Full Version: Lab Rat's Diary: Deuxième Partie
In case you miss it being at the top of the page, I posted a question in your campaign thread.
Pragma: have you ever watched a martial arts movie? Didn't think so.
Not many, I confess
I think having FanGirl take away CK's SIN is a bigger punishment than killing him. Have him arrested when he shows up the bar and waves that "fake ID" around.
He's the son of a Shiawase exec... it'll be hard to take that away when so many people within a megacorp know him personally.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| He's the son of a Shiawase exec... it'll be hard to take that away when so many people within a megacorp know him personally. |
You underestimate the power of bureaucracy, me thinks. FanGirl can kill his mobile phone line, the Star won't give him a call or listen to him, since all his stuff is reported stolen by the "real" CK - who is registered and accounted for on a flight over the Pacific. It may only be temporary, but being arrested brings shame, the publicity would bring shame, the whole event would put CK under the eye of Shiawase security and his father; plus it would take a lot of work to sort out. And a night in Lone Star's holding cells is considerable punishment. What's that, his prints match a recent murder as well? It'd be funny if she framed him for his own murder, especially if she made the Shaiwase security see it happen that way, too.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| At that point, Gollum was harmless; CK is not. |
Harmless? Gollum had left the (relative) comfort of the home he had lived in for centuries in order to brave decades of hardship, just to find his lost Precious. In addition to hunger and exposure to the elements, he had to survive being hunted by the Woodmen of Mirkwood, as well as torture at the hands of Sauron's minions. Once Gollum had left Mordor, it took no less a man than Aragorn, the most badass Ranger in all of Middle Earth, to capture him--and Aragorn had to spend years tracking Gollum before he succeeded. Gollum is a silent killer, sneaking up quietly on his victims and using his exceptionally strong grip to strangle them. On the other hand, CK is a bratty corp kid who has apparently never demonstrated any useful skills (other than, perhaps, whining). As you might say, Emo, I would be justified in concluding that Gollum r0xx0rs, and CK is teh n00b.
| QUOTE |
| This is his only really foolproof way of protecting his business... |
Foolproof? Assuming that the group manages to pull off the wetwork and leave zero evidence of foul play, what's going to stop CK's father from filing a wrongful death lawsuit? As the owner of the bar, Johnson has a care of duty to make sure that the people who jump off the bridge are protected from lethal damage resulting from the fall. If CK takes lethal damage from his fall, this would indicate that the bar owner commited a breach of his duty, and this breach can be easily shown as the cause-in-fact of CK's death. Do you expect a grieving father to brush off the apparent criminal negligence that caused the death of his child with a shrug of his shoulders and a que sera? Furthermore, how will Johnson get the financial resources to settle a lawsuit without giving up his bar--especially after paying the runners an exorbitant fee? (I don't see any possible way that Johnson could take the case to court and win.) Evidently you're using some new definition of the word "foolproof" that I'm not aware of.
| QUOTE |
| ...and morally, it makes no difference whether he has him killed in a back alley or in midair over a house. |
Yes, both kinds of murder are equally wrong, because they result from the same spirit of vindictiveness.
| QUOTE |
| Since he is the original victim and this is the only way to end it, he is in the right. |
No, it is not the "only way." Cutting off CK from his financial assets, either by shaming him in front of Daddy or by faking his death, would prevent him from purchasing the bar just as well as killing him would. By insisting that CK die, Johnson is showing that his desire to kill CK arises from a sense of vindictiveness that defies common sense.
| QUOTE |
| This does not refute a maiar, since the situations are very different. |
Sure, FanGirl and CK are not hobbits fighting over a Ring of Power, but that doesn't mean that the two situations aren't morally similar. Bilbo had the ability to strike down a twisted and corrupted person, but chose not to do so out of a sense of pity and mercy. How is that basically different from FanGirl's situation?
EDIT: Just to make things perfectly clear: even if you manage to establish that CK makes Adolf Hitler look like Mahatma Ghandi, FanGirl's position on murder will not change. It. Will. Not. Change. Capisce?
See, part of the job is making sure Johnson isn't blamed for this. And you will see why what you say will not work. This will take a lot more plotting than "line the roof with monowire."
