Armed bystanders, Hitman: Blood Money SPOILERS Options

[Wounded Ronin]

Last night, I was playing Hitman: Blood Money. This post is going to contain SPOILERS for that game so don't read it if you haven't already played it through.

I've got the impression that a lot of the people involved with Hitman are eastern european. In any case, I sense a certain fascination with American southerners in Hitman: Blood Money. So far, I've counted 3 levels that take place in the south. In two of the three I'm seeing a lot of the "revolting hick" sterotype.

Anyway, there's one level where Agent 47 must go to a wedding in Mississipi and kill the bridegroom and the father but not kill the bride. There are many civilians attending the party as guests and they're all wearing suspenders and baseball caps. However, unlike in most of the other levels in Hitman, all the male civilians at the wedding are armed with .38 cal revolvers. Should you be seen doing anything bad, not only do all the security guards rush and attack you, but all the male civilians do as well. This actually makes for an EXTREMELY challenging level.

I had been able to complete all the levels in the game up till then pretty elegantly without gaining any "notoriety" points, but on that level I was forced to fight off an enormous swarming hoarde of security and armed civilians. It was very difficult and I had to use strategy as well as gameplay skill to the utmost in order to survive and ultimately the slaughter was Tarantino-esque. Normally in these levels even if things go wrong and my character gets into a firefight with security guards ammunition scarcity is never an issue. However, in this level, my character burned through his entire supply of .45 ACP (over 100 rounds) and .300 Winmag (20 rounds) AND was forced to resort to using additional firearms found on the premises. After the level my notoriety jumped from a perfect 0 I'd been maintaining all game to about 50 out of 100 just from that clusterf*ck.

Hitman: Blood Money is similar to Shadowrun in terms of the premise. The main character is hired to do assassinations but sometimes extraction of information or sometimes protection through shadowy contacts. He has the opportunity to customize his weapons and buy gear in between missions. This lead me to think: couldn't armed bystanders really complicate a Shadowrun campaign in much the way the armed bystander zerg rush messed up my Hitman level?

I grew up in New York City, where I think it's fair to say most civilians aren't armed. If a bald genetically engineered assassin were to initiate a firefight in New York City, or indeed if a squad of guys with leather jackets and permed hair and uzis were to do so, most people would probably be horrified, flee, call the cops, or what have you. Whenever I ran any sorts of Shadowrun games I guess I assumed that in general most bystanders would behave in that way if they witnessed the runners doing something violent. So while I might have the occasional NPC show up with a shotgun and a Marines tee shirt in order to mess with the players a little for the most part civilian bystanders were harmless besides for the fact that they might alert the authorities or potentially be witnesses.

However, now that I think about it, there are also places in the world where bystanders would indeed be more likely to open fire on anyone they saw committing a violent act in clear violation of the law. For example, I've heard that in Texas when that guy climbed a church tower and started sniping people that many Texans had rifles in their vehicles and actually pinned that guy down in his tower. A situation like that could certainly mess up a runner team. Perhaps the runners have their sniper up in a high place to oversee a meeting taking place in an alley. The meeting goes bad and the sniper starts to support the team by sniping out the enemies in the alley. However, some civilians unrelated to the meeting who are standing somewhere else just see a guy sniping down from a high place. They grab their rifles and suppress the team's sniper, causing the team to be in a worse position.

Indeed, I get the impression that in SR's Seattle many civilians are supposed to be armed because they're all paranoid about crime. A cultural shift between today and the time of SR would be the only thing necessary for civilians to be more likely to suppress runner teams who commit violent acts in public places.

What do you think? If your GM had more Texas-style civilians pinning down your team, would you find that believable, or would you cry foul? Would you find it funny/challenging, or arbitrary and pointless?

[djinni]

What do you think? If your GM had more Texas-style civilians pinning down your team, would you find that believable, or would you cry foul? Would you find it funny/challenging, or arbitrary and pointless?

