches the enemy mage (who was at 9 boxes physical damage),
another PC reloads his AK-98 and says to the shaman -- and I quote -- "If
you heal her, you will die!" After he'd repeated that sentence at the
shaman's request, the shaman Manabolted him for exactly a Deadly wound,
healed the enemy mage, and then healed the PC. Only when he was done did it
turn out that the other player had _meant_ "If you heal her, she will kill
you," but due to the unfortunate way he phrased it, and him loading and
charging his AK while he said it, all of us misunderstood what he meant :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Bartitis -- Kei-erg!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 30
From: Chipeloi chipeloi@***.nl
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:47:46 +0100
In the asylum, Gurth whispered in the corridors:

> According to GSW13, on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 the word on the street was...
>
> > Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his or
> > her group?
>
> Oh, yes... The most infamous instance in my current group happened
> when one player wanted to retire his character, and take most of the
> group's wealth with him when he disappeared. It turned into such a big
> mess that we still try not to bring it up too often. (I was GMing at
> the time and was the one technically responsible for most of the PC
> deaths, but if it hadn't been for the retirement plan of another
> player, they wouldn't have died in the first place.)
>
>
>
> But one of the best times this happened in a game I was in, was when
> the PCs had just had a firefight with some bad guys, and the PC shaman
> goes over to the survivors to heal them (he was weird that way :) So
> as the shaman approaches the enemy mage (who was at 9 boxes physical
> damage), another PC reloads his AK-98 and says to the shaman -- and I
> quote -- "If you heal her, you will die!" After he'd repeated that
> sentence at the shaman's request, the shaman Manabolted him for
> exactly a Deadly wound, healed the enemy mage, and then healed the PC.
> Only when he was done did it turn out that the other player had
> _meant_ "If you heal her, she will kill you," but due to the
> unfortunate way he phrased it, and him loading and charging his AK
> while he said it, all of us misunderstood what he meant :)

Hmm you forgot thet he healed that damn dragon to..
An other pc killed the dragon and this pc (named ron)
went to the dragon and HEALED it!

AAAA old memory's....

take one guess who was that player that sayed: "if you heal her,
you die!"

ROTFLOL

--
>If you thought Chipeloi was crazy just wait till you meet me !
Message no. 31
From: Scott M Harrison Scott_Harrison@*****.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:54:36 +0100
--Apple-Mail-943403801-6
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
content-type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii


On Thursday, November 30, 2000, at 04:21 AM, GSW13 wrote:

Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his or her
group?

Never in SR. But in RQ yes. In this case the GM revealed to me that the party I was in
was fighting against my own god. Of course, when I found this out I had to defend my god
and did the logical thing. The player who ran my character's victim and I still get along
fine as we both know we were role-playing. :-)

--Scott

--Apple-Mail-943403801-6
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
content-type: text/enriched;
charset=us-ascii

<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>

On Thursday, November 30, 2000, at 04:21 AM, GSW13 wrote:


<italic>Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his or
her</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

<italic></italic></color><italic>group?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>


</color>Never in SR. But in RQ yes. In this case the GM revealed to me that the
party I was in was fighting against my own god. Of course, when I found this out I had to
defend my god and did the logical thing. The player who ran my character's victim and I
still get along fine as we both know we were role-playing. :-)


--Scott


--Apple-Mail-943403801-6--
Message no. 32
From: Jonathan Choy jjchoy@*********.net
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:44:40 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Scheper" <ratlaw@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: 29 November 2000 9:18 PM
Subject: RE: Runner Morals


> On 29 Nov 2000, at 19:37, Duncan wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Choy didst proclaimeth:
Small point - the points you're responding to are Duncan's, not mine...
> >
> > Most rational, healthy, well adjusted people won't decide to supplement
> > their retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate dirty
> > work for money. Most people who get too old to "work for a living"
join
> > company management and end up either bossing around the people who're
still
> > young, or training them.
> I'll agree that most people in todays society do not "supplement their
> retirement income by traveling the world and doing corporate dirty work
for
> money." However, I do not accept the point that management is made up of
> people "who get too old to 'work for a living.'"
Most 'rational, healthy, well adjusted' people in today's society also
didn't spend their active duty career doing that, and get put out to pasture
due to a 'corporate policy' of retiring people at 40-something from active
duty (cf US Army).

> > They're dead. I'm glad they're dead. And they were all megalomaniacal
> > psychos who killed and stole their way to power.
> Again, I'll agree with this.
I'm glad they're dead too. I would STILL like to hear which _CLINICAL_
'insanity' you are going to ascribe to them, Duncan. If you aren't going to
use a defineable measure of sanity, then don't throw the notion of insanity
around... and I don't buy into the US Supreme Court's 'I know it when i see
it' notion, so let's not go there.

