Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: brasso on <02-02-15/0528:05>
-
Just curious really, what the ethics of your shadowrunner groups are? Obviously they're willing to do questionable things for cold hard nuyen, but how far will they go?
Will all your runners do wetwork? What about innocents? Children? Torture? Do your runners have any principles/ code of ethics, or are they cold-hearted killing machines?
I think it's an interesting topic, as ethics as such isn't really built into the game, it's more of a table feel I guess. So how do your runners add up?
-
Well, I got one guy who almost only Plays cold hearted killing machines and if not he still only has respect for the life of children and maybe will back down from rape.
My other Players will generally only perform wetwork if the Johnson has a good enough reason for why it has to be done, though won't Refrain from using lethal force against anybody who is armed and dangerous (policemen, guards, gangers,...) and they probably will not perform anything that is Kind of rapy (like acquiring People to turn into Bunraku or generally force women into questionalbe positions, altough I don't think that they wold have These qualms about men, funny right?).
As for myself when it's my turn to be a Player I think I'd do anything if the nuyen's right though as opposed to Player number 1 I don't run around raping and killing Squatters for fun.
-
Read the assassins primer if you you get a chance. There are several pages about the ethics of an assassin which i feel can be easily applied to runners as well. There are even several runners chiming in on both sides of the spectrum as they talk about it
-
Most of my players will engage in wetwork for the right price, usually if they are playing an "assassin build". As for bounty hunting, they tend to prefer the "alive" rather than "dead" option, and have had some players create primarily non-lethal characters who only resort to deadly force if they really, really have to. As for "applied questioning" (torture) one of my players is a pre-registration med student with an excellent understanding of substances; the torture is rarely physical, more truth serums and perception altering drugs......
In saying that, I've had a couple of players play out a vendetta with a bombing campaign, poisonings, assassination, and abduction. Family deaths were considered ok - if they were quick (car bombings, etc). Rape was never entertained as a means of action. Everything else was ok as it was in line with the character background.
-
Read the assassins primer if you you get a chance. There are several pages about the ethics of an assassin which i feel can be easily applied to runners as well. There are even several runners chiming in on both sides of the spectrum as they talk about it
Thanks, I'll pick it up some time
-
Giving a lengthy answer, but with a reason.
My group actually runs a fairly wide spectrum, though they almost all have that one line they won't cross. The dwarf hacker isn't a huge fan of extreme violence, unless it's against the "suits" he holds a grudge against. The veteran elf street mage is very "live-and-let-live", and prefers diplomacy and bargaining to violence, though she has a hate-on for Magical threats(bugs, certain infected, etc), and has no qualms about hunting them down for the greater good(and sweet sweet nuyen). The dryad medic/drone rigger is usually pretty non-violent, but has a strong revenge fetish, and like flipping a psychotic switch will actively want to use her medical instruments on anyone that tried to fuck with her. And the troll cybered tank has a criminal past and gang-ties, plus he's got Uncouth, Combat Monster, and Vendetta. Soo...he's a slight bit unhinged, and one of the few that has pretty much no lines he won't cross, but he's still a professional.
The point of all that is that each and every one of the runners, like real people, have their regular mortal and ethical stance, but in a particular situation, when a friend or contact is threatened or they're faced with a certain type of wrong that must be righted(in their minds), each one will go outside their own comfort zone once they rationally or morally justify it to themselves.
The only universal codes of conduct so far are a dedication to professionalism(they're still learning some aspects of professional etiquette though), and no rape. Torture for information is a grey area, as the main 4 characters are split 50/50 on whether they endorse it or frown upon it.
PS: Just a side note, but from my experience GMing in multiple systems(Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, Shadowrun 4E), rape seems to be one of the universal lines that most decent people won't ever cross, but I keep seeing it mentioned in posts by players and GMs alike. So I'll just say my bit. I've seen player characters use torture, blackmail, assassination, even "evil" ones killing off family or children in a situation, and as long as it's rationalized in their character's heads I can deal with that. But I have never, ever seen a situation where a player decided it would be fine for their character to sexually assault another, and to be honest, I'd have to wonder about the stability of the player controlling that character if they ever did. Just my two nuyen.