I would cry foul as "texans" don't do that.
people mind their own business, what will prompt NPC's to "get in the way" is messing with them. make a stray bullet hit the "good ol boy's" truck, and then its believable, heck he'll even chase you down.
but if you have a guy shooting out of an elevated position, the citizens aren't going to interfere because as long as they don't they are fine. as soon as they interfere they might get messed with.

edit: now if they were all in the same diner? at the same party...they all knew each other...
those are accetpable situations where people come out of the cattle mentality and fight back. you have to make them "want to"

[Abbandon]

I just played that game to(on easy) and it was my first hitman game and i thought it sucked heh. But on to your main point. Those wedding attendee's werent just townfolk or whatever. They were more like familia. They were all part of the crime family the bride's dad and groom were in on. Thats like taking out a mob guy and his boys attacking you. Or messing with a gang and the whole flock descends on you.

I think it is extremely rare that your average citizen that has no ties to the victom would help out at all, for fear of being injured, and for fear of being sued. No good deed goes unpunished.

I think what you may want to look towards are people who have goals/missions of their own and who the runners are accidentally interferring with. Like say some terror group is going to blow up a bank and take the money but the runners are already there trying to get at a single deposit box or to extract somebody. This would obviously piss off the terrorist group.

or the runners are setting up for a job doing whatever when another group rolls in and starts causing trouble thus screwing up the run for the runners.

I guess that stuff is normal and not like what you are talking about.... Just go with bob the off duty security guy who desperately wants a raise or his 15 minutes of fame.

Think about street reporters who are one man news shows for pirate matrix channels or whatever. He spots the runner team doing something and records it and then the channel he works for or whatever puts a bounty on their heads for information or capture and lots of crazies come out of the woodworks.. Yeah...more real time. The Street reporter see's some shit happening with the runners and he broadcasts(via matrix/"bullhorn") to everyone in the area a reward for trying to stop them just so he can get some cool news worthy shots and drama. An instigator.

Try to come up with motivators for people to want to do that stuff and it will be easy.
Duty, Instigator, Toxic negative emotion/chaos freak, greed, fame, sinless, unemployed.

[Stahlseele]

well . . certainly GANGERS will start reacting to people starting shit up in their part of town . . especially the bigger ones will . . if you start shit in a bar, hell, that allmost every last single time started an all out brawl which made the GM VERY angry because he had to stat up 10 to 20 NPC's fast . . Yakuza, Mafia and the such are supposed to actually guard those who pay them to do so, so i would imagine they would enter the fray most likely . . you start shit in the orc underground? buddy, you have a whole world of trogs coming after you as soon as they notice you not belonging there o.O . . but usually, NPC's/Civillians/Practice Targets or whatever you're calling them won't do shit as long as they don't get involved in one way or the other . .

[Method]

I'm going to disagree here a little. While I agree the "MYOB" mindset would probably prevail in most cases, I think it depends on a lot of factors. Apathy and complacency may run rampant in SR, but you also have consumer weapon outlets like Ares' "Weapons World", meaning a lot more people are armed, which implies a lot more people are conscientious about the possibility of violence and think about when they would and would not use violence themselves. I don't think that it would be that unusual to see an armed bystander with a hero complex who gets involved in a violent altercation, especially if its obvious which side is legit (i.e.- the one's in uniform are probably the "good guys") or if it appears to the bystander that the runners are killing other bystanders (was that young girl they just shot in the head an innocent victim or a technomancer or free spirit, or maybe a shedim?).

Plus I think it adds a cool dynamic element to a SR fire fight, which I have used quite often.

[Ryu]

The low cost of smartlinks and body armor makes the citizens of any sprawl like seattle dangerous as hell. Do not fear the heavy pistol of the mugger, fear the shotgun of the active NRA-UCAS member. If he hits, and he comes out of "neutral" territory, you are in pain.

