[X] My Assistant

[hermit]

Irion

Killing might be self defance etc. etc. etc. Murder is defined a bit stricter.

Well, that depends on a whole lot of things, not least perception of the defendant (is it a handgun, or merely a screwdriver?), skin colour of perpetrator, victim, and jury. That is to say, the difference between one act of intended killing is highly subjective and completely arbitrary.

If somebody killed his wife he ran out of wifes to kill a time. The question is, if he would do it the same way again?

The question is rather, does he have another wife that did/owns whatever made him murder the first missus? And if a woman (or a guy for that matter) murders the man who raped her/him a year ago, does that mean she'd do it again, and what would it say about her?

Well, and most of them need pschological care to deal with what they did and saw.

Only the post-Vietnam generation got care. Oddly enough, things did not spiral totally out of control before, with a generation who had seen (and done) things nobody before or after had to.

CanRay

Surprisingly, the one whose religion involves killing your enemies has a Masters Degree in Business Ethics.

Which religion doesn't?

All my characters have their limits. Most are in the "Yeah, I'll kill someone, it's the job" category.

My characters never are pacifists, but most, save for the sprawl gangbanger, are in the "kill only when really necessary, otherwise it's too much of a hassle" camp.

It's all about the individual and their own moralistic code.

And their willingness to take risks.

Don't forget Twist, the infamous Pacifistic Shadowrunner who only carried a Narcojet Pistol. Yes yes, not everyone likes him, but he's cannon and a good character in a lot of ways.

And a right bastard ith the ladies, dumping Chung like he did for your average elf slut (if he were a PC in my group, he'd permanently lose a magic point for that, because DOG man, not rat!). But yeah, he shows how a pacifist can work in the shadows.

Stick'n'shock (in SR2 terms: the Yamaha Pulsar taser) still trumps Narcojet big time.

[CanRay]

There are soldiers who come back from war and never kill again (and those who keep killing to be fair).

Well, and most of them need pschological care to deal with what they did and saw.

There used to be Sanitariums filled with old soldiers that are no longer around. Also, how many of them came home and were "Quiet" in the violence they did? Look for long sleeves and lots of make-up in the '50s and '60s. Things just weren't talked about then. We're willing now, which changes perceptions. They still happened, just that no one "Knew" about them.

I know quite a few tales (I collect them from Vets and families of Vets for some reason beyond my understanding. I guess someone has to remember...) about what happened when they came home: One tale was that a WWII Commando came home, quietly buried his combat dagger in the back yard, and vehemently told his entire family that it was to *NEVER* be dug up again, or asked about. Ever. He could also fall down stairs, completely stone drunk, and not make a single sound.

That's just one.

Of course, there's also the stories I have of soldiers who came home, and had happy, productive lives, and were victims of muggings. Well, I should say the mugger was the victim in this case, but I don't feel sorry for the bastard at all.

[CanRay]

*Headdesk* I can't believe that I haven't thought of this before...

The Original "Gone In 60 Seconds" scene with the car full of Heroin! The protagonist burned it because that's not his gig, stealing cars is. The insurance pays for replacement after all.

[suoq]

Only the post-Vietnam generation got care. Oddly enough, things did not spiral totally out of control before, with a generation who had seen (and done) things nobody before or after had to.

Correction for accuracy. From http://www.omaha.com/article/20110530/NEWS01/705309919 , an article about 3 WWII vets.

They talk about everything except the war.

“Sam went through hell,” Claudio says later, by way of explanation. “Rich went through hell. I had it the easiest. . . . All I had to do was see a (military) psychiatrist for a while.

Edit: Just find this. Taking the kids to the pool so I'll finish watching it later. - Shades of Gray: Treatment of Mental Disorders in WWII Documentary (1947)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjKJq9KMuVM Looks fascinating.

Back to the topic....

[HeckfyEx]

another jumped a bunch of insect spirits to save whatever poor soul they had caught, and now have an orphan ork girl in their hideout :\

Considering that this orkish girl was a high point of one extremely botched session we feel tha we were justified in saving her.

[hermit]

Correction for accuracy. From http://www.omaha.com/article/20110530/NEWS01/705309919 , an article about 3 WWII vets.

Well, my grandparents arguably saw (and did) worse things. But psychological treatment wasn't necessary, and certainly unavailable to Nonamericans. Didn't know this goes as far back with the US armed forces though.

Also, that bomber gun crewman. Ouch. Lucky him he wasn't burned alive, because that also happened.

