FanGirl
Jul 12 2006, 03:55 PM
There’s a matter that’s been gnawing at me for a little while now, and I’d like some input from you, the people of DumpShock. I’ve been thinking of it because the morality Emo presents in his gaming sessions have been a bone of contention between me and him. If you haven’t had the chance to read our posts when we’ve been at loggerheads, I’ll save you the trouble of looking them up and tell you what the main problem appears to be. Essentially, Emo’s conviction is that “You/he/she/it/they started it” is a morally exemplary reason for doing bodily (or even fatal) harm to others, while my conviction is that violence is only the answer when one’s life or the lives of others are being immediately threatened.
Emo and I first started actively debating these issues during one of his SR sessions: the team was asked to perform wetwork in exchange for an exorbitant amount of cred, and my character (who happens to share my opinions, just as Emo’s characters seem to share his own) was vehemently against the idea of committing murder. I’ll admit that a lot of time was wasted by her schemes to save the mark’s life, time that the rest of the team might have liked to spend indulging their bloodlust. I realize this now, and when we all meet again next fall (Summer break! Woo!) I plan to have my character realize that trying to force others to follow her moral dictates would most likely do more harm than good.
Therefore, she’ll decide to walk away from the assassination plot and leave everyone else to their own devices: the other team members will get to have fun watching their mark get splattered on the plascrete, and while she’ll miss out on the cred and the karma, she’ll have the infinitely more important asset of a clean(er) conscience. Further, I plan to have my character handle future requests to violate her personal moral code by walking away from them whenever possible.
That’s as far as I’m willing to go to accommodate Emo’s views with my current character. If he truly wants me to play someone who better approximates his moral views, then he should kill off this character ASAP and have me write up a more bloodthirsty young lady to add to our merry little crew. Perhaps a sociopathic hacker/face who enjoys torturing hostages and stuff? You know, emotional abuse, unnecessary otoectomies,* things of that nature. It would be fun.
Anyway, give me some feedback on these issues:
GMs: How do you tend to paint the moral universe in your games? How do your players tend to react to the morality you present, and how do you respond to that reaction?
Players: How does your GM tend to handle the moral universe in his/her games? How do you and your fellow players tend to react to the morality presented, and how does the GM respond to that?
Thank you in advance for your comments, and please stay tuned for a re-rebuttal I’ve been meaning to give to Emo but can’t write just yet (I’ve got to go to work).
*Need a hint? Break it down: oto- is the prefix, -ectomy is the suffix.
Need another hint? Well, I’m stuck in the middle with you, and I’m wondering what it is I should do.
James McMurray
Jul 12 2006, 04:07 PM
I personally would have loved to play/run a campaign where the players are at odds with one another over morality. Some of the best games I've ran involved some characters wanting t do some things while others want to take the moral high road (or even just a different immoral low road).
In one campaign a large portion of the group elected to torture a captive to prevent him from leaving (it was a dragon so they ripped out teeth, flayed wings, etc.). When those actions came back to haunt them later the dragon remembered that she didn't help and was kinder to her. She didn't get off unaccosted because she was there and didn't help, but didn't fare as badly as everyone else.
Generally the setting tends to dictate morality. In D&D and other fantasy games the party tends to be close to heroes or close to villains, with middle ground characters few and far between. In Shadowrun the atmosphere is more of a "get it while the getting's good" setup, so we tend to have more amoral characters out to get what they want at almost any cost. In far future space games such as Spacemaster or Star Wars we tend to have more realistic characters (except for the occassional Jedi). In Legend of the Five Rings it's all about the Honor.
Witness
Jul 12 2006, 04:08 PM
I'm sure there's already been a thread on this recently but nevermind.
IMO shadowrunners should expect to have to do bad things now and then. They don't have to like it though. They may look for ways around it, ways to justify it, ways to live with it, but it won't be long before they have to do it.
Backgammon
Jul 12 2006, 04:32 PM
It's a roleplaying game. All moral codes can be played, no? The idea is not for the GM to force his/her personnal views on the players. What the hell would that be about? I'd walk from a game like that.