> > "Of sound mind. Mentally healthy." www.dictionary.com
There's a nice definition. now you have to define 'mental health' - which is
the subject of psychology. Or you could just use a better definition - out
of psychology. (noting a trend?) Me, I know I'm not qualified to argue the
fine points of psychology - but I can certainly ask that someone make clear
what position they are taking if they're going to use charges of insanity to
paint people as bad guys.

> > Granted, it's relative. But it's relative to the mindset and thought
> > processes of the society in which the person lives.
(I'll not argue the point that the runners ARE bad criminals. I will argue
the notion that society thinks differently than they do... They are members
of a society within which they fulfill a function and behave according to
societal norms - the society of shadowrunners. This is not the same as the
society the megacorps work within. One could theorize that there are three
societies in 2060 - the corporate society, the wageslave society, and the
society of runners. NANs and most of TT/TnN fall within wageslave in my
world, FWIW. the Runner's society is a symbiotic society to the Corporate
society, and interacts as little as possible with wageslave society. they
are separate cultures and would certainly have separate cultural norms.
their geographic proximity is what makes the game entertaining...)

> > If you killed a whack job who was going to kill everyone in the city,
that's not
> > being a shadowrunnner. That's a vigilante. Your example is irrelevant.
> >
> No, that's someone who just saved a million or more people. That's a hero
in
> my book.
And if your shadowrunner was supposed to be planting some electronics in the
control mechanisms at the dam in the reservoir that the aforementioned
whackjob is doing his dirty work from, finds out because he spots
something-or-other out of place in the other 'runner group' - that is, the
lone whackjob that makes the nature spirit providing cover for him howl (for
some reason - we're well off into hypothetical land), but the upshot being
that the whackjob gets discovered being a whackjob in the midst of an
'exercise of greed' in your terms - is he a runner, a vigilante, a hero, a
maniac, all of the above, some other thing?

>
> Shadowrunners aren't all insane. Criminals I'll accept, but according to
> American law you actually can't be a criminal unless your sane.
>
> That is all
> -Walter
also a good point.

Tetsujin no Oni
Jonathan Choy
'Of course I feel dirty... I'm from the Horde!' (but if I'm from the horde,
then the Horde as a society is 'dirty' so i must be insane...?)
Message no. 33
From: Martin Steffens marste@*********.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:45:30 -0800
From: Scott M Harrison

> Note that there seems to be some sort of moral code
> built into SR modules because there are karma points
> taken away for having innocents killed, etc. Admittedly
> a lot of those cases are because one needs to have those
> characters survive for some greater purpose.

That's the biggest problem I had with Harlequin's Back.
Very interesting campaign, but I was GM-ing a team of
cynical, money grabbing, backstabbing, evil SOBes who
thought that Harly already shafted them big time in the
first series and just refused to work for him.
I forced them into it, but it certainly turned out to be
very different from what I expected...

> I think SR can be moral or not, depending on the GM and
> the players. As long as the players are playing their
> characters appropriately I do not think they should be
> punished for being amoral or whatever. Note that being
> punished means taking karma away, or other arbitrary
> things.

Couldn't agree more, except that I don't think that a GM
should force characters to be moral, if he/she feels they
should be. It's a different thing if he follows them up
on the consequences of their actions, but the "charm" of
SR for me is this mostly lacking sense of having to play
the good guys. Makes a nice break from the usual where
any nastiness on the PCs part ruins a whole module.

> There are consequences to actions, and those do not
> necessarily fall under punishment. So, if a character
> blows up a plane to get at one person, the authorities
> will be interested in finding the character because the
> plane is blown up. Just because a huge manhunt hounds the
> character for ever does not mean the character is being
> punished - just living with the consequences of an
> anti-social act.

Correct, sadly they were also very smart and got an eco-
terrorist group to take the blame (who were happy with
the extra publicity, well for a short time at least :).
There was a minor hiccup in their plan when a very
stubborn detective managed to trace the explosives to
their fixer, but a hefty bribe and some blackmail on his
wife got him to drop that line of investigation and stick
to the official Lone Star line that it was a fringe eco-
terrorist group who conveniently blew themselves up rather
than surrender when the Start surrounded their hide out :).

Martin
- "It looks like they will surrender"
"Oh no they won't! I left some explosives in their office"
*click*
"Ooookaayy, I guess they won't surrender then after all" -
Message no. 34
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:20:27 -0000
>From: "Duncan" <dmcneill@************.edu>
>And I notice that you said that they do kill people when the feel the need
>to. Being such a complete slave to one's greed sounds like insanity to me.

By "need" I ment in a kill or be killed situation. Hell, if someone was
running at me wielding a large sharp object with the intent of taking my
head off and I had a gun I would shoot them. I would consider myself a
pacifist but that doesn't mean I would not defend myself to whatever extreme
is required to remove any very apparent danger to myself.

>It requires that you have little
>or no respect for the rules of society when they are at odds with your
>goals.

