Metagame issues with character behavior, Likely a touchy subject Options

[Stahlseele]

Good, bad, we're the guys with the Guns. Nothing else to it right?
Also that necromancer? Perfectly done ^^ My groups only hide Tinkertoys from me . .

[StealthSigma]

Breaking the law is Chaotic. Hence the Law--Chaos spectrum in D&D (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Example of Chaotic Good: Robin Hood.

Nah, Robin Hood isn't Chaotic Good, he's Chaotic Neutral. A chaotic good person would still respect the property of another individual, even if he didn't agree with how he acquired it, unless he was obviously evil. Robin Hood is the one character for an alignment example that I think D&D has constantly gotten wrong. His motto "Steal from the rich to give to the poor", is just there to rationalize and justify his actions.

[Mr. Mage]

Good, bad, we're the guys with the Guns. Nothing else to it right?
Also that necromancer? Perfectly done ^^ My groups only hide Tinkertoys from me . .

As if it were quoted right out of "Army of Darkness"

Nah, Robin Hood isn't Chaotic Good, he's Chaotic Neutral. A chaotic good person would still respect the property of another individual, even if he didn't agree with how he acquired it, unless he was obviously evil. Robin Hood is the one character for an alignment example that I think D&D has constantly gotten wrong. His motto "Steal from the rich to give to the poor", is just there to rationalize and justify his actions.

I think that depends on your definition of Good... Good is not exactly synonomous with Respectful. Plenty of "Good" characters, such as the cliched "Stick up the Ass" Paladin are anything but respectful towards others....
And if a "good" character respects other people's properties, then why shouldn't he respect an evil person's property. An obviously evil person might still be a law-abiding person, so it would be the "Good" person who was in the wrong...legally at least...

I'm not saying that Robin Hood is either good or neutral, however, I think that all depends on your own view of things... Though I will say that Robin Hood, no matter his motives, is a character who tends to act for the "good" of the common folk...

[DWC]

I'm not saying that Robin Hood is either good or neutral, however, I think that all depends on your own view of things... Though I will say that Robin Hood, no matter his motives, is a character who tends to act for the "good" of the common folk...

He wasn't acting for the good of the common folk. He was acting for his own good. The thefts weren't about giving to the poor, they were about taking from the legitimate authority, who he happened to have a personal grudge against. Since he had no use for the things he'd stolen, he gave them to the poor in an attempt to buy their favor and ensure he'd have a safe haven to run to. If he hadn't needed a place to hide, and men to support his vendetta, he could just as easily have thrown the stolen loot into the sea, or left the food on the ground for the animals.

[Mr. Mage]

He wasn't acting for the good of the common folk. He was acting for his own good. The thefts weren't about giving to the poor, they were about taking from the legitimate authority, who he happened to have a personal grudge against. Since he had no use for the things he'd stolen, he gave them to the poor in an attempt to buy their favor and ensure he'd have a safe haven to run to. If he hadn't needed a place to hide, and men to support his vendetta, he could just as easily have thrown the stolen loot into the sea, or left the food on the ground for the animals.

As I said, no matter his motives. I realize his motive for giving to the poor were not exactly noble, but the act itself did help out the common folk, whether Robin Hood intended it to or not. He may not have actually wanted to help out the poor, but the end result is pretty damn close...

Maybe "acts for the good of the common folk" was a bad way of phrasing it, maybe I should have said "his actions often help the common folk, despite his riginal goal..."

[LurkerOutThere]

Hello All

I'd bowed out of this thread for a bit mostly due to talking in circles.

First off on acknowledgment. I challenged someone to come up with an amoral Shadowrun protagonist and the Dumpshock Community came through. I am now debating tracking down a copy of Striper. However my rebutal is two fold:
1) One instance in 20 years of material, does not in my opinion overturn my belief that rape/torture/callous murder is outside the norm in the Shadowrunner community. This is further exacerbated remembering that the character in question is a fem fatale shifter wet fantasy of the author.

2. While I didn't read that book I read one of his other books. Stackpole he's not. Knasser even he's not.

It is my personal belief that shadowrunners while criminals are not somehow magically divorced from society as a whole. Extrapolating from current Western values (and obviously this is not applicable if your running your campaign based somewhere else) There is an understand that killing, brutality etc while not the end goal are somewhat the cost of doing business. Sadism for sadism's sake is not. In fact that's one of the best arguments I can make against torture in the Shadowrun universe. There are actually better and more precise ways of getting the same end response.