[Irion]

@hermit

Oddly enough, things did not spiral totally out of control before, with a generation who had seen (and done) things nobody before or after had to.

Of course not. Things do not tend to spiral out of control, if you have ruined the life of a few tausend people.

That is to say, the difference between one act of intended killing is highly subjective and completely arbitrary.

Thats just wrong.

And if a woman (or a guy for that matter) murders the man who raped her/him a year ago, does that mean she'd do it again, and what would it say about her?

The same you may say about the character of everbody if you limit your self to a single fact.

[hermit]

Of course not. Things do not tend to spiral out of control, if you have ruined the life of a few tausend people.

Some of the most appaling mass murderers went to live perfectly calm, murder-free lives when they had to. Mengele, Pol Pot, several italian Mafiosi ... so yes, it's perfectly possible.

That is to say, the difference between one act of intended killing is highly subjective and completely arbitrary.

Thats just wrong.

Because?

[LurkerOutThere]

That is to say, the difference between one act of intended killing is highly subjective and completely arbitrary.

Thats just wrong.

No it's more or less accurate, shades of gray quite common. The only absolute distinctions come from a religious or personal belief level and are hardly univsersal. I'm sorry you can't recognize any belief but your own as possible, but there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Irion]

@hermit

Because?

Murder is defined quite precise.

Some of the most appaling mass murderers went to live perfectly calm, murder-free lives when they had to. Mengele, Pol Pot, several italian Mafiosi ... so yes, it's perfectly possible.

So? Even the worst pschopath is comittting no murder in isolation.
What should Mengele do?
Kidnap people to conduct medical experiments?

And if you look at his writings from his final days, there is no doubt, that he would have done it again given the possibility.

If they would have been acting only on impulses, they would not even be guilty of anything. (Mentally insane)
Of course there is no reason for a sociopath to kill someone if they do not have a reason. Thats self explaining.
Does not mean they would not have done so, if given the chance.
Mengele and Pol Pot did not step down, they were chased from their position.
If Mengele had seen a way to resurrect the theird reich, he would probably have done so.

[hermit]

Murder is defined quite precise.

The states' definition of murder is irrelevant in any other juristiction (lots don't differ between degrees, some exempt certain motives, ect).

So? Even the worst pschopath is comittting no murder in isolation.
What should Mengele do?
Kidnap people to conduct medical experiments?

And if you look at his writings from his final days, there is no doubt, that he would have done it again given the possibility.

So by your own reasoning, he should have, because he did not repent.

Are you, then, saying that it does not need repentance and insight into one's "evil" deeds, but only a conceivable reason not to, even if they remain the same nasty customers? If so, glad you agree with me.

[redwulf25]

Not killing people for the lulz pays, IMO. As does not dealing in large quantites of drugs, which only pisses off an important part of the underworld whose business you are just interfering with.

That's why you sell the drugs to them. Then they mark them up to street value and sell them through their normal channels.

[Yerameyahu]

TLDR, but I wasn't saying SR4 doesn't offer lots of nonlethal options. I was saying that using those options, along with evacuation, etc., is inherently *harder* than just blowing up the building. It takes longer, it takes more skill, it exposes them to greater risks and points of failure, and so on and on. It has nothing to do with destroying the drugs or not (in the situation I've outlined, anyway), because the default is destroy everything in the first place. If they'd chosen 'evil' (greed, anyway), and tried to steal the drugs, that would still be harder than simply blowing the building.

Therefore, the fact that they were able to choose this harder path is only because the run wasn't too difficult to stop them from choosing it, see? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 'Good' is what you do when you have the luxury of a choice.

[hermit]

That's why you sell the drugs to them. Then they mark them up to street value and sell them through their normal channels.

That's bound to make the guys whom they usually get their drugs from incredibly happy.

I was saying that using those options, along with evacuation, etc., is inherently *harder* than just blowing up the building. It takes longer, it takes more skill, it exposes them to greater risks and points of failure, and so on and on.

What does SR4 say happens on a normal glitch with explosives?

Also, it may be faster, but it's not necessarily easier. Rigging up a building to be thoroughly destroyed usually requires more than one bomb in more than one place inside said building. Otherwise you punch a hole in the Jazz factory and rought up the people in it a bit, and that's that.