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| See, part of the job is making sure Johnson isn't blamed for this. |
As far as we know, in all the time that people have been jumping off this bridge, not a single individual with an Armor spell cast on him or her has died from the injuries he or she sustained in his or her jump. CK will have been the very first death in a long line of non-events. How would that not seem suspicious!?
| QUOTE |
| And you will see why what you say will not work. This will take a lot more plotting than "line the roof with monowire." |
Fine, if you won't tell me your secret plan, then I won't tell you mine.
I still think it's a bit unfair that you seem (at least from my point of veiw) to be rail-roading FanGirl into doing something that she would be unable to do due to an IC moral standpoint.
Yeah I understand that as a GM you will have a set plan for how you feel things should turn out, but players being players rarely adhere to that and if they come up with intelligent ways to do a job that you hadn't thought of then let them have it. In the end it's about playing the way your character would do things and not simply about making the most money and morals be damned.
In nearly every case taking the non-violent appraoch makes things harder, not only does FanGirl have to come up with a way of doing it but she also has to convince the rest of her team that they can't just murder CK in cold blood (because lets face it thats what the Johnson is asking them to do).
And to be perfectly honest, I think it would be really sucky to dock/award less karma for not killing the CK. If she decided not to be contary thats fine but she has legtimate IC reasons for wanting to explore another option.
Besides players doing things differently open up more plot routes to use in future. The Johnson might pay them grudgeingly and later decide to teach them a lesson for altering the terms of the contract or CK could decide to get revenge for being humiliated and screwed over by the players.
Yeah I understand that as a GM you will have a set plan for how you feel things should turn out, but players being players rarely adhere to that and if they come up with intelligent ways to do a job that you hadn't thought of then let them have it. In the end it's about playing the way your character would do things and not simply about making the most money and morals be damned.
In nearly every case taking the non-violent appraoch makes things harder, not only does FanGirl have to come up with a way of doing it but she also has to convince the rest of her team that they can't just murder CK in cold blood (because lets face it thats what the Johnson is asking them to do).
And to be perfectly honest, I think it would be really sucky to dock/award less karma for not killing the CK. If she decided not to be contary thats fine but she has legtimate IC reasons for wanting to explore another option.
Besides players doing things differently open up more plot routes to use in future. The Johnson might pay them grudgeingly and later decide to teach them a lesson for altering the terms of the contract or CK could decide to get revenge for being humiliated and screwed over by the players.
I think the issue here is more along the lines of: The GM only has one possible outcome. Railroading the players so that they have to have your desired outcome Emo will just embitter your group - and probably lose you one or more players.
A sign of a good GM is one who allows for multiple outcomes, and how to compensate for them.
Just cause the J sees the target's death as the only outcome to revenge his being blackballed into selling the bar, does not mean that it is the only outcome available to your team. Revenge may be a dish better served cold, but careless actions will only bring pain unto those who are careless.
A sign of a good GM is one who allows for multiple outcomes, and how to compensate for them.
Just cause the J sees the target's death as the only outcome to revenge his being blackballed into selling the bar, does not mean that it is the only outcome available to your team. Revenge may be a dish better served cold, but careless actions will only bring pain unto those who are careless.
An outcome that saves the J's bar and also avoids any hassles with CK's company might even garner a bit of respect from the Johnson, unless he's as bloodthirsty as he sounds, in which case he'd probably just hire another team later.
Some of the craziest and funnest campaigns I've ran were because players stepped off the beaten path. My favorite campaign ever started with a generic (and I mean reaaallllyyyy gneric dungeon crawl yanked from the pages of Dungeon magazine. It was their first ever D&D 3.0 adventure and it had been made by using the random dungeon tables in the DMG. What was meant to be a quick game to get us used to the system ended up being the catalyst for one of the longest and most enjoyable campaign arcs I've ever ran because rather than kill and loot the party decided to capture, torture, and sell into slavery the red dragon taht lived in the dungeon. His revenge was very sweet, and never killed any of them.
Some of the craziest and funnest campaigns I've ran were because players stepped off the beaten path. My favorite campaign ever started with a generic (and I mean reaaallllyyyy gneric dungeon crawl yanked from the pages of Dungeon magazine. It was their first ever D&D 3.0 adventure and it had been made by using the random dungeon tables in the DMG. What was meant to be a quick game to get us used to the system ended up being the catalyst for one of the longest and most enjoyable campaign arcs I've ever ran because rather than kill and loot the party decided to capture, torture, and sell into slavery the red dragon taht lived in the dungeon. His revenge was very sweet, and never killed any of them.
As for your karma problem, look on my campaign thread.
