| From: | Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: General Gaming. Evil Campaign Anyone? |
| Date: | Sat, 17 May 1997 01:10:42 +0100 |
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> rambled on endlessly about General
Gaming. Evil Campaign Anyone?
>In message <2QDjo9AB2lezEwT3@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
><Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>Very true. You can only have so many senseless acts of mass murder and
>>destruction before the next ones are old, passe and boring. Though I
>>prefer an amoral approach to the game, which is my opinion, more in
>>keeping with the genre.
>
>Playing a homicidal psychotic is interesting. The PC in question has
>killed people for coughing in movie theatres: yet at the same time she
>doesn't consider herself at all evil. She kills people who annoy her or
>get in her way, if she can get away with it. She doesn't like killing or
>seek it out, or really understand the idea of "graduated response": if
>you're between her and something she wants, you're in mortal danger. If
>not, you're safe.
Not exactly what I would define as a homicidal psychotic, certainly
amoral, although the character doesn't understand "graduated response"
that would be better described as naivete rather than a part of a mental
disorder. also she has reason to kill, people are in her way, she
doesn't "seek" to kill, she's just casual about it. Homicidal, yeah...
Psychotic.. no. A psychotic or psychopath is someone with a chronic
mental derangement involving the whole personality and usually with
abnormal social behaviour. This kind of person is unlikely to have any
friends. They are strange, unpredictable and extremely dangerous. Most
likely social outcasts or loners. Any friends or associates that the
person knows on a regular basis, would be of a similar type.
>>events scheduling. But for players to indulge in it, would not be as
>>much fun, I don't personally think that characters can make good "evil
>>dudes". Aside from which, ultimately, in all respects, they will lose.
>
>Yeah. Having played a genuinely unpleasant PC, it was startling (and
>something of a relief) how fast he ran out of friends and ended up dead.
>Easy (my psychotic), by contrast, had a lot of friends: she might have
>several screws loose, but she was efficient, reliable and professional.
Again, if played correctly the character may have some associates, but
it is unlikely that they are going to be either reliable or close. I've
read posts in other groups of people who run "evil" games, and so far I
have yet to see an original concept. The general idea appears to be -
"erm, kill the old lady, shoot a busload of kids, erm... beat up people
'coz they're there...." boring, boring, boring. Or, they go a
different route, torturing and killing people for no reason, raping and
molesting, taking drugs, robbing the blind. Boring.
Evil is not something that the average human mind is capable of
contemplating or defining. Yes, there are what the media term "evil"
acts, i.e. killing school kids, multiple rapists, multiple murderers,
but are they truly evil in the biblical sense, or simply amoral, as in
they just don't care, and have no respect for others lives. There is a
difference.
Evil is not something I feel that even good players would be able to
carry off convincingly, without indulging in some seriously OTT rubbish,
and graphic descriptions of their actions, all of which might be a gross
out for two sessions, but wears really thin pretty quick.
>>I don't entirely agree with the all runners are good guys attitude that
>>is occassionally aired, but evil games? Nah.
>
>Doesn't really work. I don't think runners would be angels, but if
>they're seen as total scumbags they run out of places to hide fast,
>which translates to "dead by dawn".
Yeah, that's somewhat logical. I mean, OK, there are a whole bunch of
serial and one off killers loose in the US now, some of whom have been
rampaging around the country for a number of years. It's seems to be
pretty easy to disappear in the US, so, maybe a "bad guy" PC could
survive for some considerable time, but not in one city, they'd have to
move around. Taking the registered population of Seattle, and the size
of the city's area, it should be theoretically possible for a person to
disappear into the shadows in Seattle for 1 or 2 years. A long time in
game terms. The severity and regularity of their crimes would govern the
extent and devotion of the manhunt to find the "evil" person. Some
manhunts are extremely extensive, and involve people from all walks of
life, including all forms of media, making that persons "free life" even
shorter.
>You need to keep a little bit of the Robin Hood principle
Robin Hood, is in my opinion a little too squeeky, but I get the
analogy. It's more likely that Shadowrunners will do good by accident
rather than design. Being sucked into plots where their actions do some
good for the community/city/world purely as a sideshoot of the original
scheme, simply by their actions, rather than a conscious effort to do
good. I have a *real* problem with the GMs who insist on "good karma"
means good acts. Kill people and you get bad karma, or whatever their
equivelant is. That's not only unfaithful to the genre, but severely
limiting to the characters.
As you know Paul, I don't advocate unnecessary violence, or pointless
killing in my game, and the law/government are a lot more powerful than
in many other games. I hope this means the players are self regulatory,
but I certainly won't penalise them for actions performed in the line of
duty. If during an interrogation the PCs beat the living crap out of an
informant, and kill him afterwards to protect themselves and prevent the
informant from escaping and ratting on them, I won't penalise the
players for a senseless act of killing, because they have several very
good reasons for doing this. The same goes with other things, sometimes
situations demand extreme or violent measures. If it doesn't meet
Disney standards for cutsey happy endings, then it's no skin off my
nose, as long as the actions are justified. If however, the characters
were to go on a killing rampage in a shopping mall, just for the hell of
it. Then the law enforcement agencies would begin a city wide man hunt
to bring them to justice, including bounties. (Yes I have bounty
hunters in my game). But penalise the players in reductions of karma
and cash - etc nope, there are far better ways to police a game, using
the existing game mechanics. Besides, there's always someone somewhere
who would use a character like that, discarding them at the end of their
usefulness, but meanwhile making the best use of their particular
behaviour patterns/skills.
>if you want to
>keep a neighbourhood where, when hostiles come looking for you, all they
>get are blank looks and the whole "who? Oh, that guy! Hasn't been here
Again, a character who is inately evil, isn't likely to have this level
of support, fear alone isn't powerful enough to prevent someone
somewhere doing the "right thing", also this character is likely to have
more enemies than friends - aside from wannabees who would like the
notoriety of killing such a person. For example Billy the Kid, by media
definition, an evil and pschologically damaged person. Yet most of his
killings, were people who were trying to gain fame by killing him.
There are many other similar examples throughout history, Ned Kelly,
Bonnie & Clyde, Blackbeard, etc. Yet evil people are harder to define,
and I don't feel that there have been anywhere near as many as there
have of other types. A person mentally unstable is not inherently evil,
as it is the very instability that causes them to enact acts that are
defined by media and personal judgement as evil, the person so labelled
is not in themselves evil, they are unable to make the judgements
necessary to define the alignment.
An amoral character has a better chance of this sort of support,
because they have no qualms in killing, but don't randomly kill because
of a mental disorder, and usually aren't unpredictable. They can be
relied upon to look after those who look after them. I find it
extremely difficult to class a character like Easy, as an evil
character, or with an evil mindset. She is certainly amoral. Not
caring if death arrives on her doorstep, and dealing with situations in
a way determined by circumstances.
True evil, is beyond the ability of most people to either determine,
comprehend or emulate. In my opinion it usually comes across as a poor
attempt to gross out the other players, or in senseless, pointless,
seamless and useless acts of random violence, that hold no purpose other
than to fulfill a poor idea of evil.
**--**
My opinion is *my* opinion, and not that of others, the above is my opinion and
should not be taken as a personal attack or as an accurate definition of the
human condition. It is and always will be, simply, my opinion.
--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk
