[Crimsondude]

a noble knight in a shining armor going around and killing monsters to save a world. (By the way, there IS one person who fits description in Sixth World, and he is a runner.)

 

[AJCarrington]

Tell your GM to get stuffed. Playing a character with scruples and a conscience is perfectly valid.

Well said Patrick, well said.

[Overbyte]

The first decision was whether to leave an injured person behind and the choice we made, and we were supposed to make, was leaving him behind.
The team killed him but after the session we were told that was the wrong choice.

I didn't comment on this before, but this is the completely wrong way to be running a game.
The GM should put forth the scenario and let the players make their choices. It's not really possible for the players to make a "wrong" choice. Perhaps some choices have better results, and the GM will punish certain decisions more than others, but "right choice" and "wrong choice" really have no meaning when you are a GM. Doing what your GM wants or expects you to do is not your "job" as a player. Your job is to play your character. If the GM wants the characters to be a certain kind, i.e. - Robin Hood types, or cold-blooded killers, then he needs to tell people that when they create their characters. But if you decide to shoot or not to shoot someone, that's not a "wrong" character choice, it can only be a bad idea.

[Whiskeyjack]

Tell your GM to get stuffed. Playing a character with scruples and a conscience is perfectly valid.

This kind of antagonistic absolutism is really rather cringeworthy.

People certainly should play the characters they want. They should be able to go into a game with a game pitch (often set by the GM) in mind and be able to build characters accordingly. That doesn't mean build the characters the GM "wants" such that it makes them basically characters playing out a set novel, it means characters that can exist in the context provided. This usually provides for almost unlimited options, which the GM should generally approve...unless the character someone wants to play is clearly intended to be totally disruptive, antithetical to the game that was pitched, and looks like it would only cause conflict with all the other players/their characters.

My group is currently playing through Ghost Cartels. We certainly have 2-3 people with Codes of Honor. Those of us with a Code have mostly upheld and sometimes violated them, and have certainly had personality clashes with characters who are much more amoral. That said, a player who built a character that wasn't willing to basically be the go-to Black Hat squad for brutal drug lords, and who constantly complained about the missions being offered, probably wouldn't fit well for the particular campaign.

The first decision was whether to leave an injured person behind and the choice we made, and we were supposed to make, was leaving him behind.
The team killed him but after the session we were told that was the wrong choice.

I didn't comment on this before, but this is the completely wrong way to be running a game.
The GM should put forth the scenario and let the players make their choices. It's not really possible for the players to make a "wrong" choice. Perhaps some choices have better results, and the GM will punish certain decisions more than others, but "right choice" and "wrong choice" really have no meaning when you are a GM. Doing what your GM wants or expects you to do is not your "job" as a player. Your job is to play your character. If the GM wants the characters to be a certain kind, i.e. - Robin Hood types, or cold-blooded killers, then he needs to tell people that when they create their characters. But if you decide to shoot or not to shoot someone, that's not a "wrong" character choice, it can only be a bad idea.

I agree with this. The OP's description sounds like the game is heavily on rails where there are objectively Right and Wrong options. Which sort of begs the question why the GM doesn't just write a short story instead of running it as an interactive game. Certainly actions have consequences but the game shouldn't be 100% rails (honestly this was my issue with at least one canon run, by the end of it I wished I had stayed home because I was functionally treated as an NPC playing through a totally predefined script).

[Reaver]

That 'scripted feel' is generally the reason why my group doesn't use missions (no matter who is GMing)... We perfer a more..... dynamic mussion parameters.

Now I understand why missions are done the way they are (Time frames mostly.). And based on their limitations is understandable.


Generally, and broadly speaking, the GMs in my group are more narrators and arbitors. They come up with their campaign ideas, WE build our characters, and things kind of evolve organically from our actions.
We act like a bunch of douche-bags... and the world responds. We act like a bunch of White Knights, again the world responds. Do moral and ethical choices and situations come up? All the time actually!
But its never a case of 'If players do X then Y happens'... Yes there are consiquences to oyr actions but they are never usually so cut and dry, or even felt. (GM: "So you guys let Fred die huh? Ok. Too bad though - between Us, he had major contacts with the Coyotes and could have helped you get some new gear a little faster. Oh well")

I do however think its a good idea to have characters that mesh well as a group.... if only to avoid interplayer conflict, and for a sense of realism. People rarely work well with people who share diametrically opposite views and morals. (Different views and morals, sure. But it you like animals, you're not hanging around with someone spends their free time kicking puppies and drowning kittens for fun!)

[Whiskeyjack]

I do however think its a good idea to have characters that mesh well as a group.... if only to avoid interplayer conflict, and for a sense of realism. People rarely work well with people who share diametrically opposite views and morals. (Different views and morals, sure. But it you like animals, you're not hanging around with someone spends their free time kicking puppies and drowning kittens for fun!)

Yeah it was sort of a relief when the one character whose MO was always "go loud with combat magic, screw group tactics, loot shit stupidly, pull pranks that get Johnsons mad at us" got super killed by drones on the last run. The player built a new character that fit a lot better with our attempts to be mostly mirrorshades and professional. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

And it depends a lot on what you mean by 'good'.

'Good', as in 'doesn't kill'?  Tough, but doable, with the right chemicals.  'Good', as in 'doesn't break the law'?  I ... don't think it's possible, considering the game, but for every impossibility there's a Don Quixote de la Mancha.

Essentially, make sure you create your definition of 'good' - what your morality is, what gets you righteously torqued off, and what will make you go all John Wick on someone.  Keep it in mind, make sure you play it.  For player good-vibes, try not to make it so that the other PCs are causing you to blow up at least once a session; that'll lead to SOMEONE storming out at some point.  (ProTip - talk to the other players!!)