And about the railroading, the only railroading I'll be doing is make the CK look more and more like a complete waste of human flesh; I won't bring in arbitrary threats to FanGirl's health. At most, I'll make FanGirl's choices harder morally, not practically. I can, however, make the NPC's as moral or depraved as I wish, so any criticisms of that are pretty much gone.
And about the railroading, the only railroading I'll be doing is make the CK look more and more like a complete waste of human flesh; I won't bring in arbitrary threats to FanGirl's health. At most, I'll make FanGirl's choices harder morally, not practically. I can, however, make the NPC's as moral or depraved as I wish, so any criticisms of that are pretty much gone.
Yeah, I don't think Emo's railroading me so much as I think he's assessing the situation wrongly from an ethical standpoint. CK is the one whom he wants to punish, which is unfair to CK but not so much to FanGirl. There's going to be plenty of other jobs that she'll be able to be a full participant in, and FanGirl's refusal to take part in the mission has the twin benefits of a) developing her character and b) removing me from the responsibility of coming up with a plan. 
(Check out Kohlberg's stages of moral development. What stage do you think Johnson is in? What stage do you think FanGirl is in? What stage do you think you are in?)
(Check out Kohlberg's stages of moral development. What stage do you think Johnson is in? What stage do you think FanGirl is in? What stage do you think you are in?)
I don't think those stages of moral development really encompass even 1/50th the breadth of human morality, but I'll reserve that argument for later in this post.
Think about Mr. Johnson: he's protecting his business and perhaps his life. He can't go to the police about this, since the boy is megacorporate. He can't go mto the dad about it, since he's the enabler and has a very feudalistically protective mentality towards his family. Pretty much the only recourse for him is death, really. He's not in the first stage, since he doesn't do very bad things except for this one, which can be ruled by the Hand of God as self-defense, so it may not even be a Very Bad Thing. His fear of punishment is only rational. Killing the kid in an alley and killing him while he jumps really only differ in whether or not he can capitalize on the necessary death. He's not in the second stage of moral development, since he doesn't really care much about authority one way or the other, and he doesn't go "Oh, the police and megacorporations won't help me, so the kid's right to threaten me because he's arbitrarily in authority." He believes in protecting the people who randomly get hurt at his bar and would probably heal a person dying of a bullet wound in a street without asking for payment. I would say that he's in the fifth stage of moral development; knuckling under and selling or doing something impractical and unlikely to work like blackmailing the kid would not necessarily be moral so much as stupid.
As for FanGirl: so far she has seemed to be morally... not inflexible, just... simplistic. She doesn't kowtow to authority so much as a moral code that seems utterly lacking in nuance. She would be about fourth stage, 4 1/2.
For me: I don't believe in hurting people out of the blue; I believe that he who shoots first should be the first one to be shot. And I mean this figuratively. Authority is just a lot of people with guns working together, especially in Shadowrun. They won't be judged better or worse based on their position so much as their willingness to help and openness to outside beliefs. And I don't believe that fear of punishment equals goodness; so I guess I'm 6. People are people; a dog's obeyed in office; things should not be treated inhumanly if they're different and should not be privileged if they aren't. So yeah, I'm 6.
Think about Mr. Johnson: he's protecting his business and perhaps his life. He can't go to the police about this, since the boy is megacorporate. He can't go mto the dad about it, since he's the enabler and has a very feudalistically protective mentality towards his family. Pretty much the only recourse for him is death, really. He's not in the first stage, since he doesn't do very bad things except for this one, which can be ruled by the Hand of God as self-defense, so it may not even be a Very Bad Thing. His fear of punishment is only rational. Killing the kid in an alley and killing him while he jumps really only differ in whether or not he can capitalize on the necessary death. He's not in the second stage of moral development, since he doesn't really care much about authority one way or the other, and he doesn't go "Oh, the police and megacorporations won't help me, so the kid's right to threaten me because he's arbitrarily in authority." He believes in protecting the people who randomly get hurt at his bar and would probably heal a person dying of a bullet wound in a street without asking for payment. I would say that he's in the fifth stage of moral development; knuckling under and selling or doing something impractical and unlikely to work like blackmailing the kid would not necessarily be moral so much as stupid.
As for FanGirl: so far she has seemed to be morally... not inflexible, just... simplistic. She doesn't kowtow to authority so much as a moral code that seems utterly lacking in nuance. She would be about fourth stage, 4 1/2.
