[Longshot23]

What about character completeness from the get-go?  I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished).  Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)

I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.

You are Right, there is no such thing as perfect character. What we talking about is not perfection but play ability. You want a complete person when you are done with the character creation process. A character that fits well with a team and plays well with others. Growth potential is a great thing in a character i look for it in the characters I create.

It's just that I've known GMs (thankfully NOT for SR) who took the opposite view: that player characters should be totally complete and perfect from the beginning, and that anything else is Wrong and Evil and not to be tolerated.  Admittedly they played their own characters like that as well . . . supremely irritating.

[Triggvi]

What about character completeness from the get-go?  I mean, people aren't fully developed the moment they are born, and I don't think characters have to be either (from the point the creation process is finished).  Not just that there will almost always be some skill/aug/gear that was out of reach at the beginning, but I believe characters should have some part of themselves that they want to develop (or the players should)

I guess I'm saying, I don't believe in perfect characters.

You are Right, there is no such thing as perfect character. What we talking about is not perfection but play ability. You want a complete person when you are done with the character creation process. A character that fits well with a team and plays well with others. Growth potential is a great thing in a character i look for it in the characters I create.

It's just that I've known GMs (thankfully NOT for SR) who took the opposite view: that player characters should be totally complete and perfect from the beginning, and that anything else is Wrong and Evil and not to be tolerated.  Admittedly they played their own characters like that as well . . . supremely irritating.

Seriously how can a beginning character be perfect? lol. They can be good or great, but never perfect.

[Glyph]

The way I think of character stats is that they are a snapshot of the character at this moment in time.  To my way of thinking, the character should have been able to survive and make a living up to this point in time, so there should be no fatal flaws or things that are glaring lacks for a shadowrunner - at least not without a damn good reason in the character background.

At 400 build points, every character has room to potentially improve.  A trap to watch out for is building a character without any motivation to improve.

[Triggvi]

The way I think of character stats is that they are a snapshot of the character at this moment in time.  To my way of thinking, the character should have been able to survive and make a living up to this point in time, so there should be no fatal flaws or things that are glaring lacks for a shadowrunner - at least not without a damn good reason in the character background.

At 400 build points, every character has room to potentially improve.  A trap to watch out for is building a character without any motivation to improve.

By definition a shadow runner has flaws or he wouldn't in the shadows. I see a lot of maverick qualities in shadow runners to along with heaping spoonfuls of paranoia.

[Glyph]

Yes, shadowrunners should definitely have flaws, but by fatal flaws, I mean the kind of flaws that make you question how the character could have survived to reach this point.  And even those can be acceptable, if there is a good reason for them.  For example, maybe a character is starting out with no contacts at all, because he had to flee another sprawl and start over after choosing the wrong side in a war between two criminal factions.

[Triggvi]

there comes a point when the character flaws make the character unplayable or almost no chance of survival. I was just saying that a shadow runner is flawed, just not exactly fatally flawed.

[John Shull]

there comes a point when the character flaws make the character unplayable or almost no chance of survival. I was just saying that a shadow runner is flawed, just not exactly fatally flawed.

Some flaws will make characters unplayable or unplayable without a complimentary teammate.  If your running a character and he is got combat paralysis another character in the group can play big brother and cover him when the lead rain comes.  Unplayable characters can force a team dynamic in some cases and a driving force in the groups relationships.

[Longshot23]

An example of Combat Paralysis is Kaylee in a Firefly episode.

[John Shull]

An example of Combat Paralysis is Kaylee in a Firefly episode.

Exactly, she does what she can, and what no one else can even attempt as ships engineer but she is bad with confrontations of all sorts and cant point a shooter at someone to literally save her or their life, with the exception of the movie Serenity where it was implied that future sex was on the line.  (I don't blame her as sex being on the line does seem to change many a persons perspective in life)  Shepard and the Doctor had code against killing which also put them on the B team of ships defense force.  It helped define their strengths and weaknesses and roles in the story.  In a lot of ways understanding what your bad at is easily as important to understanding what your good at is when running your character or your life.  Know thyself and to thine on self be true and all that jazz.

[baronspam]

The good shepard Book was actually something of an asskicker.  He chose not to kill people, he had the skills to lay someone out and leave them alive in the process, minus a knee cap or two.  The Doctor, on the other hand, was willing to put some fire down a hallway, but his combat skills were generally of the spray and pray category.  In the episode where they had to rescue Mal from the space station I think the Dr. was willing to kill someone, he just didn't have the ability/luck to pull it off. 

[JoeNapalm]

The good shepard Book was actually something of an asskicker.  He chose not to kill people, he had the skills to lay someone out and leave them alive in the process, minus a knee cap or two.  The Doctor, on the other hand, was willing to put some fire down a hallway, but his combat skills were generally of the spray and pray category.  In the episode where they had to rescue Mal from the space station I think the Dr. was willing to kill someone, he just didn't have the ability/luck to pull it off.

Doctor: "I've never killed a man, before."

Book:   "I was there, son. I'm fair certain you still haven't."



-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Longshot23]

I have a vague memory of a Pacifist example character in film or TV, but I can't remember details.  Anyone?

[Rockopolis]

Well, which one?  Kwai Chang Kane from Kung Fu off the top of my head.

[Longshot23]

IMO, Kwai Chung Kane AKA Grasshopper doesn't fit Pacifist - he just didn't look for trouble.  That's different.

[Rockopolis]

Can't really think of any pacifist action stars.
Well, I suppose there's Gandhi II.

And, it's kinda hard to tell when someone is a pacifist; it's easy to see when someone isn't, when they slot some chummer.