On playing outside the norm:
Some people, and their usually in my observation male human beings in their late teens to late 20's want to play characters with zero compunctions about the affects of their actions, or even more severely want to play characters who are actively sadistic or "deviant" this is fine as long as it fits the structure of the game. Although it's generally a moot point as I tend to gloss over these details of their more heinous behavior and stand on the disclaimer I have mentioned previously in the thread. But also I have people around them react accordingly, and I never hesitate to tell a person that their actions, good or ill. Have made them unhirable. So far i've "unhirabled" two characters over the years. They were from two completely different ends of the spectrum, one was too "good" for the shadows, he was too picky about his jobs and botched or refused actions because of his devotion to his moral code, and the other because his leisure activities (kidnaping, rape, torture of various flavors) and general infamy reached the point where no one would hire him.

On player VS player combat
Player vs player combat is fine and good if that is the expectation from the get go. However the way I run shadowrun is as a co-operative game, the runners united against challenges I set against them. That's not to say conflicts between characters don't happen and frankly sometimes I engineer them however complicated plots between the players would mess with the flow of the game and I also ask for the players inclusion on this "conspiracy" to keep things from coming to actual bloodshed. It's about managing expectations, surprise bushwhacking other PC's who aren't expecting it isn't "clever" it's showing up to play paintball when everyone else is there for skeet shooting, with much the same kind of response sometime. That's not to say that such games are wrong, just for my part and my groups part for that kind of slapdash kill or be killed antics we go for Diplomacy or Paranoia.


So in other words, i don't run the game world a place where Runner's pop a guys eye out with a spoon to extract them. Such activities have a higher chance of causing "ripples" J's hate ripples.

[Mr. Mage]

On player VS player combat
Player vs player combat is fine and good if that is the expectation from the get go. However the way I run shadowrun is as a co-operative game, the runners united against challenges I set against them. That's not to say conflicts between characters don't happen and frankly sometimes I engineer them however complicated plots between the players would mess with the flow of the game and I also ask for the players inclusion on this "conspiracy" to keep things from coming to actual bloodshed. It's about managing expectations, surprise bushwhacking other PC's who aren't expecting it isn't "clever" it's showing up to play paintball when everyone else is there for skeet shooting, with much the same kind of response sometime. That's not to say that such games are wrong, just for my part and my groups part for that kind of slapdash kill or be killed antics we go for Diplomacy or Paranoia.

I can agree with you on most of these things... Criminals are still people... and aren't always, or even often, sadistic bastards who harm for harm's sake.

On the PVP stuff though....I may not like it, but I tend to accept it as inevitable... One of my current characters really gets on the nerves of everyone else and there has been times when guns have been drawn, ready to fight....usually it gets diffused by a third party, either the members of the team not a part of the specific feud, or by others working for the Johnson.... But of course...it's all in how you play the game....

[Blade]

First off on acknowledgment. I challenged someone to come up with an amoral Shadowrun protagonist and the Dumpshock Community came through. I am now debating tracking down a copy of Striper. However my rebutal is two fold:
1) One instance in 20 years of material, does not in my opinion overturn my belief that rape/torture/callous murder is outside the norm in the Shadowrunner community. This is further exacerbated remembering that the character in question is a fem fatale shifter wet fantasy of the author.

The problem is that if you're using the novels as an indication of the norm, then you should meet an IE every two games, save the world every game, have at least one major NPC in your contacts...

[StealthSigma]

I think that depends on your definition of Good... Good is not exactly synonomous with Respectful. Plenty of "Good" characters, such as the cliched "Stick up the Ass" Paladin are anything but respectful towards others....
And if a "good" character respects other people's properties, then why shouldn't he respect an evil person's property. An obviously evil person might still be a law-abiding person, so it would be the "Good" person who was in the wrong...legally at least...

I'm not saying that Robin Hood is either good or neutral, however, I think that all depends on your own view of things... Though I will say that Robin Hood, no matter his motives, is a character who tends to act for the "good" of the common folk...