For me: I don't believe in hurting people out of the blue; I believe that he who shoots first should be the first one to be shot. And I mean this figuratively. Authority is just a lot of people with guns working together, especially in Shadowrun. They won't be judged better or worse based on their position so much as their willingness to help and openness to outside beliefs. And I don't believe that fear of punishment equals goodness; so I guess I'm 6. People are people; a dog's obeyed in office; things should not be treated inhumanly if they're different and should not be privileged if they aren't. So yeah, I'm 6.
| QUOTE (FanGirl @ May 16 2006, 08:44 AM) |
| (Check out Kohlberg's stages of moral development. What stage do you think Johnson is in? What stage do you think FanGirl is in? What stage do you think that you are in?) |
Interesting read there. Also a good way of analyzing NPC's to make sure that the C part is a Character and not a Caricature. If your NPC falls strictly in to one category and combines with a flat personality defined entirely by a single course of action they probably aren't going to be very deep characters, which for grunts is fine for prime villains and even lieutenants may be a little under-developed. So the Johnson seems to be stuck in Level 2 while fangirl seems to be using some of both 3 and 6. My take on the scale is that an average person will make probably use levels 3-6 in combination and weight each differently depending upon background and current circumstance, but then again I probably put more credence in environmental determinism than Kohlberg would hence Kohlberg has a hierarchical scale and I just find his labels useful for describing the reasoning applied, but would suggest that faced with a certain decision under a set of circumstances any one of the identified reasonings could become dominant.
Edit: I just noticed an inherent flaw in the theory, it makes Moralistic Judgements in it own categorization scheme of Moral Development.
Also, like said before, any "railroading" will be there to convince, not force, you to kill him. I am a kind and just God, and this is only a trial to test your worth.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Also, like said before, any "railroading" will be there to convince, not force, you to kill him. I am a kind and just God, and this is only a trial to test your worth. |
I disagree.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| And damn right you won't get much karma if you do this! |
That sounds like railroading.
I don't know the backstory here. I don't know what CK used to strong-arm the Johnson. Actually, knowing that might help me understand more of why J feels like CK has to die, 'cause right now, it looks like "He's bothering me, so you need to kill him...oh, & if you do it this way I'll give you more
...." That'll fly with your straight shadowrunners are criminals concept, but if somebody's trying to play runner with a heart of gold, that kind of wetwork's just not a good choice.Please, my group just finished a job where we promised only to kill the bad ghouls!!!
Read my campaign page for explanations.
I think it would be cool to base a run off of the moral dilemma Kohlberg used in his research, quoted below:
| QUOTE |
| Heinz Steals the Drug. In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19) Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? |
Of course, you'd need to adjust the price of the drug for inflation, and also so that "Heinz" has enough money on hand to give the runners a reasonable price (unless they're doing as a favor).
[ Spoiler ]
EDIT: Spoilered the twist because I might use this when I graduate to GMing, and Emo might be in the campaign.
Meh... let Fangirl hack his SIN and ruin his life days before the jump. J pays less money, everybody walks away alive.
Then, months later, his father having repaired the damage, the humiliated CK tracks down the team (possibly by paying off J with a binding agreement that keeps him from coming back after the place), and seeks Fangirl out for a little "personal" discussion. His backstory then really comes into play.
Or maybe not... maybe Emo will forget about it. But at the very least, it forces you to keep in mind that leaving him alive has consequences, just as killing him does.
Then, months later, his father having repaired the damage, the humiliated CK tracks down the team (possibly by paying off J with a binding agreement that keeps him from coming back after the place), and seeks Fangirl out for a little "personal" discussion. His backstory then really comes into play.
Or maybe not... maybe Emo will forget about it. But at the very least, it forces you to keep in mind that leaving him alive has consequences, just as killing him does.
Remember the first rule of emo samurai gaming: EVERYONE gets a powergaming option. EVERYONE.
| QUOTE (Big D @ May 16 2006, 09:59 PM) |
| Meh... let Fangirl hack his SIN and ruin his life days before the jump. J pays less money, everybody walks away alive. Then, months later, his father having repaired the damage, the humiliated CK tracks down the team (possibly by paying off J with a binding agreement that keeps him from coming back after the place), and seeks Fangirl out for a little "personal" discussion. His backstory then really comes into play. |
That would be awesome! So much dramatic potential . . .just think of the possibilities! Of course, FanGirl wouldn't like it, but I would!