[Yerameyahu]

There's no rigging. The OP said 'throw grenades and send fire spirit'. I give them the benefit of the doubt that it's enough grenades and enough spirit, and a small enough building, yadda yadda. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's not the point. The point is carefully saving all the 'civilians' (apparently the bikers are Marines) is harder than not doing it, so the only way it's an option is if the bikers aren't numerous or dangerous enough. I'm just saying: if they were scarier, the team couldn't do the run the happy clean way. That's all.

[hermit]

If the bikers were heavily fortified Marines, you mean? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

They could just have gone in and blasted everyone with SnS. Grenades are totally killer in SR4 because War! fails both logic and common sense forever, but the Fire Spirit will already cost them a few grand ... so it'S probably not that much cheaper. Barring one of them gets shot up, it'S either a couple clips SnS each, or several grenades and a bound spirit.

[James McMurray]

Why bound? Summoned works just fine, and you can get it at higher Force since it's resistance roll is lower.

[Yerameyahu]

hermit, certainly those options exist. I didn't and wouldn't say they don't. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm saying that the ability to abort from a 'straight destruction' plan to a 'save hostages and nonlethal takedown' plan only exists because the team was already well beyond the required power level; because the encounter was weak, they had the luxury of the complex plan.

And I meant more like, 'if the bikers were more numerous, tougher, etc.'.

[hermit]

I'm saying that the ability to abort from a 'straight destruction' plan to a 'save hostages and nonlethal takedown' plan only exists because the team was already well beyond the required power level; because the encounter was weak, they had the luxury of the complex plan.

Personally, I think the ability to wreck the place utterly with their ressources instead of going in and getting themselves dirty is the luxury. As you say, well above power level.

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug* Possibly. There are many factors. I'm not going to have us waste more space on my little side point, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Ascalaphus]

HE grenades cost 45 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) apiece. They can be detonated through a wireless signal. Just get them to open the door, a spirit chugs a shoebox full of them in, hacker presses a button on his commlink. Boom.

Blowing something up isn't all that hard nor is it all that expensive. A building without serious perimeter defenses is easy to destroy.

---

Brute firepower in SR is fairly cheap and fairly available. An operation without collateral damage is generally harder.

[Irion]

@hermit

Are you, then, saying that it does not need repentance and insight into one's "evil" deeds, but only a conceivable reason not to, even if they remain the same nasty customers? If so, glad you agree with me.

Yeah. No motive and no possibility. Right so they did not commit crimes.
(Pol Pot were sentanced to prison by the way)

@Yerameyahu

There's no rigging. The OP said 'throw grenades and send fire spirit'. I give them the benefit of the doubt that it's enough grenades and enough spirit. smile.gif That's not the point. The point is carefully saving all the 'civilians' (apparently the bikers are Marines) is harder than not doing it, so the only way it's an option is if the bikers aren't numerous or dangerous enough. I'm just saying, if they were scarier, they couldn't do the run the happy clean way. That's all.

Well, it depends. Non lethal methodes are just far more effective than lethal ones.
You shoot at someone, he will shoot back. You use your squirt gun, he goes down.
First one alarms the gang, second is a silent takedown.

[CanRay]

If the bikers were heavily fortified Marines, you mean? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Some of them are. I've seen a few "Biker Bars" that were heavily entrenched. (And this was early in my RPGing/Militaria life, I barely knew what to look for!). And a number of them are former military. That's how Motorcycle Clubs started for the most part.

Of course, the place I saw had to deal with a larger, more organized, more heavily armed force that was trying to rule the crime in the streets. Two guesses who they were, and the first two don't count.

[Yerameyahu]

It's not lethal vs. nonlethal. It's general vs. selective. Selective is harder, that's all there is to it.

[hermit]

Some of them are. I've seen a few "Biker Bars" that were heavily entrenched. (And this was early in my RPGing/Militaria life, I barely knew what to look for!). And a number of them are former military. That's how Motorcycle Clubs started for the most part.

Yeah, I know.Hell's Angels over here had a fight with the cops a few years back where they used RPGs. Didn't do them much good, of course, but damn, RPGs! It's biker wars here anyway. Banditos, Hell's Angels and since recently a predominantly immigrant/turk outfit named Mongols. They could at least have called themselves Huns ...

Of course, the place I saw had to deal with a larger, more organized, more heavily armed force that was trying to rule the crime in the streets. Two guesses who they were, and the first two don't count.

See above? ^_^

Yeah. No motive and no possibility. Right so they did not commit crimes.
(Pol Pot were sentanced to prison by the way)

Yeah, and Mengele assassinated. Still, in the time between their apture/death and running off they did not revert to their old ways. That's the point.