Reading through The Code, I am reminded of a great post by Kage entitled Shadowrunners, Bystanders, Security, and You, which dealt with a similar (if not the same) topic.

Reading through it again, and after looking through various posters' "Codes", I began to think about the more virtuous (for a criminal anyways) and honorable ones. Now maybe it is just me, but I believe you judge a man not on a good day, but on a bad day and as good as the "codes" sound, I can't help but feel that they only last up until the running gunfight through Global Village Eatery before getting thrown out the window.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Maybe it's just the players in my group? When have your characters stuck to their honor even when the sh*t hit the fan (detailed stories would be great here)?

tough one to answer, at least for my main character. his only 'code of ethics', or whatever, is that he is a professional. if he accepts a contract, he will by god complete that contract. that said, he's not going to accept a contract to burn down an orphanage with all occupants inside, or anything--but dumping 200 doses of gamma-anthrax in an isolated corporate research facility's water supply is something he's done in pursuit of the job.

that said? he's got family. all that crap about professionalism and not letting it become personal and whatever, all that will go out the window if his family is involved. so i guess it basically is just lip service.

my other characters... well, one of them took a job to kill a bunch of refugees from the Tir hiding out in Tarislar, including moms and kids. she has come to regret the decision--she's still a hardass bitch, but she's found a line she's not willingly going to cross again. one of them is basically a serial killer masquerading (to herself, at least) as a vigilante/hitman--her 'code' is, she only kills people who deserve it, but she actively hunts those down. one is an ex-Azzie blood mage; there isn't much he wouldn't do, but he really likes taking blood mages down.

in general, none of my characters are going to think twice about killing a secguard. most of them won't go out of their way, or anything, unless the job calls for it.

Business is bad, so I'm offering an extra-special deal—if you buy 50 Orphanage Burnings in advance, you get 10% off the lot of them (plus the usual discounts)!

~J

I, and consequently my PCs, am (are) quite fond of efficiency. The way they move, dress, act, communicate, and so on are done with an emphasis on getting whatever they have to do done as quickly and effortlessly as possible. To this end, it usually becomes unnecessary to amass casualties unless that is the task at hand, and it's easier to just stealth (physically or socially) their way in and out. But they do their jobs without regard to the moral consequences, whether that means killing a witness/bait during a hit, or provoking a chip-addled, bloodthirsty merc into saying something he shouldn't while he's trying to kill them, or shooting an extractee in the head with a gel round while they're stopped at an intersection. Damn the moral consequences and just get the job done and don't get caught.

Honor, it seems to me, is about doing what you know (believe) is right. Which is how two people can recognize each other as "honorable" and still want to kill each other. They just know they have different ideas of what's right.

Anyway, what's right to me, and to most sane people I think, is to recognize your limits, including self control. So I (or usually my character) recognize that I might go into a situation where I lose my head and do something that violates my personal code/morals/ethics. But the right thing to do is avoid it if I can, and learn from it if it happens. So there's the honor in it. Likewise, it would be dishonorable to deny that you can make a simple mistake and break your "code."

Or to put it another way, there is honor in recognizing that one has been dishonorable and owning up to it. I expect that you military folks know what I'm talking about. True evil lies not in the commission of villainy, but in the denial of it. Jungian psychology and all that. A code and honor are not the same thing. A code is an ideal. Honor is a choice to strive to that ideal.

FrostyNSO, I like the comment about judging a man on a bad day. Reminds me of another one I heard: "Crisis does not build character, it reveals it."

Katklaw would keep his word to do a run, and frag anyone who gets in the way of doing so.

He'll kill folks for the hell of it, if it won't jeapordize himself or the mission he's on. Considering that he's a sniper who lives in an underground bunker with Luxury security, that typically means killing small-time criminals from half a kilometer away with his sniper rifle.

Heh... It's easy to have integrity when it's not your life at risk, but Blake (the street sam whose "code" I wrote up) has actually been very good at sticking to his guns. Lessee, examples...

