 How Sociopathic should Shadowrunners be?, Was just wondering what ya thought. |
  |
 Apr 4 2007, 09:56 PM
Post
#51
|
|||||||||
|
Ain Soph Aur  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,477 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Montreal, Canada Member No.: 600  |
1 crime does not a shadowrunner make. You can't just wake up and break into a facility. You need a great of shadow ressources - fixers, suppliers of illicit goods, a reputation, etc. If some messed up rich kid decides to rob a warehouse by himself, he's a criminal, not a shadowrunner. And like you said, he's reeeal quick going to realise this was NOT a good idea and will probably end up in jail.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say is bullshit. I don't buy anyone running "because it's fun". It isn't. It's hell. If it IS a thrill, your runner has mental problems you need to account for in your background.
Hackers are the only type of runner I concede may do it because it's no big deal. It's much, much easier to slide into the life of a runner as a Hacker than anything else.
Mental problems. Getting shot at is NOT cool. Maybe at first, but after you've seen 2-3 of your friends guts hang out or bleed to death in your arms, you're gonna change your mind pretty effing quick. Dishonourably discharged soldiers and deserter make great runners, but again, they don't have a huge choice - society doesn't like them, and killing is the only skill they have. |
||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||
|
Apr 4 2007, 10:20 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
That's a circular statement. "Murder" is defined as "killing that society does not accept." so by definition it won't be acceptable to society. Which killings are and are not acceptable to people in different societies is contingent however. Even Kant made a bunch of tortuous exceptions for judicial killings, killings in warfare, and killings via accidental cause. There's no possible way to predict under what circumstance a future populace will be willing or eager to accept en masse and even less ways to predict what an individual from such a society might be willing to accept. Concrete examples include lynchings in the South (justice or murder depending on who you talked to), public beheadings in Arabia (justice or murder depending upon who you talk to), and the assassination of Gaddafi's children (act of war or act of murder depending upon who you talk to). --- Theft is of course similar, though it is less frought with importance to most people. Theft is not "taking things" or even "taking things from other people". It's literally "taking things that society doesn't want you to have." - so naturally stating that society does not accept theft is likewise circular. If society doesn't want you to take something and you take it anyway then society won't be happy. There's a tautological implication buried in there. That doesn't mean that all of society recognizes the same property structure. From Robin Hood's refusal to accept the proposed property structure of Prince John to the Kurd's refusal to accept the property structure of Saddam Hussein, to the MVR's refusal to accept the proposed property structure of Pedro Carmona Estanga, there are a lot of examples in history where different groups or individuals differed in opinions as to what constituted "theft". Heck, even the founder of property rights in modern thought John Locke masterminded the enclosure of the commons. And while he regarded the transfer of land from public to private ownership as a way to enhance the use of said land - there were a lot of people using and living on that land who regarded the action as base theft. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 4 2007, 10:38 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Nice to know... so you are playing an alternate universe? Concerning the thread - many socipaths will run the shadows in one function or another, as it offers a freedom they never would find elsewhere. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 4 2007, 11:41 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 7-March 07 From: Hapeville, GA Member No.: 11,175 |
Or at least get them to act like a proper character rather than a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper. I've seen players act like you say with npcs just being something to kill - either they are playing the wong game (or have been playing cancer for too long - I should know being campaign staff for a certain D$D living game LOL) or their characters are stupid at the very least. Even a true sociopath will not wantonly kill, maim, and destroy simply because it isn't in his/her best interest. A psychopath probably would - but we've already established that those don't last long (probably geeked by cops, a runner with morals, or a sociopathic runner who felt that the psycho's hijinks were putting her best interests in jeopardy). - Scope |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 12:18 AM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: 21-December 06 Member No.: 10,416 |
Good points. If a crew of runners carried out a run with lots of killing and destruction, the only people that would know who did it was the bunch who hired them. The attacked corp would be really ticked and they and perhaps Lone Star or Knight Errant would put the screws to the shadows to find out who did it. That would make life unpleasant for a lot of other runners, fixers and so on. It would make sense that those other runners might take exception to that, especially if a friend of thiers got hurt in the process. That wild team could very well end up hunted by other runners just to take the heat off, or by runners hired by the corp or friends and relations of the dead. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 12:31 AM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1-February 07 Member No.: 10,861 |
Wow, this thread got going fast!
