Evil in SR - imbrace chaos, Let the World Burn Options

[torzzzzz]

I like a good baddy just as much as the last person, but is there any truly evil people in Shadow run?

I play a number of games including stuff like 40k (the one with the models) and I have always played chaos in one form or another. Is there scope for this in Shadow Run, I have hurd tell of Toxic mages and so forth but apart form them, are there any really, really bad guys?

It would be interesting to put a totaly chaotic ( in the true sense of the word) character into shadow run and see what happens and how long they last??

torz x :cyber:

[Backgammon]

Well, check out Threats 1 and Threats 2, which contains the collection of the worst baddies from the SR world.

HOWEVER, Shadowrun does well in maintaining that everything is grey, there is no black and white. Even the worst "Evil" people, like maybe Aztech Blood Mages or Winternight, do not believe they are evil. They are acting in what they believe is in someone (usually themselves) best interest. They simply lack the values of compassion and sympathy.

[hermit]

[torzzzzz]

I know it would be good to come up with the concept though I think it could be my next character to go out with a bang in time for SR 4 ??

torz x ;)

[hermit]

Heh. Then again, players can be very understanding, much more tha<n their characters should be, if the chaotic character is fun to play with. A friend of mine once had a Pyromaniac, whom he really played out (a mage, at that, aspected hermetic fire mage pyromaniac, and yes, his name was Pyro). In-Character, we should have blown his head off on the first run, but he was funny, and thuis, eventually retreated from the shadows at 100 Karma, when the player got bored of him. *shrugs*

[Edward]

In 40K chaos is evil. It I a point that makes it almost imposable for me to play a role playing game in the world as nobody can be benevolent and believe in freedom of the individual.

In SR almost every PC is chaotic to a greater or lessor extent, at least as D&D would define it. All shadow runners work outside the system and break laws. Food fight is the only run you can get threw without being guilty of a crime and everyone I have seen play it had 3 counts before they got in the store. Loan star (the enforcement of the law) is seen as something to be avoided at all costs.

Running teams rarely operate as well organised units and I have never seen a clear chain of command. Even when it is agreed who will negotiate I hav seen runners interrupt and spoil the negotiations. Although runners may individually have a code of ethics they are frequently ignored when not convenient or so loosely defined as to be immaterial. “I never double cross an employer unless they set me up or give me bad or incomplete information”

So what do you mean when you say chaotic.

Random is never fun, I have never managed to go more than an hour playing time without killing a character that acts randomly.

Every person has a code of behaviour even if they don’t understand it (in fact most people don’t understand the limits on there behaviour).

Edward

[torzzzzz]

[TeOdio]

Real life has plenty of examples of what "real" evil is. Since the dawn of organized societal constraints, murder has always been considered one of the most heinous of acts, especially pre meditated murder. Evil can even consume a people in a mob mentality sort of way, like the rise of Fascism and Racism in the early 20th century. We all have our limits of where the line is crossed, but in truth, evil pervades every segment of our society. In Shadowrun it is even worse. Acting "good" is putting others before yourself. Acting "evil" is putting yourself before others, whether it is acting out violent fantasies on the defenseless at one end of the spectrum or merely turning a blind eye to injustice because you don't want to risk having harm come to you. Most of the major NPCs and Players in Shadowrun do not act with very altruistic motives. Yet, they all have something tugging at them saying, this might not be right. I doubt the Invae or the Corrupt have a conscience at all. Can you NOT be evil in Shadowrun? It's hard but as a great philosopher once wrote, the more virtuous man is the one that wants to commit the sin, but doesn't because he knows it is wrong, even more virtuous than the man that never wanted to commit the sin in the first place.
:nuyen: :nuyen: :nuyen:

[Fygg Nuuton]

unless you can prove there is a benevolent force at work in the world, there is no such thing as evil

its just a proverbial finger people like to point at each other

bin laden is evil, sadam is evil, the pope is evil, hitler is evil. these are all common but incorrect, they all did what they found to be right.

[Da9iel]

You can't say "sin." That's not politically correct!

Fygg: Is that like saying, "Unless you can show me a true vaccuum, there is no such thing as mass/energy?"

[Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*]

[Fygg Nuuton]

you can't be evil if you believe what you are doing is right

and without a benevolent force there is no ultimate evil.