-
My players have an alarming tendency to resort to lethal force as a first resort. They'll do just about any job for a some amount of money. Hell, as a test I had a Mafia consigliore offer them a favor instead of pay to do a wetwork job. They did it.
Next run, they learn why lethal shooting as a first resort is a very bad idea...
-
My playgroup is near identical to Lethal Joke's. In general they have ADPS loaded and have everything else as an alternative unless they have been explicitly told otherwise by a Johnson. We actually have a player who... well brags isn't the right word but I can't think of anything else to call it right now. He tells the tale about having used a flash bang on a group of school children TWICE. The same group. Mind you the reasoning was they were still moving after the first flash bang and after he told them not to, that was the only way to get them to stop moving and stay out of danger but…. dang. Also this is the same player who once blew up a hospital.
-
My games (and characters) vary a lot in regards to ethics/morals. It varies from game to game, but...
I've got a character (human aspected conjurer) who donates a tenth of his profit to charities and to helping the disadvantaged locals due to his beliefs and experiences in the gutter. At the same time, he'll sic a blazing avatar of death on some gangers to help cops in a fight when he could have just left and let them get gunned down, because being known as a guy who doesn't kill cops is definitely a plus, reputation-wise (as in, they're less likely to shoot him in the face first). Two nice acts, two very different motivations.
There's the Infected character (human adept infiltrator) I'm dabbling with right now, a Vampire. He's, surprisingly enough, a very nice guy! Helps people out, avoids hurting innocents, does the right thing for the most part. His method of feeding? He targets the 'wicked', the bad-guys, but most especially he targets Infected hunters and Fear the Dark agents. Both sides of that fight make him want to shove a stake in his own heart. He wants to live in peace eventually, maybe put on a Batman suit once in a while to go get a proper meal. Both sides make that difficult.
Another practically grew up a sniper in the Yucatan (human adept sniper/sneak), and he'll take wetwork jobs any day; that said, he detests collateral damage, tries to get along with anyone he can and will 'hood his services if he agrees with a cause. He doesn't like killing, though he does enjoy the thrill of the hunt, and the satisfaction of success; it's just a job to him, otherwise. It's pretty much all he knows, so he sells his knowledge and skill to make a living.
The next one makes Haze look like a nice guy. Black Magic tradition Mystic Adept, an extremely scary elf Face not because of what he can do, but what he can get others to do. He's amoral and honestly one of the most frightening characters I've made. That said, he puts on a very friendly, helpful face to the world, almost all the time, a good cover to his sociopathy. I used some Criminal Minds episodes as my inspiration.
There's one I played a while back who was a survivor, through and through (elf melee adept). If it didn't benefit him in some way (that didn't have to be immediately tangible or useful), he didn't care. Sure, he did nice things now and again, helped some folks in his neighborhood, that kind of thing; it was all to get them on his side, to get favors, etc. If someone offered to pay him to burn down their homes, he'd ask what was on the table.
My last one is a loving, doting father, a friendly guy who seems like he'd be a good buddy (ork). Put him in a fight and he becomes a brutal, merciless machine, a relentless killer who weighs lives with the bullets he needs to take them. Collateral damage is unprofessional; witnesses are a liability. You have to wonder which side of the fence you'll fall on. He's picking the option that gets him back home to his daughter.
As you can see, it runs the gamut. None of them are saintly, by any stretch, but only one could be described as out-right evil. Even then, he's the least obvious about such information. I do try to match my character's morals to the overall plot, I suppose; the darker the setting, the darker the character.
-
My players have an alarming tendency to resort to lethal force as a first resort. They'll do just about any job for a some amount of money. Hell, as a test I had a Mafia consigliore offer them a favor instead of pay to do a wetwork job. They did it.
Next run, they learn why lethal shooting as a first resort is a very bad idea...
Hehe, Knight Errant Elite HTR, complete with air support and millspec armor... ohh and PR10 so they don't run away.
-
Depends on the group for me.
Our "elite" level group has all a very defined set of ethics that has come from literally years of playing the same character. But that is not the same as saying they share the same ethics. Machinegun Kelly will not even consider pointing a weapon at a "lady" (BTW: that means obviously FEMALE and obviously UNARMED. Yes we had to clarify that.). Whisper will kill anything and anyone... as long as if serves purpose. I won't kill the "innocent" (and that is more metaphoric, then it sounds). Pixel will only "kill" with the matrix (it's too messy IRL....)