Anyway, let me try to clarify what I meant. What I was trying to get at wasn't theft, murder, or even torture, but that a lot of runners seem perfectly willing to ignore collateral damage, to cut their losses when a friend is in trouble, to use the homeless as trap fodder, ect. Perhaps it was a form of dark sarcasm when I've heard it on these boards, but it seems like a great many shadowrun characters are fully prepared to act as if no one else in the world matters at all. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 12:51 AM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 2-April 07 Member No.: 11,358 |
Actually I'd argue that in that case you wouldn't have to worry quite so much about your fellow runners as you'd have to worry about your career. Let's assume that this group of psychopaths go on a mission that requires some measure of stealth- maybe not pure covert ops, but they have to try and keep things fairly low key. By the end of the run there's been a gun battle that's wiped out every guard in the place, destroyed large portions of the facility, and probably spread collateral damage along their exit route. It becomes very clear that this group does not have any idea what the word 'subtle' means. So you've got the hiring corp who's not happy with the fixer- he set 'em up with a bad match. The fixer's not happy either. The team's pretty well made him look bad. Assuming he keeps working with them, even if he's high loyalty, he's likely not going to send them out on another sneak job. What he will send them out on, are jobs where they're supposed to get noticed. And if you're supposed to get noticed that generally means one of two things: you're going to be getting shot at, a lot, and you're probably more expendable than usual. Best you can hope for is jobs where you're going to do something big and expensive, then spend months or years with a megacorp wanting your hide. Heck, Johnson might even go to the corp you hit (on his orders) and offer them info on you guys for 12% more than what he paid you. He's recouped costs, the target's done, he gets a 12% fee for padding his boss' budget, and the psychos take a few bullets. Good day for Johnson. Bad day to be a psychopath. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 01:31 AM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 7-March 07 From: Hapeville, GA Member No.: 11,175 |
Well Pyrite, that point of view does seem to be somewhat prevalent in spite of the fact that it very well could become self destructive in nature. Shadowrunners do seem to be typically out for number one, so cutting their losses might be IC appropriate in the event that a rescue or what have you would not be 'cost effective' when the benefit is weighed against personal risk. They are just as likely (if not more likely in some cases) to think 'how hard would it be to replace this person whom I've invested time and possibly money into in order to engender loyalty and camaraderie?' as they are to think 'My friend Michael is in trouble, I have to save him because its the right thing to do.'
As for the homeless trap trippers and the like, I think that that is more players being more cutthroat than they should be and/or not thinking through consequences than any IC decision. Drek like that draws attention, and attention is death for a shadowrunner. So while a runner might really only care about themselves, they aren't going to always act that way because they need to have a Rep that says 'you can trust me' in order to continue to do biz. Maybe those sort of hijinks are mostly due to player predelections developed by prior gaming... for example, here are the players/characters in the game I'm playing in: 1. Shirley Scmitt = the Face. (mostly D&D / Iron Heroes player) - The player's first time playing a talker... she mostly defers to other people when decision making rolls around. The character doesn't get her hands dirty - but asks other characters to do it for her. Sarah asked her to handle a distraction to cover the sound of thermite burning through a wall during an extraction. Shirley's solution was to drive a truck through the wall of the building and remotely detonate a claymore under its gas tank as she and Thugly bursted out the back on a harley machine guns blazing. In playing good-cop / bad-cop on a captured ganger, she was supposed to talk to the guy and then hand him over to Sarah for 'attitude adjustment.' She told Sarah to continue until she came back. After the screams continued for twenty minutes, Shirley still hadn't decided he'd had enough - until Sarah stopped and said "Are you sure I should keep going? I'm going to run out of nerves to slice if you don't talk to him soon... but you're the expert on talking to people". Shirley is the most liked and least trusted in the group. 