| From: | "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Corporate Retribution |
| Date: | Sun, 26 May 1996 20:40:02 +1000 (EST) |
revenge thread. To me it seems like the debate has come down to two
polarised arguments:
For: If corps make an effort to eliminate those who work against
them from the shadows, then future action will be
discouraged.
Against:If corps did this then pretty soon most if not all
shadowrunners would be dead. This is not evident in the
game, so therefore it must not occur.
There are other arguments, but I think that each of them is counterable -
the two above are pretty difficult to counter.
Now, I personally think that the kind of serious corp retribution that TC
describes would be saved for only the most severe or personal cases, and not
be SOP. Thus I'm against the idea of corporate death squads killing every
shadowrunner that does something to their corporation.
Killing off shadowrunners, or at least those shadowrunners who perpetrate a
more well known act against you, might well be good for business - if you
are willing to let it be known that you ruthlessly kill those who work
against you. This in itself may be a bad thing (remember, as is mentioned
in many SR products, public image is a great detriment to many corp
activities - even corps must answer to the public, if only due to sales
losses). If it can discourage further runs against your corp, then it will
give a positive gain.
On the flip side, if corps killed off shadowrunners on a regular basis, then
pretty quickly there would be no shadowrunners left - or at least there
would be only a very few who were very good. Even runners who only worked
for a single corp would end up dead - after all, they still perform runs
against opposing corps.
However, just because the shadowcommunity still exists and fairly thrives,
is not really a good enough explanation as to why corps do not kill off
runners. After all, "prevention is the best cure", no? Since it's evident
that runners (at least in the SR literature) don't get killed off after
every second run, then there must be some reason for it.
Maybe it just isn't economic. Sure, it's good to have no more shadowruns
performed against you, but if it costs you an arm and a leg to elminate all
runners that harrass you so that this occurs, then it isn't worth doing.
No-one can really say yay or nay to this, as it is impossible to produce
facts and figures. In some cases, elimination of runners migth be an easy
and cheap affair. In other cases it may require an enourmous expenditure of
resources.
Maybe killing off runners and publicising it isn't effective. Perhaps the
shadowcomunity is not all that close knit. Perhaps word does not reach many
runners, so they have nothing to deter them from running against your corp.
Or, conversely, perhaps the shadowcommunity is too close knit, and word gets
around too easily. Far too easily. The media finds out. Even in 2057, the
media and a corps public rep are big factors to consider. Do you want to be
the corp with the rep for blatantly killing people? In the shadaows, maybe
yes - it would be an advantage, but in public life - probably not.
The other thing that struck me about TC's logic was that he assumed that it
was logical for either (a) teams of runners to work generally for a single
corp, and that (b) corp teams themselves are better than runners.
I find (a) improbable, as I've said above, as if it were SOP for one corp to
nuke runners as payback, then it likely is for others (since it would be
financially viable). Thus even single corp employed teams of runners would
end up splattered.
I find (b) almost ludicrous, and just about completely against the entire
idea of Shadowrun as a game. One of the _major_ factors in using
shadowrunners is deniability and untraceability. If corporations could
produce their own teams that were as efficient and cost effective as
shadowrunners, then shadowrunners would quickly be out of work. The corps
do not - they employ runners. Corporate trained, owned and equiped teams
_would_ be more traceable than a team of runners - simply because there is
more book keeping, more people know of them, more commands and orders
circulate through the chain of command and so on. Corp teams may themelves
be superior to runner teams, but I cannot see them being used except in the
most extreme or pressing circumstances.
Also, TC implies that the corps created, and own/control the shadows. I
also feel that this goes almost 90 degrees off what FASA intended with SR,
and what most of us interpret the game as. Sure, the corps effectively
created the shadows, but they do not control or rule them. The shadows are
the cracks between the gleaming corporate towers where the corps have no
control and no power. They are havens from corporate control where those
who, for whatever reason, seek to avoid the powers that be can congrgate. I
feel that the shadows are a kind of underground gone wild. A
frankenstienish monster that the corps helped create but that has got awray.
Something about SR that I've always liked is the fact that PC's _can_ have
an affect on the major players of the world - the corps. They may not be
able to in some peoples games, but if you check enough SR sources, you'll
see this is the way it was intended (it's pretty explicitly stated in
Corporate Shadowfiles if I remember correctly - but just look at the
repercussions of most of the FASA modules and novels). If others wish to
take away this ability of the PC's to actually make the corps sit up and
listen (if not everyday, then at least once in their careers), and play
something more akin to Call of Cthulhu wherein the PC's know they're doomed
before they begin, then be my guest - just I don't, and I don't feel that
the game was intended to be that way.
Back on track to killing off runners though. Think about this for a little
while. If a runner teams burns your corp, and you wish to make it clear
that nobody is to burn you in the future, then you might want to kill the
team. But what about the snitch who supplied the runners with the guard
shift details? And the fixer who provided the runners with the SAN address
of your computer system. And the other fixer who supplied the runners with
the weapons and equipment that they used to gain entry and escape from yuor
facility. Would it not serve as a warning to knock them off as well - after
all, they aided and abetted the runners who damaged your busines. Killing
them might serve as a warning to others not too as well. My point being
that "where do you stop"? How hard do you need to pound home the message
before it finally sinks in? Before it is finally effective? Before the
fixers get afraid to orchistrate runs against you? Before the information
brokers give up? And so on. After all, information is the most valuable
commodity, and if the runners didn't have a particular bit of info that they
got ahold of, then they wouldn't have been able to get into your compound.
Why not kill the person who provided them with the info - cut off the damage
at it's source? What would be more effective? Anyway, I ramble.
As for the relative powers of corps and governments and such that seem
associated with this thread. I feel that it is firstly, irrelivent, as such
possibilities are likely never going to come into play. Secondly, I think
that TC's corps are a bit to omnipotent, and that his governments are a
little too poverty. PJ's governments I feel are a little too much like
todays governments - the superpowers so to speak. It should be remembered
that governments in SR have had their backs broken and have been crippled.
This is not to say that they are the puny and insignificant bodies that TC
implies they are. Corps may be able to by and large ignore governments, but
a government would be easily able to rival a single AAA megacorp if it had
the need to. But they tend to not have the need too - a symbiotic
relationship is not one that tends to get broken up in a hurry, even if
isolated flare ups do occur. Corps may be the major players in 2057, but
governments are not insects that they merely ignore and squash under their
godly heels, they are a force to be reckoned with all of their own.
Well, to sum up, I think that killing runners may well be something
corporations might consider if it were advantageous at the time, but that it
is far from SOP.
--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a20 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------
