*points at lofwyr*
He is both a GD AND has the biggest corp under him.
He could take on one, maybe two other corps at once.
If he made a pact with the south american non Aztech Dragons, he could liberate Aztlan for example.
Or if he asked aden/sirrurg if he wanted some help slaying the rest of the djihad for example.

I don't think Lofwyr could take Aztechnology on his own, not even with Saeder-Krupp. If he made a deal with the Amazonians, then the Horizon headlines just print themselves; Lofwyr and Sirrug the Destroyer in alliance to murder every living human, in Aztlan, footage at five.


At that point, Aztechnology suddenly finds that as bad as they may be, they have no shortage of allies in fighting off unmitigated Draconian aggression.



And frankly, if it comes down to an all-or-nothing species war, humans versus dragons, Dragons will lose hardest. It won't be pretty, it won't be nice, it will likely mean the end of civilization on Earth as we know it (which would, incidentally, also mean the end of megacorps,) but it will settle once and for all the question of who is the dominant species on the planet. (Hint: it's metahumanity.)


[e]I was going to edit this and erase the comma after "every living human," but on second thought, I think it would probably be even more propagantastic if it gets left in, the way the news anchor reads it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Shadowrun is cyberpunk (originally, at least). You can't fight the corporations in Shadowrun because it's a fictional universe that runs on tropes of genre fiction. And all-powerful, evil corps are one such trope.

Thus, the corps are (barring a publisher-induced shakeup) eternal and unchanging. They're the Elder Gods of the Sixth World. You can't kill Cthulhu, you can't fight Renraku.

Which is fine, for the game. Just accept that the game universe doesn't represent reality, and don't worry about it.

Somebody did kill Hastur, though.


The Sixth World doesn't stop being the Sixth World if the megacorporate system falls. It gets completely rearranged, and it may get to a state where the traditional heist-style Shadowrun game is exceedingly unlikely, but you can, if you so desire, run other kinds of stories in such a world.

Corps only go at other corps for two reasons:

1. To save face/cause disgrace (aka PR).
2. It makes them money.

They do not get into vendettas and do not go off half cocked.

Hastur isn't that scary if you awaken him early.
</arkham horror>

If the sociopaths on 4chan believe it...seems legit.

As GM, you can do anything you want in your own campaign. The points I made are still valid: the corps exist because they're a cyberpunk trope, and (in the official material) they're not going anywhere. Not because it's realistic, but because that's the genre of the game.

Well as I've stated above, i believe it is perfectly realistic that the corps by this point are around to stay. In a couple more generations of game time it will be even more so. To your average sixth worlder going back to national governments is like suggesting to your average person in a democratic country that monarchy should be restored.

Isn't one of the tropes of cyberpunk to fight the grand and evil corporations? Usually in a futile manner.

Again, this is an exercise in creative thought. No one's campaigning for their removal, no one's hating on them. The subline says "A thought exercise" after all.



Except that there are still national governments. They have vastly less power than before. And there are conspiracies around to restore the good ol' USA, of which Kay St. Irregular may be a member of.

Get over the whole "it can't be done". The whole point of a "what if" is to explore the "if".

Hmm, massive use of WMD and EMP and viruses. BTW--isn't this what Winternight did in 2063?

Let's start with something: wouldn't have happened in the first place. Supreme Court decisions don't come out of nowhere, and there would have been some necessary antecedent decisions or articles in legal journals. (We're talking the US Supreme Court, here, not the legal system of other countries.) Legal journals are the seed for later court decisions, lawyers cite case law and argue why something could or shouldn't be Constitutional. Eventually, members of the Supreme Court read those articles and decide to adopt those legal theories. (Look up "Incorporation", vis a vis the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.)

But right now, no one is arguing for business extraterritoriality, no sane person would suggest it, and under the Court as constituted during the last half-century, they could never find 5 votes for it.

Legally speaking, extraterritoriality for organizations is nonsensical. Territory belongs to nations. Organizations can own property, including land, but that doesn't give them sovereign rights over that terrain. The entire basis for diplomacy and sovereignty since the 1500's has been the nation-state system, and under that system a corporation can't be a sovereign entity.

The Supreme Court decision says, in effect "this company is now a country, just like the United States". That makes no sense, and violates 500 years of "international laws". Companies can't be countries.

Nations fight over terrain, quite bitterly. WWII. Palestine. First Persian Gulf War.

What nation, anywhere, would voluntarily allow its territory to be annexed by a separate country at will, simply by that foreign country buying land from a private citizen? No nation would want to do that, no nation would allow it.

Suppose the Supreme Court handed down such a decision. The other branches of government would fight against it, and could easily do so.

It would be instantly obviated by Congress passing a law that simply says "no more corporations". To incorporate, you have to file papers and be granted that status. And if corporations must have sovereignty, but there's no more corporations, then there's no problem.