[djinni]

especially if its obvious which side is legit (i.e.- the one's in uniform are probably the "good guys")

Vigilante Laws exist for a reason, anyone who does that would get told to not get involved, and if they continued they would be charged. the only exception is if the legit authorities obviously could not handle the situation.
for example coincidentally I live in texas and in a restaraunt one patron was being rather rambunctious and rude etc... when an off duty policeman came over and asked them to leave they became violent and knocked him out cold. until then everyone stayed calm ignoring the guy, but after that three guys pounced on him beat the crap out of him and dragged him outside where they sat on him till the cops arrived.
had they acted before the patrolman was assaulted they would have been arrested, but since they came to the aide of the authority figure who actually NEEDED assistance they fell under the "protecting those in need" and the severity of his injuries were explained as "self defense."

[Method]

Lots of laws exist for lots of reasons. As it turns out that doesn't stop people from doing stupid stuff.

Note that I didn't say anything about the appropriateness of an armed bystander's response. You are correct in that they tend to be treated as heros if the authorities are in obvious need of help, but treated as criminals if the authorities are in control of the situation.

But then again most civilians who carry a firearm do so specifically because police can't be everywhere and control every situation, right?

[djinni]

But then again most civilians who carry a firearm do so specifically because police can't be everywhere and control every situation, right?

I'm just picturing a run taking place outside an elementray school and its recess time...
"bob...what are all those kids poitning at us?"
<pow pow pow>
"OMG DUCK!!!"

[Method]

Quite a funny picture, I agree.

I kind of picture "Weapons World" like a ToyRUs anyway...

[kzt]

Vigilante Laws exist for a reason, anyone who does that would get told to not get involved, and if they continued they would be charged. the only exception is if the legit authorities obviously could not handle the situation.

There are no "vigilante laws", there are just laws against assault, battery or murder. Look up your states deadly force rules. It's pretty much assured that you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or others from death or serious bodily harm (though the situational rules in NY or CA are often insane). It's quite likely that you can use deadly force to prevent a felony against yourself or others. Very few places allow deadly force for petty theft, etc. Texas has interesting rules about night time however.

A shooting in public is pretty clearly someone who is in the process of committing a violent felony that involves the death or serious injury to someone. Most people, even if armed, would tend to work on getting anyone they were with out of the scene ASAP. If they were by themselves or had a good shot they might well get involved, or they might not. If you block there path out. . .

[hyzmarca]

but if you have a guy shooting out of an elevated position, the citizens aren't going to interfere because as long as they don't they are fine. as soon as they interfere they might get messed with.

Nine times out of ten, the guy shooting from an obvious elevated position is someone who wants to die and wants to take as many people as possible out with him. In that situation, everyone is in danger. There is no such thing as being fine unless you have perfect cover. When he runs out of easy targets he'll start going after the hard ones.

The incident that WR mentions is the The University of Texas shootings. The Main Building of The University of Texas at Austin has a clocktower with an observation deck. On August 1 1966, Charles Whitman visited that observation deck with four rifles, three pistols, and enough supplies to last him a while. He started shooting at everyone in sight. Response was slow due to confusion but once everyone know what was happening every police officer in the city was on scene. Whitman was using waterspouts as makeshift gunports, affording him a great deal of cover and making it almost impossible for police and the civilians who had joined them to hit him from the ground. The police gladly accepted help from the civilians and deputized many on site. Four police officers and a deputized civilian went up the tower and two of them shot Whitman to death.

Of course, there has been a shift in the attitudes about the role of citizens in law enforcement since then.

It's quite likely that you can use deadly force to prevent a felony against yourself or others. Very few places allow deadly force for petty theft, etc. Texas has interesting rules about night time however.

Not just night time.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/...in3517564.shtml

[kzt]

Not just night time.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/...in3517564.shtml

I saw this discussed in great detail elsewhere. General assessment is that the guy has to show some really good reason why he was required to use deadly force. You can detain people for the cops, but you can't kill them. If they had been breaking into his house that changes, but in most non-insane states breaking into an occupied dwelling allows the use of deadly force to stop them. And if had been at night he it might have been more clearly legit, but he really needs a good lawyer badly to make a self-defense case.

[Kagetenshi]

I love the letter that suggested it might have been acceptable if he'd shot them in the legs.

Of course, by "love", I mean "further lose hope in humanity as a result of".