2. Chan = the Phys Adept. (mostly World of Darkness player) - Chan is the ultimate straight man. The character is just getting into the shadows, and his player has him act appropriately naive until he gets smacked with the D'oh stick. He doesn't like unnecessary violence, but follows others' lead as to where the line is drawn. He has cleaned up Shirley's mess at least once, and he's the middle of the road as far as likability and trust goes. 3. Thugly = the Troll ganger. (mostly diceless RP systems player) - Thugly is a ganger with a philosophic streak. He is blunt, but he doesn't resort to violence if he can help it - unless of course his street cred is on the line. If it is, then he'll take on any opponent - be it cop or humanis policlubber. The only person who trusts/likes him more than as a peice of muscle is Sarah. When Shirley suggested it, his response was 'I always wanted to drive my bike out the back of a moving truck... sounds cool' 4. Julius = the Technomancer. (1st ed 40k player - IE: power-munchkin) - Julius has become comic releif - and sometimes a liability. He always brute-forces his way into systems, declares 'jyhad' (his term) on the system if it beats him once - so he returns with a veritable army of sprites. Julius has no depth, and if consulted is of the 'kill them all and let god sort them out' mindset. Right now Julius is in a coma due to a nasty experience with Black Hammer. The player is making a boom mage temp character whose answer to every situation is either powerball or stunball... including full stealth ops. The rest of us are contemplating how hard it will be to geek this character as a service to society after he makes a run go fubar. Nobody likes or trusts Julius, but Sarah is very friendly with him because she figures that he could be useful in the future. 5. Sarah = the Covert Ops Street Sam. (Me - I play all systems, but at heart I'm a writer - so 'In Character' is king). Sarah is the group's actual bonafide sociopath. She is also the most outspokenly against destructive hijinks, but if it is less dangerous for someone to be dead than to be let live for whatever reason, she pulls the trigger without hesitation. She has cold heartedly murdered people whom overheard incriminating evidence - even after those people accepted bribes - because she didn't want to take the risk. She is the second most liked and the most trusted out of the group, and Chan described her as the least psychotic aside from himself - actually going so far as to say that she is the only one he would be comfortable being alone in a dark alley with. She is adamant about no killing cops unless absolutely necessary, having stated "the only thing that mobilizes a police force faster than a donut sale is a cop-killer." No matter what she does, she has a logical - if amoral - reason for it. Analysis: the two characters responsible for the most destructive hijinks are the DnD player and the Power-Munchkin. The others are self-centered, but are reasonable in their self centered-ness. - Scope |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 01:34 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
My short answer: This is a game the runners should be as normal or as insane as the player is comfortable playing, as long as it doesn't wreck your group.
Every game group will have different tolerances, if you group can't agree on what those tolerances are your group will have problems. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 02:00 AM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: 21-December 06 Member No.: 10,416 |
D&D is typically very different from Shadowrun. It is a game of very little subtlety and is long on violence and killing, since most of what the players are killing are evil monsters and killing such things makes them heroes. Shadowrun is more of a stealth game where killing a security guard is a bad thing because he's just some schmoe making a living. Character is big with me too. I think it is also one reason why my groups tended to work together very well, because most of us were interested in character development beyond power gaming. It could also explain why they generally preferred to avoid fights, except when payback was in order, like stomping the gang they had paid to provide a distraction during a run, but they didn't do it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 02:28 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
As a long time D&D (and chainmail) player, I would have to say one thing about stereotypes...
