Nice profiling (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This is actually one of the few things the Star would find budget for. In RL the job of the cops is to make people feel safe and de-legitimize militia/gangs. Serial killers are one of the most terrifying things communities face, and it will scare people out of complacency if the powers at be don't handle the situation. Also I imagine that very few of the SKs out there are awakened. I think the bulk could be brought down via Search, Movement, and Ritual tracking pretty easy. Anyone one with there game enough to avoid these methods likely is so low profile that they could be swept under the rug more easily than they could be caught, and very well might not get task forces. But I think less than %1 percent of SKs is about the right number to be swept under the rug for setting purposes.

Well there could be a Awakened or TM Zodiac SK, such a SK would be difficult to track down.

WMS

That's certainly a good serial killer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) My fear with the topic is it was someone who thinks of a serial killer as a person who has an urge to kill, but isn't particularly crazy otherwise. Though, is your character a shadowrunner? It seems to me like a suburban dad killer wouldn't take much pleasure in killing for money for a corporation, they'd probably find it boring if not downright abhorrent.

Absolutely. I am assuming that awakening is a completely random event, so that in all other random population 1% will be awakened. Therefor 1% of SKs are awakened. Some of that 1% will be disorganized or "kept" by someone with the power to keep them above the law. And yes they would be nearly impossible to to track. I think that it is still fair to say that the Star does track down SKs as a rule, while a fraction of 1% of a small number is swept under the table.

Her character is a shadowrunner...a horrifyingly scary one. The rest of the group is terrified of her.

My character is the face of the group.

It's not the money, it's about the profile. One of thing she wants to buy as soon as she has money is going into buying genewipe! Five minutes and her DNA is no more for those pesky ritual sampling.

Do you have any citations to papers suggesting this, given that it runs counter to… well, a number of papers? Even this paper (by someone who, I should note, I don't recognize, and whose name I can't find outside of the context of that paper), which draws a distinction, makes it a subset relationship.

While there have been serial killers who expressed the opinion that they wanted to be caught (either in interviews or in memorable messages left near victims), the tendency to descend into disorganization and the existence of a pattern exists in those who show no desire to be caught, and who indeed escape repeatedly after being caught (e.g., Ted Bundy).

Even the organized killer archetype, Ted Bundy, only stayed organized for a few years (admittedly potentially up to seventeen depending on whether or not he committed certain suspected crimes, but only for four years after his known start of frequent killing, and two of those years were spent in jail).

~J

Wait, Chrysalis, are we talking about Vera here, or is this another game?

I meant to seperate "Serial killers tend to want to be caught" from "Serial killers have a pattern which is an excellent start to being detected and caught".

But yeah, I don't exactly buy into the whole Hollywood notion that every serial killer sends taunting cryptic messages to newspapers and closely follows the detective assigned to his case.

That reminds me, has anyone read Neil Gaiman's The Sandman graphic novels?

There is a particularly scary character, who is a personified nightmare, created by the king of dreams, but decides instead to go to earth and become a serial killer. He has teeth for eyes, and his MO is removing eyes from his victims and then eating them with his own.

While that's not very shadowrun, he does attend a "cereal convention" which, typically, is actually a convention of serial killers patting eachother on the back. It's also not too long until they start hunting the other residents of the hotel/resort the convention is held at.

Yes and the serial child rapist who works at the Not-Disneyland haunts me to this day.

Serial killers wouldn't have to be mages to avoid instant capture. They'd just need access to a convenient warded building somewhere. The most successful serial killers would work at corporate research facilities and arcologies.

I agree, ANY seriel killer could be very difficult to track. From what little I understand about msot of them is that htey are:

• intelligent
• somewhat methodical
• typically either enjoy getting away with it, or do not want ot be caught because they believe they have a "mission" to continue doing what htey are doing.
• capable of at least postponing hteir impulses

Sure, the sloppy, completely unhinged or unlucky ones will get caught, at least eventually. But not all. A lot would depend on their motive and the type of their targets. If a serial killer is killing prostitutes in the Barrens, who's gonna go after them. Or SINless, homeless folks? Who will even notice or care? Now, if the guy is going after pretty blonde elf co-eds at the local college campuses? You'd better believe the Star will be looking for them, assorted mages and probably PI's and shadowrunners hired by the families. I would expect that slot to have a fairly short career what with 2070 forensics and magic.

Vlad

There are, broadly speaking, two varieties—one of above average intelligence, the other of below average. While the intelligent ones tend to be able to plan and clean up, postponing impulses is not something I've found indicated (though I can't categorically state it doesn't happen, at least before the usual end-stage rampage).

~J

There are sociopaths who aren't serial killers, and serial killers who aren't sociopaths, so it can't be completely in lock-step.