Typically, things like rape, child sex trafficking, cannibalism (questionable whether or not ghouls trigger this), drug/BTL pushing on the youth, heavy-duty mind-control - that sort of thing makes for good 'no farther' boundaries.  Except for the cannibalism, at one point or another Hawatari's taken down a PC involved with that above list.

[DeathofVirtue]

  Dammit wyrm you beat me to the punch again. 

   So yeah basically the above.  Morality is a wide and almost entirely subjective spectrrum.  One persons good is anothers evil, example.

  Your contacts taken a nasty pasting from some gangers it looks like his spinal cord is damaged and he will never walk or use his arms again.  When he comes to he begs your group to kill him, he clearly does not want to live like this.

  Character A decides to kill him because he is clearly suffering and unable to end himself, in his eyes this is what a good person would do.

  Character B sees this an evil act, taking somebodys life during a moment of weakness.  All life is sacred and killing somone in anything but the last line of self defence is an evil  action.

  Which is good which is evil?

  Character A killed somone, but, they would have suffered enormously if he hadn't.  Good, or Evil?

  Character B wanted to let him live and by doing so would have caused him to suffer, but he hasnt killed anyone.  Good or Evil?

As far as making a right or wrong choice, there's no such thing.  Just potential outcomes, some more prefferable than others.

Always find out what sort of group you are running with and what is expected of you in a group, if the gm and others are ok with inter party conflict great, if not there are still many different things you can do that will fit the group and if you feel you are being forced into a playstyle you don't like talk to your gm, it's so important you are all working together and from the same page.

[Senko]

<- Character C wonders why not just get him cyber/bio/genware to fix him up.

[DeathofVirtue]

I deffer to the quadroplegic negative trait which sets a clear example that not all such injuries have cyber/bio or even magical solutions.

EDIT: It may be paraplegic, I don't have my sourcebook handy.

[Sterling]

I deffer to the quadroplegic negative trait which sets a clear example that not all such injuries have cyber/bio or even magical solutions.

EDIT: It may be paraplegic, I don't have my sourcebook handy.

As a real-life paraplegic I say so effing what it can't be healed.

People using the condition as an example of a life not worth living make me want to puke.

[Xirany]

I do however think its a good idea to have characters that mesh well as a group.... if only to avoid interplayer conflict, and for a sense of realism. People rarely work well with people who share diametrically opposite views and morals. (Different views and morals, sure. But it you like animals, you're not hanging around with someone spends their free time kicking puppies and drowning kittens for fun!)

We have had issues with this in my group aswell. We are two characters, who are what you would call "good guys". One of us having a code of honor, the other just having strong oponions on who he wants to work for. So we told our fixer, what kind of work we  wanted, and didn´t wanted, to do. Problem is, the two remaining runners couldn´t care less about the moral aspect of the job, they would take pretty much any job they were offered.
So we made a deal with our GM; In case of wetwork, or in other ways morally ambigiuos runs, our two "good guy" characters can turn down the job (or not being asked at all), and we will have "secondary" characters made, that the two other runners can hire.
Ofcourse, we´d have to come up with excuses to ex. "why wouldn´t they just work together all the time and ditch the other two", but it really wasn´t that difficult to get around.
This does actually work as a solution, atleast for us. 
And I had a lot of fun trying to make a sort of "evil counterpart" to my primary character.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

Ugh; I wouldn't permit that sort of thing without a quid pro quo - the other players have to make 'more moral' characters as well, because there SHOULD be times when someone moral (the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Moonies, some Shinto priest, or hell, just a doctor who actually feels his Hippocratic Oath applies to actions he commissions as well as the ones he personally enacts) refuses to accept your two dipped-in-slime mercenary runners as 'viable employees' and demands someone with actual empathy left in them.

Reputation, good and bad, gets around ...

[Xirany]

Ugh; I wouldn't permit that sort of thing without a quid pro quo - the other players have to make 'more moral' characters as well, because there SHOULD be times when someone moral (the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Moonies, some Shinto priest, or hell, just a doctor who actually feels his Hippocratic Oath applies to actions he commissions as well as the ones he personally enacts) refuses to accept your two dipped-in-slime mercenary runners as 'viable employees' and demands someone with actual empathy left in them.

Reputation, good and bad, gets around ...

Heh, that is a very good point.  It would also solve the problem with the unequal distribution of karma and ressources - our characters being "left behind" if we are not making runs without the other two. I´ve thought about that, but decided to wait and see if it would become a problem at all.

[Sterling]

I deffer to the quadroplegic negative trait which sets a clear example that not all such injuries have cyber/bio or even magical solutions.

EDIT: It may be paraplegic, I don't have my sourcebook handy.

As a real-life paraplegic I say so effing what it can't be healed.

People using the condition as an example of a life not worth living make me want to puke.

  I dont recall once saying I viewed it that way.  I was creating an example for demonstration purposes where the affected individual viewed it that way, further i referred to para/quadroplegia trait to show NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE CURED WITH CYBER/BIO, not only are you inferring opinions that simply arent there but if your prepared to make snap judgements of somones character based soley on a fictitious example create purely for simplicity then spew loaded comments like that around your reveal more about the flaws in your on charater than anyone else whos comment you claim to be nauseated about.  Get off your high horse and grow up.

Hey Newb, from your own post:

Your contacts taken a nasty pasting from some gangers it looks like his spinal cord is damaged and he will never walk or use his arms again.  When he comes to he begs your group to kill him, he clearly does not want to live like this.

you used the example of someone with a spinal cord injury as someone who "clearly does not want to live like this".

How have I misconstrued that?

Oh right, I called you on your bias.  Here's a little free education for you kiddo, If you don't intend to insult people try reading your post before pressing that "post" button.

As a bonus, it'll give you a chance to clear up those childish spelling errors at the same time.