1. Loyalty to friends:

While trying to leave Bug City, we got stopped at a Knight Errant roadblock. Our rigger ended up getting shot with a ton of narcojet (before we took down the cops) and was dying - and to make things worse, was still jacked in, so couldn't be unplugged without doing a ton more damage due to dumpshock. Blake spent his entire Karma pool - despite the the fact the clock was ticking on police reinforcements - getting the rigger stabilized and unhooked without killing her, allowing us all to get out of there. If he hadn't been able to get her unhooked, plan B would have been to check the police cars for towing cables. Plan C was an armed stand-off to the death using a couple of KE guys we captured alive as hostages.

He then led a charge against a group of 8-10 wasp spirits that were blocking us from getting the wounded rigger to a safe house (and medical aid we hoped to find there) run by a friend of hers - had to soak D damage three or four times in the process.

After it was described several times by our awakened group members how bad a background count it had, and how many weird spirits swarmed around it, he volunteered to go into a UB building with a near-suicidal fox shifter PC anyway, because he didn't like the idea of anyone going in there alone.

He went - "undercover" and very lightly armed - into a building containing around 20 armed thugs and a magician of unknown ability in order to try to help out an NPC friend of his.

2. Avoiding needles killing / being reasonable (but going all-out when necessary):

He got out of an armored van and intimidated a group of about 12-15 gangers that were blocking our way into pissing off, when we could have instead hosed them down with a turret-mounted MMG at no risk to ourselves. (Bug City, again - no law enforcement)

When robbing a Stuffer Shack (Bug City, yet again... Got to get food and batteries somewhere) he risked getting shot by a clerk with a shotgun in order to talk her into giving him the gun (though he could have killed or knocked her out several times over), then gave it back to her before leaving so she wouldn't be left defenseless if someone less civilized came around. (since he figured he had no right to hurt some innocent just because it'd be convenient)

He beat the crap out of a magician that had tried to hold the life of one of the other party members hostage, then pushed him face-first into a burning block of thermite and held him in place until he stopped screaming. (the thermite had been used in a prvious round to take care of the magician's massively regenerating cohort)

And the really screwed up thing is - the rigger he's taken some of those risks for is Kagetenshi's (potentially) orphanage-burning character. Though Kage either puts up a tougher front on DS than his character maintains in reality, or he's just good at hiding the character's true nature, so as not to alienate convenient honorable suckers.

I think "Honor" in shadowrun is going to be something that is uniquely defined by any runner. Everyone has some kind of personal code. Some are rational, while others are inconsistent or hypocritical. Some are highly moral, while others are coldly mercenary. Some are rigid, while others can be very flexible. The telling moment for all of them is when stress is introduced.

I semi-agree with mmu1. It is easier to play an honorable character than to be honorable in real life. But part of the fun of the game is playing characters who are able to do such things. It's not just playing someone capable of casting spells or firing a submachine gun at lightning speed. It's playing someone who can do things that you would like to do yourself, but don't because of propriety, consequences that would overshadow the momentary satisfaction, and so on. Part of that can be shooting things up and causing havoc, but part of it is doggedly doing the right thing, even when you are risking your imaginary character's life.

But the stress factor is still there, unless you have no attachment to your character at all, or have no ability to get into the character's head when he is offered a choice between breaking his code and gaining wealth or power, or avoiding death or injury. And breaking a code isn't always a bad thing, either. Sometimes the character will have to choose between a point of honor and a more important matter of principle. Sometimes the character's honor will change as the character grows. And sometimes having your character struggle to rationalize breaking his code of honor can lead to some great roleplaying moments.

Each runner is a different kind of beast. You're going to see the normal variation of codes and following of said codes as you would amongst any given group.

I'd say in principle there have got to be some NPCs who are super honorable, since that's an axiom of the 80s.

Yeah, and the white guy who is more "honorable" than the japanese dudes he works with.

For me it depends on how you define honor as to what it means.

The Shadows themselves are an almost pure Shame Culture. Hence, your rep is what is important. Nothing on this side is internal. Why do you try not to lie? Because if you are known for being honest then other people will take you at your word. It doesn't matter whether your character does it because lying is wrong or because he has to keep up his "Face" in the Japanese sense or his "Dignitas" in the Roman sense. Why do you try like hell to complete a contract? Because if you are known for pulling a run from the shit heap then that helps your Rep. These are all Shame Culture notions. Actions are done publicly for a positive public result. It doesn't really have anything to do with morality. You could have an awesome rep for honesty but you could be lying sack of crap. It's just that you killed all those people you lied to.