[Da9iel]

You sure can be evil even if you believe you are doing right. That's why vigilantes are arrested and tried. It's wrong. Mind you, this is coming from someone who believes in moral absolutes. If you don't believe in moral absolutes, there is no common ground on which to discuss evil.

[shadow_scholar]

The concepts of "good" and "evil" depend entirely on your morality, on your standards. When you burn right down to the core you judge how you see these "good" and "evil" entities because, in their minds, both think they are righteous. Any labels of "good" or "evil" applied to them are placed there by you.

[Da9iel]

As the honorable Reverend Doctor Jesse Jackson put it, "Common ground. Common ground. Common ground." We don't have it.

I don't claim to know everything that is good and everything that is evil, but I do believe good and evil are independent of point of view. They are not dependent on your morality.

[Fortune]

Damn right they are subjective. Very very few people view their actions as 'evil', no matter what those actions may actually be. The ones that do view their actions as evil, and do them anyway are usually insane.

[Da9iel]

"There are absolutely no absolutes!"

I have intentionally lied in the past. I knew it was wrong. I did it anyway. Why? Am I insane (based on intentional lying)?

It is my contention that subjective morals are no morals at all. Others in this thread have said as much. If you are going to use the words "moral" and "evil," either deny their existence or understand that there is a right and wrong.

[Fortune]

[Da9iel]

Wrongdoing is evil. It can range from what many consider an extremely mild--even excusable evil to full-on balls-to-the-walls genocide type evil.

"Usually" "very few"

Everyone I know has done something they know is wrong. Maybe it felt good, maybe it benefitted them some other way. If a man says he has never done something that he knew was wrong, he is insane (or has poor memory).

edit: The problem usually comes when someone has to turn the finger at themselves and admit his or her own evil nature.

[Fortune]

[Da9iel]

No, our understanding of evil is subjective, but evil itself is not. I'll leave it at that and say no more. This is quickly turning into an "IS NOT" "IS TOO" argument, as it always does. Thank you for your views, all.

[Fortune]

Fair enough. :)

[Crimson Jack]

If everyone claims that the object sitting on the table is an apple, but you see an orange, what does it make it? You feel it, smell and taste it, and by all accounts it is an orange. Yet everyone else tells you that it clearly is an apple.

Does the object change due to the understanding of its nature by the viewer? I say no. Only our interpretations of things change.

[Edward]

Remember that the definition of what is evil has changed over time.

It is true murder has always been considered evil but what justifies the killing of a man has changed.

In the past killing somebody because they killed (or even just injured) a family member was considered justified. Today most countries would charge you with murder for that.

Being insane is now a defence for murder but not so long ago you would have been considered evil because you where insane.

200 years ago petty theft was considered such a terrible act that the penalty was death and it was only the benevolence of the magistrate and the state that meant the penalty was often reduced to spending the rest of your life in hard labour with inadequate food. Some may not have seen this as right but no more was said against it than is now about the fact that crimes robbery (that dose no physical harm to a person) carys 3 times the sentence of common assault (that could leave a person in hospital but doing no permanent harm). (that is the case in Australia now)

If we bring religious beliefs and superstition into the decision of what is evil things get even more complicated.

At various points in time from various points of view every religious and political believe has been considered evil. I especially like those points where atheists are accused of devil worship considering that like god they do not believe in the existence of the devil.

Being left handed has been considered a sign of evil, as has any birth defect or mental illness. Sex outside of marriage, eating the flesh of a pig.

And recently we have decided that it is evil to forbid a religion (only a few hundred years ago failing to try and convert the heathens was allowing evil to persist), it is evil to discriminate against somebody based on there race or sex, although the very laws that protect races seen as being in a lower position now do discriminate. In the past it was expected that you would preferentially hire somebody from your extended family, religious group or social circle (in that order). Slavery in all forms is now considered evil where historically slavery was not uncommon (although historically slaves where better treated than they where before the American civile war and given considerable legal rights, a point that makes historical accuracy in D&D imposable as few understand it)

I wish I could know what standards we hold today that will be scoffed at in 200 years. It would be amusing.

Edward

[Crimson Jack]

Considering the definition of evil,