Note all D&D players are srtaight forward players. In the olds days (admitedly less games available), plenty of us did plenty of more social / subterfuge / etc style games. And if they live by the 'rules' of the shadowrunner society are they Socipaths? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 03:32 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 29-December 06 Member No.: 10,483 |
Perhaps I should mention my current group has something of a rep for using non-lethal methods. Though there have been a couple situations where they decided to kill people. The first was pretty much running into a group during a run that were 'Sanitizing' the same facility they were in. The second was the mage finding himself alone in while astrally soaking.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:19 AM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Actually, no, they typically can't. "Impulsiveness, failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness, irritability, irresponsibility, and a reckless disregard for their own safety and the safety of others are traits of the antisocial personality." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:25 AM
Post
#64
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 7-March 07 From: Hapeville, GA Member No.: 11,175 |
This is one of the examples in which you can't trust wikipedia. The wikipedia article on sociopathy is actually a link to the article on psychopathy - this is due to the current debate on the proper terminology between the schools of psychology and sociology - whoever posted the article originally missed out on the past decade or so of new theories and ascribed to the old school of logic that psychopathy and sociopathy are one and the same. The classic 'Anti-social Personality Disorder' references psychopathy, not sociopathy. Honestly, I wish that they'd nip it in the bud and change the fragging name of sociopathy instead of redefining a term that has so much baggage - but because of the disagreements in the fields, the powers that be are too stubborn. - Scope |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:29 AM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
You mean they interact with your game the way sociopaths interact with reality? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:46 AM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 7-March 07 From: Hapeville, GA Member No.: 11,175 |
Actually, 'shadowrunner society' doesn't really count as a society - it would be considered a subculture of the overall society of the world that resulted from the awakening and ultra-globalization. The reason the distinction is important is because a subculture is joined whereas a society is born into (although one can assimilate oneself into a different society, one can never truly be 'of' that society) effectively since one's formulative years are when one's reality is constructed based on the socialization they receive (see the theory of the social construction of reality). Ergo, even if the criminal subculture would have allowances for things that society as a whole would not, it would not change whether or not one qualifies as a sociopath. This is also covered in some of the theories of Criminology (a specialization in the field of sociology), but criminological theories are not yet developed enough to truly explain everything - except of course for Conflict Theory, but Conflict Theory is a can of worms that we really don't want to go into. - Scope |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:52 AM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Actually it's from DSM-IV-TR "Diagnostic Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder", though not directly. There other approaches, but poor impulse control is a common trait. Another list I've seen has this (3 or more): List of Common Sociopathic Traits Egocentricity; Callousness; Impulsivity; Conscience defect; Exaggerated sexuality; Excessive boasting; Risk taking; Inability to resist temptation; Antagonistic, deprecating attitude toward the opposite sex; Lack of interest in bonding with a mate http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm He has an interesting list of 4 types of sociopaths, and 4 types of psychopaths. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 06:03 AM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 7-March 07 From: Hapeville, GA Member No.: 11,175 |
As I said earlier, there is a current debate in the field and the same terminology is currently being used for two distinct issues, so there is a lot of stuff floating around out there that contradicts stuff. Personally, I'm going with what I learned in my high level sociological theory courses as they covered what has happened in the field in the past two years. But as with all things you'll find that people like to disagree (sociologists and psychologists in particular - the article you linked is more than likely written by a psychologist BTW). Seriously, you should hear some of the debates between the department heads - they get hilarious at times. Anyway, I'm going to shush now or I'll wind up getting a head start on my dissertation (majoring in Sociology with a specialization in criminology and minors in history and anthropology). If you're interested you can PM me and I'll see about digging out last semester's text books so that I can give you the publisher name. -edit- Oh yeah, anytime you see the words 'antisocial personality' and 'sociopath' in the same document, nine times out of ten they are using the Psychology definition of Sociopath as opposed the the Sociology definition. -edit- - Scope |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 02:08 PM
Post
#69
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Second Frank's comments. Actually, Frank, you saved me a lot of typing. :)
No, I just stopped paying attention to canon right before System Crash (probably the only SR3 book that I may never actually buy). I don't really stay "current" with the metaplot anyway (for example, my last game was set in the world as of Year of the Comet). A lot of the time, the year doesn't necessarily matter in my games, and I don't really use much metaplot directly. I'm playing Shadowrun, in the Shadowrun universe, I just don't care that by canon it's 2070 and stuff in SR4 has happened.