Now Runners in the Americas would also have nearly two thousand years of Sin Culture notions influcing them if they were raised in a normal Western environment. This is the whole internal moral thing. Why don't I lie? Because it's a sin. Why do I complete contracts? Because I gave my word. This where guilt could play a factor. You could be a very moral runner but have a shit rep because your rep is in the crapper.

So to answer the question is there honor in the Shadows? Yes and no. But since when was anything ever cut and dry, black and white especially in a world like SR?

mmu1 had some goodies in there, sounds like a fun couple of characters

Aside from that, the recurring theme seems to be, "I get the job done." Now I understand the concept of a code being an ideal, and honor being the willingness to strive for that ideal.

Many codes in the other thread also mentioned completing the job. This isn't just a way to carry one's self when running the shadows, at the same time, it's a meal ticket. Very rarely is it not in the best interest of the runner! Not very hard to wanna strive for that, is it? In fact, I think it's very fitting to the Shadowrun setting.

In the Corporate Punishment run that involved being double-crossed in the Tir, the characters I was GMing for had a cross-town running gun battle with the Ghosts. When the van they were in got wrecked, they busted into the nearest building for cover. It happened to be a bank.

The troll (a ganger-turned-bouncer-turned-runner) took a kid hostage, because the last thing he felt they needed at the time was the bank guards shooting at them, too.

Another character, a former UCAS Army sniper, who was behind the hostage-taking troll, warned the troll not to do it. The troll proceeded and was then shot by the other character.

The sniper had showed no compunctions about killing anyone else (including, on one memorable occasion, an old lady, who he shot and left wounded out in the Barrens), but drew the line at taking underage hostages, apparently.

The resulting in-party shootout (with the Ghosts closing in and the bank guards fumbling around with their guns) nearly cost everyone their lives.

Did the Troll know how far the sniper was willing to go?

The Code??? Mmmm well it has to change because of situations always change too.
**pulls out Hair**

It's a sweeping generalization, of course. But in my figuring, most people who have a code find themselves on their bad day either breaking it or dead. Funny coincidence really, it's a lot like how most people who have an allergy find themselves paid in that particular substance.

I wrote "other" because there was no answer for "depends" I think tit is the difference between the top flight runners (yes)and the bulk (until things get bad) and street meat (hell no.)

To use "Hawk" from the Spencer Serries of books and TV show, the stereotypical Street Samurai and definately a grade A player (if you'ver read the books you know how connected he is.) He would can be relied on to keep his word and honor. Against another "player" he would be merciless, but not cruel. But he would not harm a "civilian."

With regards to the troll, no, I'm not sure that he knew the sniper was quite that serious. I think the exact warning the sniper gave was "No, man, we're not doing this." when the troll's player declared what he was going to do. The troll's player shrugged and said he was proceeding to grab the hostage.

They'd done a couple other runs before, but neither had anywhere near the amount of crap hitting the fan that the Corporate Punishment run features. So, yes, I think that it probably was a big surprise to the troll.

Did the rest of the team kill the sniper and then take hostages, I hope?

~J

The rest of the team was kind of standing in the doorway, shooting at the Ghosts outside. They didn't actually know anything was really going on until the shooting started. They turned around to see the sniper holding a smoking gun over the troll (S damage, knockdown).

One of the others immediately shot at the sniper (figuring, I think, that this was another stage of the double-cross) but missed. The troll tried to shoot the sniper but missed, and the sniper split his shots, one at a guard and the other at the troll, to finish him off. He then took cover from the rest of the team.

The other person shooting at him kept shooting, but never inflicted any damage, while the sniper kept trying unsuccessfully to take down the other bank guard. He was yelling the whole time that the troll was going to take a kid hostage, but nobody was listening until the other person at the door got seriously damaged by the Ghosts. Then the party decided that they needed to work their differences out peacefully.

So no, sorry. I think the rest of them didn't really think that the Tir Ghosts were going to worry much about any hostages.