My Mid level game, on principle, will not kill, ever. They go through great lengths to plan their runs to avoid any and all opposition, which gets very tricky.
Of the games that I GM,
My "low-be" group has yet to figure out the entire rule system, so I don't bother them too much yet with moral problems, everything is staying pretty cut and dry for them for a while.
My more experienced to advanced group has learned that "actions have reactions", and that they are not proportional, and that they are NOT the big fish in the pond. But this has come only after a long string of blood letting... on both sides. Now their ethics are more guided by "what can I get away with" mentality then any sort of personal ethics.
-
I don't remember who posted this originally. Mirikon maybe? Wyrm? If someone owns up to it I'll take note (I don't know why I used to copy/paste stuff without saying who wrote it).
Do 'Professional' Shadowrunners Kill?
Yes. Whether pro or amateur, death-dealing is part and parcel of the job. Part of the difference between the two, I think, is that a professional decides what reputation they want to have very early on, even at the beginning, and then takes actions appropriate to achieve that reputation - as if they already had it.
There are professionals (Kane) who have decided to have the reputation of being the biggest, nastiest, most lethal badass out there, killing people and abandoning teammates in order to get as much cash as possible. (Yes, he did it for a great reason, but that's still his reputation.) He uses explosives, shoots security guards dead (or severely injured/incapacitated), causes chaos and mayhem, and basically is a Class-1 asshole and killer.
Other professionals work to acquire reputations as people who are ghosts - you don't see them, you don't hear them, you don't even know they've been there until six or ten days after the run, if ever. They plan their runs to a T, if they run into someone they try to con/fast-talk/sleaze their way past, and if the weapons have to come out, they do their best to keep it silent.
However, I think the difference between the two is best stated by ImaginalDisc - pros do their best to kill people only when they're getting paid to do so. Everyone's been talking about shooting guards in firefights, them bleeding out (oops!), and whatever. Yes, that's true - and pros have to watch nuyen as much as the next guy (normal rounds cost 2¥, specialist rounds ... a lot more). It depends on what reputation you want to have, though. If you want a reputation as being super-bad-ass, out come the automatic weapons. If you want your reputation to be that of a quiet infiltrator, use that Predator with the silencer. If you want a reputation as a complete ghost, spend the damn cash and use gamma-scopolamine or, even better, laes, and leave the guards trying to remember what happened before they took that little nap.
Pros don't blow stuff up to blow stuff up; amateurs do. Amateurs will seriously consider a 'go in shooting' entry plan, because hey, maybe they don't have the skills for something else. Pros will use a 'go in shooting' plan only if G. Salaysay ("Mr. Tell" in Tagalog) has paid for them to make a crapload of noise. Why? Several reasons.
Because despite everyone saying, 'oh, just a corp guard, they won't come after you for that', yadda yadda, here's the subtle kink in that hose - they might not, but the guard might, if he survives. Him, or his pal, or his brother, or his boss, or the investigator - someone who knows what happened, and because of your actions now has a Goddamn Mission In Life: to make your life a living hell, at least once they find you. Call it a triple-1 result on 3d6 - 1:216 chance. It may come from a big haul; it may come from what was for you a piddling run, but the guy lost his 'cushy' job. It's a GM's plaything, though.
Because the whole 'continuum of force' that ImaginalDisc brought up and Bach the Fox named for us applies. If you want corpsec to be shooting to kill, then shoot to kill; if you want them to shoot to capture, then you should be using a taser, gel rounds, or some other sort of non-lethal ammo. If Security Corporal Davis discovers his pal Private Manuel unconscious but otherwise fine, he's not going to go out of his way to get the AP rounds, because he knows that someone isn't out to kill him. Again, it's a GM's plaything, and if you're infiltrating a zero-zone you should know that corpsec is going to be using the heavy weapons right away, but remember that corps love interrogations even more than they love corpses.
The pro tries to minimize the impact on themselves of their actions. Both of the above are examples of such. It doesn't mean he doesn't kill when killing is called for; only a fool doesn't bring AV rounds along to deal with those pesky drones. But the pro thinks about the impact of his run, and allows that to inform the nature of his planning. The amateur doesn't.