Lawful Good is the -hardest- alignment to play properly in the context of a paladin, and paladin is the hardest class to play properly from a role playing perspective. Most paladins AREN'T like Miko Miyazaki from Order of the Stick. That level of fanaticism that generates the "Stick up the Ass" (no pun intended) is in most cases players who act rather brazenly anyway. The problem that most people don't realize is that paladins are supposed to uphold good over the law, they don't fall from grace just for breaking the law. They fall from grace for committing an evil act. If a law is unjust, seek to undue that which is unjust. The only paladins that tend to adhere to lawful more than good are those that worship Lawful Neutral deities, which tend to uphold duty and the law more than goodness like the Lawful Good and Neutral Good deities. The issue is that until 4th edition, paladins were defined as righteous warriors rather than champions of their chosen deity. When you through a specific fleshed out deity at a paladin to follow it becomes a lot easier to figure out the code of conduct. It's actually a lot easier to play a paladin in Forgotten Realms than in core D&D.

[Mr. Mage]

Lawful Good is the -hardest- alignment to play properly in the context of a paladin, and paladin is the hardest class to play properly from a role playing perspective. Most paladins AREN'T like Miko Miyazaki from Order of the Stick. That level of fanaticism that generates the "Stick up the Ass" (no pun intended) is in most cases players who act rather brazenly anyway. The problem that most people don't realize is that paladins are supposed to uphold good over the law, they don't fall from grace just for breaking the law. They fall from grace for committing an evil act. If a law is unjust, seek to undue that which is unjust. The only paladins that tend to adhere to lawful more than good are those that worship Lawful Neutral deities, which tend to uphold duty and the law more than goodness like the Lawful Good and Neutral Good deities. The issue is that until 4th edition, paladins were defined as righteous warriors rather than champions of their chosen deity. When you through a specific fleshed out deity at a paladin to follow it becomes a lot easier to figure out the code of conduct. It's actually a lot easier to play a paladin in Forgotten Realms than in core D&D.

Oh I get that the whole Stick up Ass cliche is just that, a cliche.... I tend to not play paladins mostly because of that stereotype (and because as a class, they don't really appeal to me) I have met some who have played some rather interesting paladins though... including one who would get drunk regularly and have wild parties with his friends...Can't remember his deity though...but it was fitting, as I remember...

[StealthSigma]

Oh I get that the whole Stick up Ass cliche is just that, a cliche.... I tend to not play paladins mostly because of that stereotype (and because as a class, they don't really appeal to me) I have met some who have played some rather interesting paladins though... including one who would get drunk regularly and have wild parties with his friends...Can't remember his deity though...but it was fitting, as I remember...

Using Faerun deities, I would guess Sune. Though technically in Forgotten Realms a paladin doesn't have to be Lawful Good. It doesn't fit Sune exactly, but that description doesn't fit most of the LG and LN deities, and the NG deities tend to be heavily weighted with nature deities, which you wouldn't likely see a paladin worshipping....

But I digress.

Players need to keep their OOC and IC actions separate and distinct.

[Mr. Mage]

I don't think it was Forgotten Realms.... but he was pretty much just a guy who liked fun but still respected the law...
He never really broke the law, or got TOO drunk...but my point was really that not everyone plays a "Stick-Assed" Pally...

[Draco18s]

oops, wrong setting

[Totentanz]

Good and Evil: One of the reasons there is so much conflict and death in this world is that people still can't agree on definitions for these terms. Culture and perspective often have more to do with right and wrong than any objective code. More importantly, human language is fuzzy enough that despite thousands of pages people's individual interpretations still lead to conflict. Religion, politics and the law are all full of examples of different groups disagreeing vehemently on the interpretations of single sentences, even words. Despite cynicism, most of the time those groups are arguing in good faith; they believe what they say.

I always enjoy a good abstract debate, but when it comes to RP'ing I find it distracts from playing the game. The way my group solves this is ultimately the GM of that game adjudicates good and evil, if they even need to come up. We take a little time to discuss the situation, then the GM rules and we move on with the game. Generally if there are major mechanical repercussions (paladin's code I'm looking at YOU), the GM states their interpretation and is expected to give some warnings.


When I GM, I do my best to apply believable consequences to PC actions. That means if the characters take to torturing people but hide it well, something like their Notoriety won't go up. If they are sloppy, they can expect losing some jobs, getting certain others, and probably having to deal with the law and at least one crazed revenge mob. I don't use my position as GM to have the world punish them. If they are making other players uncomfortable it can be addressed OC.