Generally, killing your own teammate is a big no-no. It doesn't foster the trust requrired for a successful run. In combat you are trusting your teammates with your life and vica-versa. Someone who has already shot one teammate in the back isn't going to get much trust. The only exception is if he insults a Great Dragon, then you should splatter his brains on the walls, politely apoligize for the mess, and offer to clean it up.

The troll had less history with the group than the sniper did.

I answered "Lip Service" because frankly I find the notion of a "Code Of Honor" for people who by definition do immoral things for money to be laughable. Consider the following flaws:

• Compassionate
• Pacifist/Total Pacifist
• Gunslinger's Code

These are listed as flaws because they will get in the way of completing your mission. They are a hinderance to you, otherwise they are not worth the points. The same is true for morality. Find a different line of work, or most likely you will be devoured by those who do not posess these hang-ups, and are thus more efficient and capable at their jobs.

"The Code" is there for two reason: to allow murderers and criminals to work together in order to get paid and to let you sleep at night (different parts apply to different reasons, not killing teammates works towards getting paid, not killing innocents works towards a good night's sleep). In order for the arrangement to continue, you all have to obey the code. However, everyone has a point at which they will break their code (you may not have found it yet, but it's there). Sure, you won't kill innocents, but what happens when Darke (or some suitably "bad" person) is standing in the middle of 20 innocents, preparing to complete a ritual to open the world to unspeakable Horrors, and all you have left is a frag grenade?

You obey The Code to stay in business (although business is certainly still good for those that don't obey the code, they just get the wetwork and structure hit jobs, not the stealth/bodyguarding jobs), and you hope it never comes to the point where you break it.

No kidding.

Really though, organized crime does not work unless there is a certain amount of trust and respect.

That is the baseline code that even crazy sams that whack kids who get in the way must follow, or else they have no work to pay for their kid killing cyberware.

It is not so much a moral thing in the traditional sense. The streets of the sixth world have their own views of morals.

That just shows that they're wrong.

~J

"When in doubt, I'm right."

When the whole team is in danger, you do not shoot a teammate if he does something you don't like. Priority one should be getting the team out together and alive. If a teammate does something you don't approve of, you take up issue with him after you're all away and safe. The middle of a gunfight is no place to be doing that crap.

All in all, the sniper was completely unprofessional in doing what he did, and not justified in any way considering the situation.

Appearantly the remaining characters didn't care that the sniper had no regard for their safety, and would shoot a teammate because he "didn't like" what he was doing.

It is easy to imagine circumstances when one must disregard "What Is Right" and focus on "What Is Less Wrong." Probably happens to most of us at some point IRL, as well. In my opinion, what seperates civilized, decent behaviour from scum is recognizing that you have had to choose "What Is Less Wrong" instead of trying to justify it as "What Is Right."

I have played and seen both ends of the spectrum.
The different lines that your characters perspectives draws in the moral sand is part of their personality. What makes them them.
That is what makes playing characters interesting, a perspective that is not your own and working through it.
How the rest of society, straight and shadowy, sees it is a matter of common concensus. Specifically the interpretation of ettiquete and circumstance.
Hell in any game there's two codes in tandem, the character's consensus and then the players consensus.
So I am proposing option D. All of the above.

(It is better to be loved but of the two, fear is more dependable. So a Prince should aspire to be feared.)?

Talked to the sniper's player today about the discussion. He said that he had couple of reasons for what he did:

1. He didn't want the kid getting hurt (and resolved this by throwing lead in that direction?!?). No mention of any code about not harming kids. It never came up in any other run.

2. Thought that hostage-taking was going to get them into even more trouble (though, as FrostyNSO points out, there wasn't much more trouble they could get into at this point; it sure didn't look like the Ghosts were planning on taking prisoners).

3. Ultimately believed that as a hostage, the kid was gonna be a goner because he thought the Ghosts would just gun everyone down and blame the death of the kid on the hostage-takers (incidentally, this WAS how I planned to deal with any hostage-taking situation; blame any civilian casualties on those no-good terrorist shadowrunners).

This begged the question; why DID the troll have to die? He said that he'd already tried to tell him to stop, he didn't, and he didn't have the time to keep talking.

Given his own stated motivations and the situation, he almost definitely did the wrong thing. Not that it's such an unusual thing, considering the high-tension circumstances.