Here's hoping you carry your tazer EVERYWHERE.
Also, after this game, I will be instituting random muggings to simulate the danger in this gameworld. I'd suggest taking a drone or one of the more combat-oriented players with you from now on.
Also, after this game, I will be instituting random muggings to simulate the danger in this gameworld. I'd suggest taking a drone or one of the more combat-oriented players with you from now on.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Remember the first rule of emo samurai gaming: EVERYONE gets a powergaming option. EVERYONE. |
Yes.
But not everyone WANTS one!
I've always favored realism over power, with a big chunk of dramatic effect thrown in for good measure.
You seem to be doing a lot of railroading with this campaign.
Ask twitch(theOrk) how much I do.
Dude, everyone should have a free sprite puppy. EVERYBODY.
Even people without commlinks? Does that mean everyone gets a free commlink? Can mine be a fairlight? Can I sell it and get a replacement commlink for free so my sprite puppy doesn't die?
He will live inside your head, leaving only to fudge your grades and transfer money into your bank account. The puppy will look like it's fetching a roll of green newspaper, but it's really rolled-up sheets of $100 bills.
And why shouldn't people want a powergaming option? All the NPC's will get them, too.
And why shouldn't people want a powergaming option? All the NPC's will get them, too.
Some people like to work with what they've got instead of being given things for free. It's all about the level of challenge you want. Some people don't want any challenge at all. These are most comfortable in a world where players get powergame options and NPCs don't. Some want high powered challenges where everyone on the planet has power game options. Some like low level challenges where nobody has power game options.
EVERYONE!!!!!
Everyone in emo world perhaps. 
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Dude, everyone should have a free sprite puppy. EVERYBODY. |
Completely off track.....
How common would virtual pets be in 2070..........
Or things like Furbys or those Keychain pet things that I can't remember the name of.
As today - as long as it's new and trendy, most people will buy one, but after a time they will get bored and throw it away.
IN SSG they list the robotic pets and their stats. Lots of people look for companionship where ever they can get it.
Virtual pets can't collapse the electronic bureaucracy in your name.
Speak for yourself. I've got DEUS (v. 2.2) on my commlink.
I've got 2.3, and I'm beta testing for Deus Vista.
Where does the puppy get the money from? This all smacks of thievery and/or counterfeiting, and I only do that when I have to....
Hey now, don't get too worried. Cats gotta pounce, mice gotta squeak, and free willed puppy sprites gotta rule the world. You can't fault him for his insticts. And besides, it's kinda cute.
Is he 'link-trained?
The number of virtual pets available to Joe Q Public should be pretty staggering. They've got the nearly-perfect robotic pets from SSG, not to mention all sorts of games like Nintendogs and so on.
And also consider the possibility of AR/VR pets, complete with tactile sensation and click-and-drag mess cleaning. And in the seedy underworld of the AR Pet Universe, you can have yourself a virtual donkey show.
And also consider the possibility of AR/VR pets, complete with tactile sensation and click-and-drag mess cleaning. And in the seedy underworld of the AR Pet Universe, you can have yourself a virtual donkey show.
Plus, you can have hybrid pets - no, not the gene-art pets from SotA, but living pooping pets with nanoflea trodes and collar commlinks who are always with you in RL, AR, and VR. The house cleanbot deals with the mess. Add a simrig and you've got a whole new type of watchdog.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Hey now, don't get too worried. Cats gotta pounce, mice gotta squeak, and free willed puppy sprites gotta rule the world. You can't fault him for his insticts. And besides, it's kinda cute. |
No, it's more him fetching the morning paper, except instead of the paper, he breaks through the world's best security systems and steals their money for you. It's just another obstacle course for him.
And money is just a bunch of encrypted data?
... yes. And the random bank accounts that it thoughtfully creates for you to launder the money through are just little sleep baskets.
There was this movie (which I never saw) where a guy stole all the half pennies from bank accounts because no one would notice. In SR you could steal the minimum truncation amount from accounts. No one would notice losing .000001¥ from every transaction...
A bajillion times....
Office Space. When they became bazillionaires in minutes they realized "oh crap! someone's gonna notice!"
Just use an agent and do that to a bazillion different accounts. Or, you know, the sprite. I doubt it will overshoot by several zeroes. Then again, it's a puppy. Puppies are overzealous.
Actually, it was Superman III that I was thinking of.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.