Shadowrunners, Bystanders, Security, and You, the Myth of the Moral Shadowrunner Options

[Kagetenshi]

In any discussion of proper Shadowrunner behaviour, inevitably two points come up; the idea that if you fire a gun, the mission is a failure, and the idea that if you render an enemy unconscious rather than dead that your life will be easier in the long run. Let's take a closer look at these ideas. I shall first address this tendency towards pacifism.

Several explanations are given for why it's a good idea to incapacitate rather than kill: it garners less enemies, it's the right thing to do, it achieves the same effect.

"It's the right thing to do". Perhaps. Consider also that the right thing to do is to not actually be Shadowrunning in the first place. Let's make this very clear, Shadowrunners ruin lives. Joe SecGuard allowed the Face access to the building, failed to pick up on the falsified security passcode the Decker was using, and was completely blindsided by the Mage. It wasn't his fault? That's possible. It also makes no difference. If the run resulted in meaningful losses, odds are overwhelmingly that the guard will get heavily reprimanded, and it's not at all unlikely that he'll be fired. Even if he retains his job, his chances of promotion anytime in the next decade or so probably approach a Planck quantity. If other guards died, were fired, or otherwise were affected as a result of his actions (or even if not), you can bet his time at work isn't going to be too pleasant. You have ruined his life, and quite possibly that of his family, if any. The same applies to Billy Burnout the Corp Cyberdemon. Big Billy cost a lot, possibly millions, but he can't even protect against a couple of Shadowrunners. Unless he's an ultra high-end model, he's probably looking at early retirement. The kind where they take out all of the augmentations and don't put anything back in.

"It garners less enemies". Consider: Jane SecGuard, husband to Bob Miscellaneous, with two kids (one twenty and at college, one sixteen), is killed in the line of duty. Who is going to be the enemy? Bob? The kids? In all likelihood, none of them have fired a weapon more dangerous than a taser, at least not outside of a shooting range. What are they going to do? They're probably law-abiding corporate citizens, without the remotest idea how to start looking for street contacts. The only way they'd have a description of the runners is if the corp has it and gives it to them, the latter part being extremely unlikely. Consider on the other hand what happens if Jane is merely tasered or gel-rounded into unconsciousness. She wakes up to reprimands, the scorn of her fellow employees, possibly termination. She goes home to face the family that she's no longer supporting, or that at least she has no meaningful chance of increasing her support to. She is not only motivated, but she actually has weapons training of some variety. She also has a decent chance of having seen the Runners she's after. At best, the situation is the same (no ability to effectively pursue revenge). At worst, the runners now have a motivated enemy with the ability to actually harm them on their tail. This applies doubly for guards without family.

"It achieves the same effect". Any guard who is merely unconscious is one stimpatch away from coming after you again. A dead guard, or even one who's been patched up at twelve boxes of Physical, isn't going to come after you again. All it takes to restore a guard with ten boxes stun to the fight is a stimpatch.

Now, on to the idea that a gun fired ends the Shadowrun: this one is at least vaguely more arguable. A gunshot does not mean a failed Shadowrun. However, except for circumstances in which you can be very assured of the shot remaining unheard, you should not fire until you're ready to leave. Even guards take time to respond. If the alarm goes off while you're shooting your way back out of the secret lab with barely two minutes between you and the door, there isn't going to be any meaningful human opposition in that time. That being said, know your target: sentry guns, containment doors, and some drones don't have that same delay. Regardless, in almost every run, there is a point at which opening up with the weaponry not only fails to harm but actually enhances the likelihood of undamaged survival. Obviously this point cannot be exploited in every run (especially those with uncertain opposition or those in which secrecy is a requirement), but with the exception of places capable of destroying you in under a minute regardless of where you are at the time or places with equipment such that you cannot escape them once they've gotten a lock on you, it will exist.

I suppose I should also talk about the question of bystanders. I've got no problem with killing them, but remember not to let it distract you from your objective. Some Johnsons will look down on it as unprofessional, others will look at it as the height of professionalism (that is, as long as you're eliminating witnesses rather than actively hunting down ordinary people to kill). Those are the risks you take. This should mostly be a by-character decision. Remember, though, if an innocent bystander attacks you or can identify you, they're not an innocent bystander anymore.

I'm most certainly not arguing that Runners should be utterly devoid of morals. No, the idea that I find absurd is that Runners both have morals and follow them. It's a pretty twisted morality (or one that revels in ignorance) that will be fine with 'Running. Your mileage may vary, but I've always found that it's a lot more fun to have a character who wouldn't think of killing innocent bystanders (say, a fourteen-year-old boy and his mother), but who, when faced with the situation, guns them down anyway because he was scared, didn't realize they weren't a threat, was afraid they'd identify him, whatever, rather than someone who just runs on past saying to himself "see how moral I am?"

If we can move on from the idea that leaving witnesses and potential enemies around is "professional", I think we'll all be doing a lot better.

~J