On playing outside the norm:
Some people, and their usually in my observation male human beings in their late teens to late 20's want to play characters with zero compunctions about the affects of their actions, or even more severely want to play characters who are actively sadistic or "deviant" this is fine as long as it fits the structure of the game. Although it's generally a moot point as I tend to gloss over these details of their more heinous behavior and stand on the disclaimer I have mentioned previously in the thread. But also I have people around them react accordingly, and I never hesitate to tell a person that their actions, good or ill. Have made them unhirable. So far i've "unhirabled" two characters over the years. They were from two completely different ends of the spectrum, one was too "good" for the shadows, he was too picky about his jobs and botched or refused actions because of his devotion to his moral code, and the other because his leisure activities (kidnaping, rape, torture of various flavors) and general infamy reached the point where no one would hire him.

I usually shy away from drawing conclusions about a person based on how they like to RP, but I agree there is a tendency among some people to treat the game world as a sandbox. These people are the ones that like to spawn lots of huge weapons in games like GTA and try to wreak as much havoc as possible before they die. That can be fun, to a degree. The problem in RP is that other players often want to enjoy the story and play the game; GM's often dislike this style because it devalues their hard work. Doing off-the-wall, uncharacteristic acts that serve no purpose do a disservice to everyone else at the table. People who derive their fun from making others miserable aren't welcome at my table. I feel there is a distinction between this adolescent crap and playing a character who crosses moral boundaries. The fact that the former is often achieved by doing the latter doesn't render the latter invalid as a play style.

And I, respectfully, have to disagree with your observation about males being the culprits. Two of the three occasions where I as a person became uncomfortable because of mature content in a game were caused by women. Usually guys trying to be "EEEVIL!" results in me chuckling.

[StealthSigma]

And I, respectfully, have to disagree with your observation about males being the culprits. Two of the three occasions where I as a person became uncomfortable because of mature content in a game were caused by women. Usually guys trying to be "EEEVIL!" results in me chuckling.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

[Mr. Mage]

Good and Evil: One of the reasons there is so much conflict and death in this world is that people still can't agree on definitions for these terms. Culture and perspective often have more to do with right and wrong than any objective code. More importantly, human language is fuzzy enough that despite thousands of pages people's individual interpretations still lead to conflict. Religion, politics and the law are all full of examples of different groups disagreeing vehemently on the interpretations of single sentences, even words. Despite cynicism, most of the time those groups are arguing in good faith; they believe what they say.

Which is why I absolutely love games like SR which have no alignment system....too much controversy over Good and Evil

[Totentanz]

Which is why I absolutely love games like SR which have no alignment system....too much controversy over Good and Evil

QFT.

It also leaves game-ruining gumbies out in the cold without the "but I'm Chaotic Neutral" excuse.

[StealthSigma]

QFT.

It also leaves game-ruining gumbies out in the cold without the "but I'm Chaotic Neutral" excuse.

Chaotic Neutral. Players that play their character neutral, but use the chaotic as a reason to ignore any laws they don't like.

[LurkerOutThere]

The problem is that if you're using the novels as an indication of the norm, then you should meet an IE every two games, save the world every game, have at least one major NPC in your contacts...

No the problem is I am using the material as an establishment of the norm. Not this "We shjould do whatever we want because it's cyberpunk and we're all hard core cannibal killers" so I gave the widest net possible, for my oposition to find a counter argument. If I get to disallow the noves based on whether or not their typical of an average runners experience it actually helps my cause more then it hurts it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Totentanz]

Chaotic Neutral. Players that play their character neutral, but use the chaotic as a reason to ignore any laws they don't like.

That is fairly tame compared to some games I've played in and run. Usually CN is a one-stop-shop excuse for insane, asinine, disruptive, stupid actions that nobody else in the group finds enjoyable, or even interesting. Everything from fireballing the village they saved "because I want to," to stealing all the loot from other PCs and then acting surprised and offended when they figure it out. It's a shame, really. The alignment does occupy a real personality niche.