~J

[hyzmarca]

I saw this discussed in great detail elsewhere. General assessment is that the guy has to show some really good reason why he was required to use deadly force. You can detain people for the cops, but you can't kill them. If they had been breaking into his house that changes, but in most non-insane states breaking into an occupied dwelling allows the use of deadly force to stop them. And if had been at night he it might have been more clearly legit, but he really needs a good lawyer badly to make a self-defense case.

The Texas law on defense of property of others is quite clear. If they were attempting to escape with the loot then he had the legal right to shoot them dead. Moral platitudes aside, the law is the law.

[Method]

And apparently there was a plain clothes cop that witnessed the burglars enter Joe Horn's property and possibly move toward him aggressively until they saw the shotgun, at which point they turned to run as he opened fire.

[hyzmarca]

I love the letter that suggested it might have been acceptable if he'd shot them in the legs.

Of course, by "love", I mean "further lose hope in humanity as a result of".

~J

Of, come on now, don't tell me that you don't love that scene in Terminator 2: Judgment Day where Arnold blasts the security guard in the kneecaps and tells John Conner "He'll live". Why, shooting people in the kneecaps is even a major component in the NES Terminator 2 video game.


You know, really funny thing can happen to turn the tide of a battle and turn bystander shooters to your advantage. If your chasing a victim whom you need to kill, for example, you can just flash a fake badge, proclaim yourself to be an undercover cop, and kill him with impunity. You might even be able to "deputize" a couple of armed bystanders who'd like some excitement in their lives and gain some much needed assistance.

[bibliophile20]

Of, come on now, don't tell me that you don't love that scene in Terminator 2: Judgment Day where Arnold blasts the security guard in the kneecaps and tells John Conner "He'll live". Why, shooting people in the kneecaps is even a major component in the NES Terminator 2 video game.

Or who doesn't love this scene?

[Book pulls out a rifle.]
Book: This should do.
Zoë: Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?
Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

See? kneecaps are not only practical, they're religiously acceptable!

[Wounded Ronin]

I just played that game to(on easy) and it was my first hitman game and i thought it sucked heh. But on to your main point. Those wedding attendee's werent just townfolk or whatever. They were more like familia. They were all part of the crime family the bride's dad and groom were in on. Thats like taking out a mob guy and his boys attacking you. Or messing with a gang and the whole flock descends on you.

They showed up as green rings, as opposed to orange rings, on the map, though. So they're tagged as "civilians" by the game. Also, it really ties in with the "hick" sterotype that the Hitman people seem so preoccupied with. Remember how even Hitman 2 had the hick assassins in the first level where you're supposed to be taking out cult members?

[Angelone]

Oddly enough for me that was one of the easier levels. You can sneak around to the back of the house and shhot the father as he's walking around in the graveyard, from the other side of the water. For the son you just wait in the kitchen and geek him when he enters. Had so much more trouble on most other levels.

In SR the idea is an interesting one but not sure how effectively even a horde of civilians will be able to stop a group of highly trained well armed and armored criminals.

[kzt]

As SR makes impossible the very common situation that lots of really well trained and equipped guys get killed by a lucky punk with a .22 or a rusty AK, that's largely true in SR RAW.

[Kagetenshi]

I don't know about that. The .22 won't do much, as they'll probably have enough Body to soak, but a few people firing 11S bursts at someone will bleed off their combat pool pretty quickly in most cases.

~J

[Fortune]

I've never played Hitman (hell ... I just started playing Deus Ex for the first time a couple of weeks ago). Are they worth getting? And should I get all four?

Also, how close is the movie to the games?

[Stahlseele]

if you wanna sneaky black-ops style killing then yes, the games are well worth their money . . more or less single player practice for runs . . if you don't like that kind of gameplay but want a more assault like style, then hell no, you won't like that game *g*
didn't see the movie, would probably be pretty sweet if vin diesel were playing 47 ^^

[Blade]

In SR4 a .22 can be dangerous in the hands of a lucky punk.

As for the Hitman games, I didn't play that much, but I think that this review explains perfectly what I felt each time.