Congress would do that in a second. They could even bypass the decision, and allow business entities to function by inventing a new category, a new term instead of "corporations", and even if they're functionally the same as a corporation, they're technically not so the Supreme Court decision is obviated.

And that's not even counting the mass public rage such a decision would cause. In such a case, the President could face down the Court, and order the decision to be ignored. The Supreme Court has power, only because people accept its decisions. (See the political science term "legitimacy".)

In this case, this decision would be so controversial, that Right, Left, and Libertarians would oppose it, allowing the president to (in effect) annul the decision. It would be a Constitutional Crisis, but that's happened before. And if the President wins, and the Federal Government and Congress follow his lead, the decision would be overturned.

(This mirrors how the Supreme Court gained the power of Judicial Review, in Marbury vs. Madison, and would set a precedent for the President and Congress, acting together, being able to over-ride decisions of the Supreme Court. That would be a huge change to the US legal landscape.)

Ignore all that. Assume the US is wholly insane, and this becomes the law of the land. Why would any other country go along? I really don't see why Europe would accept this idea. Or any other country, for that matter. It's a genuinely stupid idea, one which would lead to all sorts of problems (nations can't tax each other, corporate nations couldn't be taxed), and even my lowest opinion of Europeans doesn't allow for them following the US off a cliff in this manner.

Like I said, it's a trope so it just is. But it would never happen in the US, and if it did it wouldn't be adopted worldwide, and if it were the corporations (as depicted in Shadowrun material) would go out of business. The "problem" would solve itself.

In a world where there is magic, dragons and the Internet can kill you, I think we can let extraterritoriality slide. It's the future according to the 80's.

Also remember, the American political system, judiciary precedent, international law, etc, etc, weren't necessarily all exactly like they were in real life, leading up to the Shiawase Decision. What doesn't make sense in real life may have made perfect sense in Shadowrun's world -- to them it might have made every bit as much sense as the Supreme Court's fairly recent ruling that companies count as "people" and so have Freedom of Speech, for instance.

And that's not what it says. Extraterritoriality and sovereignty are two different things. Extraterritoriality is an exemption from local law, but it can always be revoked by the host nation. Sovereignty, by definition, cannot be revoked by any other entity. The legal concept of extraterritoriality was invented to suspend local law without alienating a part of the territory. The United Nations, NATO or the European Central Bank are organizations, not countries, they do not possess territory, they are not sovereign, but can and do benefit from extraterritoriality.

It stays that something like the Shiwase decision is very unlikely to ever come out from the US Supreme Court, but not on that ground.

That's exactly my point: it isn't realistic, we accept it for the sake of the game. And it offers a lot of advantages, in terms of gameply, not the least of which is allowing for Shadowrunners to exist at all. Without corporate extraterritoriality, they don't make any sense.


Then good worldbuilding would require those differences to be explained, and those differences would have consequences (which would make the setting look very different). As a trope, it just is. As a valid alternate history, it would require a lot more work and explication.

Which would, IMHO, undermine the setting. "It just is" is the easiest defense of the impossible.


But that example undermines your entire point. Corporations were first invented in Athens, in 200 BC. From the very beginning, they were "organizations that function as individuals". They can own property as an individual can, can hire and fire employees, can sue and be sued under the law as if they were individuals, can be cited and fined as if individuals, and have debts that adhere to them, and not the owners. Business enterprises, churches, and universities are all corporations.

The argument in that case (Citizens United, I'm assuming) is this: an organization is made of people, and you couldn't deprive a person of their free speech rights. No less so can you deprive a group of people of rights they would each individually hold and could each individually exercise.

The point is — and this is where your argument breaks down — that there is 2200 years of traditions, law, and common law supporting the decision. People argued for it in law journals and editorials, and political parties lined up for and against it. It may be a bad decision, it may cause harm, but it occurred for explicable and identifiable reasons.

No such reasons have been identified for corporate extraterritoriality. Individuals aren't sovereign nations, so why would a corporation be named as such?

It wouldn't. And it doesn't matter.

"Realism" in this point gives way to the needs of the game. We need Shadowrunners in Shadowrun. And having many different enclaves of separate "governments" in the same city makes Shadowrunners plausible, and makes a campaign setting like Seattle possible.

Which is a good thing (IMHO). Even if it isn't realistic.

The thing is, though, in Shadowrun, Extraterritoriality actually is sovereignty. The UCAS can't say "Ares, we've decided that your extraterritoriality is becoming burdensome, it's canceled on all facillities on our soil. You have ninety days to bring all operations into compliance with UCAS federal, state, and local laws, and you may file for extensions if need be on a case to case basis."


