| From: | TopCat <topcat@******.net> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Killing in Shadowrun... |
| Date: | Sun, 19 May 1996 18:06:06 -0500 |
>This, of course, loses the "deniable" aspect of shadowrunners. Why not
>just go formally on the payroll and wear a uniform? The idea is that
>there are no traceable links between the corporation and the runner: if
>linking the corp to the op was acceptable, the corporation would use its
>own assets rather than hiring some dubious thugs off the street.
Because you can't be formally on the payroll and attack another corp without
starting a nasty war in a very public manner. You can, however, retain a
group of shadowrunners to do work for you when needed and they can't be
traced back to you, anyway.
>>A corp that always eliminates attackers will have the highest number of
>>investors as well as a healthy stock of shadow assets of their own. Just
>>because they kill those who attack them doesn't mean that shadowrunners
>>won't work for them. It's a dog eat dog world out there and you take your
>>money where you can find it. I find it ludicrous that a corp that kills
>>runners wouldn't hire runners. Corps do both on a daily basis.
>There is a side issue here. Let's say Lynch is planning a hit. Now, he
>has a choice of going in with heavy weapons, explosives, and gas -
>killing everyone in the building, removing the target, then destroying
>the building; or going in low-profile and quiet, doing minimum
>collateral damage and inflicting minimum casualties.
You'e missed the point of my statement. I was speaking in regards to people
using non-lethal means to accomplish a job as opposed to lethal means.
Which translates to a lot of knocked out personnel who did see you and your
team and will be able to describe them to their superiors or a lot of bodies
that can't say a thing about you. I'm not talking about stealth missions
vs. mad bombings. Even on the stealthiest of entries, you'll end up meeting
someone somewhere sometime. If you choose to knock them out, then they'll
know things about you. If you kill them, "dead men tell no tales".
>The corporation might find it worthwhile to avoid that sort of carnage
>by encouraging a quiet quid pro quo: the level of pursuit scales to (a)
>the importance of your target, and (b) the collateral damage inflicted.
Of course it does. But there's also (c) current situations. If the corp
feels like it needs a confidence booster and knows of a shadowrun team that
managed to get some useless info from them, they'd probably do well to nail
that team hard and fast. Why? Because it shows that even the slightest of
attacks is met with brute force. Shareholders will be happy, stock will
rise, and the corp draws the bottom line a little higher. If the corp
doesn't need that confidence booster, then they will probably let them slide.
If the info was worth anything, wouldn't you want to know who got it? I
know I would. How do you find out? Trace the runners, bag as many as
possible and try out the latest techniques of security advisor Torquemada.
Then you can choose to kill them or let them live with the reps of runners
who gave out their Johnson. Either way, they're out of your hair.
>>This is what I'm talking about when I describe unrealistic gaming. Morals
>>are a non-factor and the bottom line is top nuyen. Welcome to cyberpunk.
>Exactly: see above for why "bottom line" does not necessarily mean
"hunt
>forever".
No, but it does mean hunt. The runners may not even know that they are
being hunted or even by who. It could be that other shadowrunner team
across the bar. Or that gang of trolls hanging out at the corner. Or it
could be your own fixer setting you up for a fall. All of those are
deniable assets. The public probbaly won't even know those runners died,
but the shadows will know that they did, why they did, and who did it.
-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