The first is obvious, and needs no evidence. The second, however, is less so—citation, or enough information so I can look for one?

Edit: ah, I think I see where you're coming from. Our problem is that the psychological component is relatively recent—so, for instance, John Haigh is typically classified as a serial killer, while from what I know of his case I would generally consider his murders to be sufficiently methodical and goal-oriented enough to be unusual for the APD type (for instance, while his victims indeed shared a common trait, this trait was that they all had a fair bit of money)—though I'm not at all certain I could concede that he did not, in fact, have APD.

Was there anything other than Haigh?

~J

In game terms how would you spin it?

SR3 I'd definately go Compulsive flaw. SR4 is harder, Mania works in theory, but the RAW doesn't work, as serial killers aren't made catatonic by their actions, generally. I'd go mild addiction, I guess. Once a week you feel the urge to kill, but given that you're a strong-willed sociopath, you can probably hold off until you've made the right plans for maybe a few months at a time.

I am coming at this as an interested amateur, ie, lots of TV documentaries. Sorry, no scholarly citations here.

It seems like there are the serial killers who kill in callous disregard for their victims, ie the sociopaths, then there are the ones aren't really aware they are killing "people". These would be psychotics and schizophrenics, right?

Feel free to clean up my cable TV pop-psychology if necessary. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Serial killers could be "weaponized" by narrowing the operating parameters - "must kill all members of Corporation XYZ. Begin. Repeat."

The cost-benefit analysis would be horribly lopsided in the wrong direction for it to become particularly feasible - perhaps with the exception of attempting to discredit a law-enforcement corp or create some good publicity for the same.

Serial killers aren't inherently stupid - which, psychological issues aside, profiled victims tend to be children or slender women. These are victims easily dominated and controlled, on average. Versus, say, staking out a gym and hunting down the biggest 'roid rat you can find.

Compulsions - must kill xyz and, at your discretion "compulsion: secretly desires to be caught".

-Siege

If we're getting technical, psychotic is a horrible term and should probably be avoided in this discussion. Psychotic describes anyone who's thoughts or perceptions are out of touch with external reality. Its more of a symptom than a condition. If your demented grandpa thinks you're his kid brother he's technically psychotic. The term can describe anything from severe depression to adverse drug reactions to serial killers IF they happen to have delusional thinking.

Likewise schizophrenia has nothing to do with serial killing, although you might argue that some serial killers have schizoid personality disorder (also a confusing term).

Really the psychological component to serial killing is probably a complex combination of anti-social personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and delusional thinking, which is often described as a psychopathic personality disorder.

Psychotic is a perfectly good term with a good, useful definition. It is also something that, without any exception that I'm aware of, serial killers have not been—even those who have claimed to be on missions from god, IIRC, have generally not met the conditions for psychosis (you'll notice that people make similar claims all over, some on television while asking for money, without being diagnosed).

Siege: one of the two "groups" of serial killers I mentioned above is inherently stupid—quite literally, low IQ (around one standard deviation lower than average, IIRC).

Ed_209a: I'm not aware of anything like being not "really aware they are killing 'people'"—do you have a name as an example?

Fun fact: Ed Gein does not necessarily fit the definition of a serial killer, as IIRC only two murders were considered very strongly linked to him (there were others, but as he never stood trial, the strength of their connection was never tested).

~J

From the DSM-IV TR:

Plus, most lay people think (as Ed_209a might have) that psychotic implies violent tendencies, which it does not. Thus, it is a poorly defined term that is often used incorrectly in the popular press. It has no inherent place in a discussion of serial killers except in the context of delusional thinking, which some, but not all, serial killers have.


Delusions are categorized as a form of psychosis. There have been delusional serial killers.


The big difference in terms of diagnosis, that is the line between the charismatic tent-revivalist preacher and someone with a delusional disorder (and thus psychosis), is whether the delusional thinking affects normal function and how it sits with the societal norms. Belief in God is not unusual or adverse for most people. Belief that God has sent you to earth to kill women if they touch the door knob of your office is delusional.

Correct.

Eh. It's a non-technical term, but it encompasses a specific state (loss of contact with reality).

Correct but irrelevant.

Absolutely, though that has no bearing on the term itself.

Not by themselves, at least not in any context I've ever heard of. Delusions are commonly a part of the symptoms present in "psychotic disorders", but unless I'm very mistaken are not usually sufficient by themselves.

Certainly.

More often the line is "causes distress", though I grant that that line is often discarded when behaviour threatens others.

Not unusual, I'll grant (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Right. But it does not, by itself, indicate any more of a break from reality.

~J

Is it worth pointing out that Seattle already has a notorious seriel killer: the Mayan Cutter?