Also, extraterritoriality doesn't normally grant the right to start making your own laws, printing your own currency, or issuing your own documentation of citizenship - all of which the Megas do.


So, it's called extraterritoriality, but it's actually sovereignty.




And yeah, the Shiawase decision was retarded. If nuke plants ever became such a target, I'm sure federal law enforcement would be assigned to protect them. No need to hand over all the rights of nationhood to a company.

Except you set a what if with a stupidly narrow scope. Outside of a Dr. Manhattan style event one person doesn't overturn the will of literally millions of others.

You didn't really set a "what if" you set a "how could I?" and the answer that came back is alternatively "Insufficient vespene gas" or "Can't be done."

Let's be technical, and say that extraterritoriality has historically been the ceding or waiving of sovereignty by the host nation, to the persons or property of some other nation. (Embassies or diplomatic officials, for example.) Traditionally, the extraterritorial piece of land is considered part of some other country. That other country gains the sovereignty ceded by the host nation.

Extraterritoriality is sovereignty, for it to have any meaning. If you decide what the laws are on your own piece of land, and administer those laws as you see fit, that's sovereignty, by the legal definition of the term. If you can raise armies, conduct diplomacy, and otherwise control your own territory, that is sovereignty. You are acting like a nation-state. And that's what the corps were given in the US (and later, the UCAS).

I stipulate that, in the material as given, other countries can (and do) kick out corporations. Tir Tairngire, for example. But the UCAS can't, because of Judicial Fiat. Not "at will", not at all. Not unless the Supreme Court decision is reconsidered or overturned. (Which it would be, sooner or later, IMHO.)


War and conquest. Treaties. Countries combining. (How much "sovereignty" does South Vietnam or East Germany have? Precisely none.) A decision by the nations of the world to ignore sovereignty. (Taiwan.)

Diplomatic recognition of a government is a granting of sovereignty and revoking that recognition (in the case of an illegitimate government gaining power) is possible. The international community can grant and revoke sovereignty.


Not as it functions in Shadowrun, at least in the purest form, in the UCAS.

But even should I grant all your arguments, it runs into the same believability problems. Who would do such a thing and why? It makes no sense.


There are no NATO bases that are extraterritorial. (Or even "NATO bases", that I know of. NATO forces belong to specific countries, countries with mutual defense treaties, and by agreement among those countries operate jointly. Some of the time.) There is one specific NATO building, in Belgium, but I find nothing that says it's extraterritorial. NATO, as an entity, isn't sovereign. It has the authority that member states grant it and accept at any given time. It isn't extraterritorial.

The United Nations is a diplomatic organization, and functions under the rules for international diplomacy. Embassies are sovereign and extraterritorial. They are immune to the laws of the host country, by agreement between the countries, and they can only be returned to native jurisdiction if diplomatic relations are severed (officially or unofficially).

The ECB might be an exception, I know nothing of it and therefore I can't opine on it.

Since apparently it isn't apparent, let me rephrase my OP: "If it were possible to overturn the corps, how would you bring the corps down?"

Is that better? Did anyone really need me to spell out the theoretical prerequisite? It's like me asking "What shape would you bend metal with your hands?" and you reply back with "I can't bend metal". Only this should have been even more obvious.

And we have that guy up there who's stuck in what can and can't happen. Wow, flex a little.

As often comes up the internet, and seemingly disproportionately so on RPG boards, asking a question and then getting an answer you don't like isn't the person who answers the question's fault.

Basically, if you don't like peoples answers that's fine but control your hurt feelings.

Your comparison isn't quite apt. You aren't just saying "if it were possible to overturn the corps, how would you bring the corps down?" That's not what was in the OP. The OP, in fact, clearly states that in this hypothetical you're just one person.

If you find it so unrealistic, then No Prize it. Come up with a valid reason for it to exist. The game presumes you are a creative and interesting person, so invent a scenario in which it is possible.
In a Citizens United world, I find extraterritoriality to be the next logical step. I, in my own personal and irrelevant opinion, find your legal argument against why extraterritoriality would be possible to be flawed, so in my world I need no further explanation.

If you do, then invent one. You're a smart guy with cool ideas. Set those ideas to work for the setting rather than against it. Come up with a reason why extraterritoriality is possible and make that the reason it exists in Shadowrun.
Anyone can sit on the sidelines and point out flaws in things, but it takes some real thinking to create a scenario to explain it. So do that.
No Prize it!

If you insist...I would build a corp of my own, Gordon Gekko style, and try to take them apart piece by piece. Undercut them in the market place, take huge losses on credit until I had enough market share to start making a profit. I'd buy up as much private stock of the corps as I could using espionage and double dealing until I could perform a hostile takeover. Tarnish their brand name. That sort of thing.

Step one: Be Art Dankwalther.

Step two: Don't get hit by the Thor Shot.