Me, I play pros. I've tried to play otherwise, but ... I've found that 98% of the time, if I'm not the mastermind at the table, there's someone there who'll grab the reins and drive the stagecoach right over the cliff, 'because it's ShadowRUN, so you're supposed to be running away, you know??'
Now, my own character, Firebug, has very twisted morals.
She grew up with gangs, and although she's not in one anymore, she never really left. She's violent, angry, and quick to threaten, but she does have a kind of moral system. It's immature, but it's "What makes you seem like a badass?"
Nobody on the street respects someone who hurts children or priests, and although she may harm someone who's homeless, it'd be intimidation, and in her mind okay as long as she doesn't just go kill a hobo for fun. Violence for intimidation is great; pure torture is not. It's a kind of pointless line between seeming like a dangerous warrior and seeming like a monster who needs to be put down. The worst part is that she's not physically intimidating, and she's not even a street samurai in archetype. It's supposed to be an unhealthy outlook that I intend to have her be forced to grow out of-- Which will likely take years in-game and the loss of several points of edge.
-
That would have been me, firebug. And I can think of a thing or two to happen to her to help her get that unhealthy outlook out of her system ...
As for morality, it depends - it always depends - on the individual, whether player or character. I have played pacifists, noble warriors, gangbangers who wrecked things for fun (Doorman is called that because he blows doors off cars via his magic) and didn't care who happened to be in the way, ice-cold killers, the entire gamut. I have played characters who utilized torture, and though I do not recall having ever played a character who felt rape was a tool in his toolbox (though I once played a character who hunted rapists to catch them in the act, then killed and ate them in front of their victims - just because he was a Phentari who hunted hunters didn't mean he didn't enjoy causing incidental terror as well), I can imagine a character who understands that rape has a distinct psychological impact on both males and females, and who will use sexual assault as a tool if that is the impact he requires.
The real break point, however, is not 'what will your character do', but what will your group describe - and that is a measure of the morality of the players gathered 'round the table, not their characters. Shadowrunners can and do run the entire spectrum, but there is a difference between saying, "Phineas tortures him for the information," and going into exactly what Phineas is going to do; the former is generally good RP and doesn't get into those issues, while with the latter, one might wonder what's wrong with the player - or the GM, if it's the latter demanding 'what, specifically, does Phineas do?' On the other hand, playing Phineas as he starts describing to his victim-to-be what he's going to do to him, and how long it's going to take, and how painful each particular torment is going to be on a scale of one to eleven counts as good RPing - and psychological torture, too. ;)
-
My players have an alarming tendency to resort to lethal force as a first resort. They'll do just about any job for a some amount of money. Hell, as a test I had a Mafia consigliore offer them a favor instead of pay to do a wetwork job. They did it.
Next run, they learn why lethal shooting as a first resort is a very bad idea...
Hehe, Knight Errant Elite HTR, complete with air support and millspec armor... ohh and PR10 so they don't run away.
Two former elite Seraphim teams serving as HTR. For the rest, absolutely correct.
-
Isn't ethics that place NE of London? Oh, that's Essex. Right.
My players are currently in the "shoot until it stops moving" phase, but then I've only thrown gangs and organised crime at them so far. The next job they're going to be going up a team of NPC shadowrunners that do have a moral code. Non lethal rounds until someone gets shot, then out come the lethal measures.
If I ever get a chance to be a player, I think the non-lethal route seems like it would be more interesting for character.
-
I can only speak on this subject from a GM side, unfortunately.
My party has both similarities and differences. They're all on the same page when it comes to self-defense. Even if the aggressor is using non-lethal rounds they respond with lethal force (usually because they equate capture as bad as death).
None of them go out of the way to randomly commit violence, but some of them have biases that would cause them to look for opportunities to harm certain groups (e.g. gangers).
Regarding obstacles on the mission itself, they're split between "just shoot the guy" and "let's try to keep this quiet" approaches. They typically settle on the nonviolent stealthy plan until the jig is up, and then they start shooting. However, I think that's more due to the lower risk/danger than any moral issues.