[Mr. Mage]

That is fairly tame compared to some games I've played in and run. Usually CN is a one-stop-shop excuse for insane, asinine, disruptive, stupid actions that nobody else in the group finds enjoyable, or even interesting. Everything from fireballing the village they saved "because I want to," to stealing all the loot from other PCs and then acting surprised and offended when they figure it out. It's a shame, really. The alignment does occupy a real personality niche.

yea...I've seen way to many of these people...

When I play CN characters, which is rare..... I tend to have a character who is selfish and usually thinks about how something could benefit him first...

He's not going to act insane just because I as player want to act insane. Instead, he'll swing around all parts of the spectrum, depending on what has the biggest benefit to him... He tends to not perform as many "evil" acts as he does good, so he occupies the good spectrum more, I suppose, but he is not above performing a minor "evil" action if he believes it will somehow benefit himself or his friends....

I realize some may say that that is closer to True Neutral, but personally, I've always seen TN as someone who prefers to simply not get involved unless s/he is directly threatened... Such as a druid who won't really do anything until his grove is about to be set on fire by someone, at which point the full fury of nature is set upon the little firestarters....

[Critias]

I've played my share of CN characters, but they weren't the zany "woohoo, look at me, I'm so silly!" types. They were Chaotic Selfish, basically. Half-Elf Rogue types that put number one at, well, number one. They weren't actively evil, and they wouldn't go out of their way to be an asshole -- but they weren't (at the start of a campaign) bending over backwards to help other people, giving generously of themselves for the welfare of a community, or anything like that.

[Red-ROM]

I'm also very curious about the poster who made the rather belligerent comment that if someone wants to kill their PC, they'd better talk first because otherwise it'll get ugly. Why would it get ugly? Do you have a problem separating IC and OOC? Because I sometimes wonder if that's what's at the root of this extreme sensitivity to graphic violence at the tabletop. So what if someone wants to kill your character? Why is that going to cause friction between you?
see the difference?

So what if you kill my character?! what are you? the fifth grade bully? what if I want to kill your character too? I die, make a new character and kill your character. Is that fun? I mean, as long as it's in character right? I just happend to make a homicidal maniac. you don't mind do you? That's not going to cause friction between us right? Its just my character thats all...

[Apathy]

I've played my share of CN characters, but they weren't the zany "woohoo, look at me, I'm so silly!" types. They were Chaotic Selfish, basically. Half-Elf Rogue types that put number one at, well, number one. They weren't actively evil, and they wouldn't go out of their way to be an asshole -- but they weren't (at the start of a campaign) bending over backwards to help other people, giving generously of themselves for the welfare of a community, or anything like that.

This brings up an interesting point. Do people percieve selfishness and lack of empathy to be an indication of evil or neutrality? Is a sociopath (arguably a person who always acts in their own best interest without limiting themselves with a conscience or internalization of social conventions) evil? Or just neutral? He wouldn't go out of his way to harm you unless there was some benifit to you. But he'd gladly kill you if he thought it was best for him.

Also, is someone evil based on what they do, or based on their intentions?

[Orcus Blackweath...]

Selfishness has nothing to do with Chaos or evil. A lawful good character can very easily be selfish, and a Chaotic Evil very easily believe in something larger than himself. I frequently think that Robinhood could have fit neatly into CN. He hates the establishment so greatly that he will do everything in his power to bring it down. That has nothing to do with selfishness (although it could be added in if so desired). Has nothing to do with madness, another trait that can be easily added to any alignment. The whole point of the alignment system (thank god Shadowrun does not have it) is to define a general tendency. Chaos is one side of a balance with Order. It can be the good rebel against the evil organization, or the lone terrorist bringing down the establishment not caring who he hurts in the process.

In Shadowrun, you can identify with these different ideals without naming them.

I play an Orc Technomancer. He has a hatred of Humanis policlubs. He hates humanocentric groups, and he is ethnic Chineese with a concurrent hatred of Japan and all that it stands for. He takes great pleasure in using his hacking skills to embarass Humanis, and all of the pro-japan corps whenever he can. So in a sense that is very Chaos oriented. He avoids killing (mostly for professional reasons), which could be construed as being Good. That would be extremely simplistic though to say he is strictly CG. He never pays for his lifestyle, preferring to steal. While some of the time that theft comes at the expense of Mitsuhama, or Humanis, sometimes it is from anyone that he can steal from. Definitely not good. People are much too complicated in real life to be pigeonholed into a single alignment, why should My character be different?