So you would never break a law if it was in your best interest?
Megacorporations are very big, faceless entities that can afford a few
prototypes here and there.

>Refusing to admit that part is called denial.

When did anyone say that runners have no apreciation of cause an effect?
Runners, certainly in the games I run, tend to be fully aware that they are
stealing from megacorps and that they may end up killing someone as a result
of their actions. They also know that if everything goes to plan they will
have moved assets from one huge, faceless corporation to another and a few
security guards may well get told off or demoted as a result and they will
be a lot richer.

>Oh, and if you're doing all these nasty things to try to make the world a
>better place, that makes you a vigilante or a terrorist.

Characters in my games are not saints, they have no pretensions of saving
the world. A lot of them conform to the laws of the streets; if someone
gets in your way, move them. Don't kill unless you absolutely have to, even
if you don't have a problem with it the city authorities will and GBH is a
lot better than murder. If you have the chance to make money at someone
else's expense, take it. That is not f**ked up; it is reality.

Phil

Dying is an art like everything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Message no. 35
From: Patrick Goodman pgoodman13@************.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:25:13 -0600
From: GSW13
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:20 PM

> Anyone ever had characters try to kill the other members of his
> or her group?

Yep. Hell, that was *why* my character Dancer was brought into his first
game in the first place; his Johnson hired him to waste another PC. The fun
part was infiltrating into the main group and making it look like an
ordinary death in a typical firefight.

--
Patrick Goodman
"We say atoms are bound by weak attractors. Why not admit the truth: The
universe is held together by love."
-- Michio Von Kerr, Wayist Physicist
(from GENE RODDENBERRY'S ANDROMEDA)
Message no. 36
From: Martin Steffens marste@*********.com
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:05:41 -0800
From: Gurth

> Another time when my character actively killed other PCs was the
> one time I played along with Martin Steffens' group, five years
> ago. I managed to kill three out of four PCs (aside from mine)
> before the last one got me. This one was partly to blame on the
> GM, who'd secretly given my character a different mission than
> the other PCs, and on one player whose characters kept making
> jokes at my character's expense.

Ah yes, the joy of having a once off guest player >:)
One of the players had two PCs that he'd been using for two
evenings. When I asked for his sheets I found out that his
characters were better than mine that I've been playing with for
two years and that he "upgraded" them. Since that was the third
time I caught him doing that, I planned an early demise for him,
and Gurth was the perfect solution.
It was also a good way to introduce them to the nasty things that
are normal in the Shadowrun world, as they were mostly used to
fantasy settings (in which they had a tendency to get killed in
spectacular silly ways as well).
But in retrospect it kind of backfired, the didn't want to play
Shadowrun anymore because it was too difficult :).

Martin
- The rocket hits you for 10D damage. Oh wait you have some
hand grenades as well, how many? 20?! Ow, that's gotta hurt, as
the blast sets them off. And your brother is only two meters
away from you and he also carries 20 hand grenades if I remember
correctly >:). -
Message no. 37
From: Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:48:50 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Steffens"

> One of the players had two PCs that he'd been using for two
> evenings. When I asked for his sheets I found out that his
> characters were better than mine that I've been playing with for
> two years and that he "upgraded" them. Since that was the third
> time I caught him doing that, I planned an early demise for him,
> and Gurth was the perfect solution.

Heh. In my D&D game, I keep the character sheets, to reduce the urge to
alter them. I also am great at adding their numbers up quickly, and keep a
cheat card with a few of their "secret skills" (like Spot, listen, etc.) so
I know about where they should be.
Message no. 38
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Runner Morals
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:40:22 +0100
According to Martin Steffens, on Mon, 04 Dec 2000 the word on the street was...

> One of the players had two PCs that he'd been using for two evenings.
> When I asked for his sheets I found out that his characters were better
> than mine that I've been playing with for two years and that he "upgraded"
> them. Since that was the third time I caught him doing that, I planned an
> early demise for him, and Gurth was the perfect solution.

I'd probably have done it anyway because he kept making dwarf jokes at me
with both his characters. Never mock a dwarf with a rocket launcher you
don't know about :)

> - The rocket hits you for 10D damage. Oh wait you have some
> hand grenades as well, how many? 20?! Ow, that's gotta hurt, as
> the blast sets them off. And your brother is only two meters
> away from you and he also carries 20 hand grenades if I remember
> correctly >:). -

IIRC they each had six hand grenades and a couple of magazines for
MGL-6's, all set off by my LAW rocket which conveniently missed the
vampire and his minions and went on to hit one of the PCs... That computer
dice roller came in handy for figuring out the blast :)

Oh yeah, and then there was my plan to blow up his apartment with a stolen
car filled with several dozen kilos of different kinds of explosives, which
unfortunately wasn't necessary anymore.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Bartitis -- Kei-erg!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Runner Morals, 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!