As a GM I made it explicitly clear at the start that I was never going to engage in any sort of sexual RP, though sexual topics such as bunraku will come up as long as the acts themselves are not described. For similar reasons I avoid having children show up except in a scenario where they would not actually be harmed (the threat of harming them could still spur the players into action, however).
I love throwing them into moral quandaries that sometimes do not involve killing. For example, they recently finished a run where they were to find someone's missing daughter, and traced her movements to a gang and then to an organlegging operation. They rescue her mid-surgery, but she tells them that her father has been dead for years. The "father" (their employer) now shows up and tells them that their job is complete, and to leave immediately if they want payment. The runners are obviously confused and concerned for her welfare, but their employer makes it clear that she must die. Struggling between breaching the original contract and investigating what kind of shady business is going on, they shrug and end up walking away to maintain professionalism.
(She was actually a corp runaway trying to sell a valued schematic stored in her brain. She'd gone to a gang looking for protection while waiting for a buyer, and they ended up selling her to an organlegging operation. The "father" is in reality a runner desiring to steal the schematics himself and to dispose of her to prevent investigation)
-
Most of my team has learned that non-lethal is the default, simply because you are substantially less likely to get retaliation. They look at it from the perspective of the corps: Aztechnology wants to hire the team to hit a NeoNET datastore, and if they cause a lot of collateral damage on the way, Aztechnology now has to worry about blowback and NeoNET might not be willing to hire the team for a counter operation.
-
Cool thread! As a GM, I've run for characters all over the morality spectrum, usually what I've found is that people tend more towards "professionalism" as the main overall goal the longer they play, which makes new characters entering the group trend towards that as well. So, appropriate escalating force, lethal only when needed, explosives rarely. Children are usually off limits, even for the total psychos, though general collateral damage/innocents seems to be pretty dependent on the job- success within mission parameters is the main goal. There are some exceptions- usually insect, blood and toxic mages and spirits are kill on sight, and many characters have other specifics (vampires, Aztechnology, etc. depending on their history).
Usually the team researches local runner culture to find out what the appropriate force level is when starting a job: i.e., in NYC, they use solely non-lethal (if they can), as the culture there is that extractions are a common part of the playbook, and the corps won't come down hard on runners if they don't go out of their way to cause chaos and excess damage while doing their jobs. I've really played up notoriety as determining what jobs they get offered. In Lagos or Bug City, they rock heavy armor and weapons and make examples of anyone who fucks with them (without looking for trouble) as they need to seem strong to be able to work freely.
When they started out, they would frequently use bombings as a distraction for major jobs (choosing a random secondary target to distract cops and such), which worked great in the immediate but attracted a lot of police attention and notoriety, and they've moved away from that overall strategy (though none of those runners are actually on the team anymore, there's been some overlap).
Rape and sexual violence is off the table, in terms of both what players and characters would allow/feel comfortable with. There's one character now who is a skilled pyschologist, who would understand the terror that threats of sexual violence would cause, but would not morally feel that it was an acceptable tactic. We get into some pretty dark stuff in terms of what the team encounters on jobs, but this in the line the players won't cross in my experience.
The 1 time the runners tried to use physical torture, I made them roleplay through it, as I like to make players really feel acutely aware of the outcomes of their character's choices- we didn't go into crazy levels of detail but I didn't want them to just "roll to torture" as I felt like it made it too easy to do. They haven't tried it again, preferring drugs, blackmail, bribery and pyschology these days, arguably with better results. This maybe reflects my personal beliefs about the efficacy of torture, as yeah you will likely get a LOT of info, but it's going to be of very questionable accuracy and veracity.
My occasional character is a very professional sniper, who came out of the resistance to the Japanese Imperial occupation of CalFree. She is obsessive about clean kills and no collateral damage, as her reputation is what she relies on the get work. She has no problem killing for cause or money, but doesn't like to kill outside of that.
-
Well, you know - this is why an implant that produces gamma-scopolamine (and the other one that allows you to inject it) is key. Having an interrogation drug as one of your common-use items is useful. Having a forget-it-all drug as the other one is incredibly useful as well ...
-
I have played or played with a range of players. I have played a pacifist decker, an almost amoral face who avoids killing corpsec because he is running the shadows because he was fired from a corp and wants to go back, and a blood thirsty street sam modeled after battle angel Alita who has a moral code. So it runs the gamut.