That sounds like new players, or people used to d20. My suggestions to combat it are that you generally just make the effort to make stuff that they do matter. The first time they blow up a building that they were just supposed to steal stuff from, the Johnson doesn't pay them, or drastically lowers the pay. When they grab some homeless guy and use him as bait, word spreads, that area's homeless organize and get help from a couple of street gangs that are sympathetic to their plight, and the team (or better, individual members of the team) gets jumped. They leave a friend to die, that friend survives and comes back to make them regret it. Actions have consequences. Try to think in terms of cause and effect. The key to this is not to do it as "hahahahaha, you stoopid morons", but with sincerity. Try to convey to them that the world is real, not just a playground for tossing around explosives. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 5 2007, 02:12 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
Edit: Eidolan beat me to a lot of it.
Other issues then: Things like a willingness to feed prisoners to ghouls, summon blood spirits to do their bidding, exploit homeless people by strapping explosives to them, etc. How many players do that sort of stuff? In our game, we ran into a black market organ legger. There was a bit of discussion about whether or not it would be okay to work for him. It helped that our GM is a goofball, and named the doc "Da Rippa" and played him for comedic effect. It's a lot easier to work for Da Rippa than it is for a scary organlegger. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 04:56 PM
Post
#71
|
|||||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Well, a lot of people draw different lines in different places. For the record, I'm going to be talking about four different groups I game master for:
#2 and #4. I am honestly unsure about group #1 since while the group was sitting in a restaraunt that catered to ghouls one of the characters ranted about how he deserved a "special menu" as well. The other characters made him sit down, so I'm legitimately unsure. Group #4 actually used that same restaraunt as a regular meeting place...
#2, but with reservations. They have a strict set of guidelines about when it is and is not acceptable to sacrifice people. TThey'd be entirely willing to summon blood spirits under specific circumstances, but they spend a fair amount of time tracking down unlicensed blood magic. Groups 3 and 4 shoot blood magicians on sight. Group #1 has a very weird relation to blood magic - one of the mages does his own blood research on the side while the other mage wants to kill them all; and the 3 mundanes honestly don't care one way or the other.
With the availability of drones in SR4 I don't think that any of the groups would do that on the grounds that you don't know where the bombs are going to go. I think only group #3 would necessarily object on purely moral grounds. But all three other groups have adapted the "RC Car with a grenade/brick of C4/whatever" technology - so the idea of strapping remote control bombs onto things that just run around willy-nilly would be anathema on a professional level. Plus, most of the homeless people that group #2 deal with are actually Aztec citizens and need to be protected. So yeah, different groups, different lines. But whether they regard such things as eating human bodies, sacrificing enemies for power, or taking out bystanders with explosives to be morally problematic is something which varies. A lot. -Frank |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:09 PM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 19-August 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9,168 |
I think that scares me more. "Well, I mean, sure we *could* strap a bomb to the hobo, but really, how would we control him? We'd have to rig his brain too, and that's a lot of work." Not "That's not nice" but "Nah, it's fine, but inefficient." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 5 2007, 05:14 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
And its exactly that type of "morality" that I enjoy portraying in the Cyberpunk genre.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 5 2007, 06:13 PM
Post
#74
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 28-July 05 Member No.: 7,526 |
That's what I was getting at, yes. I mean, players are natively disassociated with their character's worlds. Either they make the more external transition to sociopathic characters, or make the internal transition to acting like they belong to it. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 6 2007, 07:05 AM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 29-December 06 Member No.: 10,483 |
Wouldn't the answer to that be that he IS getting a special menu? I mean he is getting the meta-human menu, and they get the ghoul menu. Each side gets a special menu catering to their dietary needs. Heck they could point out that they go to the outrageous extra expense of cooking the food, and refrigerating it so it doesn't rot as nature intended.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th August 2025 - 10:41 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.