But it's more than appropriate for a Johnson to totally expect you to brutally torture someone. Or for another to be shocked when the runners he hired to quietly steal something kill and maim 7 people doing it.
As a GM, you should be aware of (or at least suspect) what the characters will and will not do. So when you plan a run that involves brutal torture, you make it part of your scenario that the characters will probably NOT obey the Johnson, and make it all part of the storyline.
Generally it'll be better fun if all the characters share the same moral code, because, like in your case, it might end up with one player having to sit the game out cause her character isn't going to take the run. That's still good roleplaying, but it's a bit less fun for the player not playing.
In any case, if the GM gets annoyed about the moral choices of his players/characters, then he is doing a VERY BAD JOB. That's all there is to it.
Kagetenshi
Jul 12 2006, 05:08 PM
I always thought "morals" were those big flat grinding teeth…
~J
Jrayjoker
Jul 12 2006, 05:09 PM
Perhaps this is not an issue of morality, but we have one player who is enamored of his rocket launcher, and does not fail to use it at least one time per session. Usually it is during the day and in public. So far no civilian casualties, but the other guys usually die.
We spend a lot of time trying to talk him out of using bombs, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. both IC and OOC so that the heat doesn't come down on us. It isn't necessarily a moral issue, just we don't want the attention it garners.`
Eugene
Jul 12 2006, 05:10 PM
I think the GM does a lot to set the moral tone of a run. They don't HAVE to involve wetwork; there can be nuyen bonuses for NOT killing site guards, Johnsons can represent humanitarian causes (being hired by an eco-front to investigate a company's waste procedures or hacking a medical company to transfer shipments from AAA areas to that free clinic in the Barrens), etc.
If your GM is having missions filled with killing, he's making a statement about how he expects his runs to go. If you're unhappy with that, why not suggest to him that the team get jobs more like the ones above? That way, even if some missions fill your character with distaste, perhaps she can "make-up/redeem" by doing some of these kinds of things.
Kagetenshi
Jul 12 2006, 05:14 PM
| QUOTE (Eugene) |
| there can be nuyen bonuses for NOT killing site guards |
Why?
No, really—what's in it for the Johnson or his/her employers?
| QUOTE |
| If your GM is having missions filled with killing, he's making a statement about how he expects his runs to go. If you're unhappy with that, why not suggest to him that the team get jobs more like the ones above? That way, even if some missions fill your character with distaste, perhaps she can "make-up/redeem" by doing some of these kinds of things. |
Or… maybe your team could just turn down runs that go against their code? There is that whole "negotiation" thing in there, or at least I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to start right off with "you've just accepted a run to do such-and-such".
~J
Eugene
Jul 12 2006, 05:24 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jul 12 2006, 12:14 PM) |
Why?
No, really—what's in it for the Johnson or his/her employers? |
Lots of reasons. Maybe the Johnson is hiring you to break into a facility owned by the his own company to get a rival's data. Maybe the run has to be quiet and stealthy (to avoid media coverage, or so that the target doesn't instantly know they've been hit). Maybe somebody at the site is a relative. Maybe the Johnson just doesn't like it when people die.
| QUOTE |
| Or… maybe your team could just turn down runs that go against their code? There is that whole "negotiation" thing in there, or at least I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to start right off with "you've just accepted a run to do such-and-such". |
I think that's a tricky thing. It's essentially saying to the GM "your idea for a run is unacceptable to us" and "I know you've done all this prep work, but too bad." I think there has to be a code that the players will agree to the run (negotiations aside for nuyen or other specifics) in order to have a game. This also means that the GM should have an idea of what kinds of runs the players aren't likely to accept, and not offer those runs (or have side offers come up in the middle of the adventure that a GM is pretty sure the group will turn down, but where the offer itself becomes a clue as to what's going on behind the scenes).
Kagetenshi
Jul 12 2006, 05:31 PM
I… well, I completely disagree. IMO it's just caveat magister for the GM. Always have a backup!
I do agree that the GM should get a feel for the kinds of runs the players want to play and the characters are willing to do, but IMO it should come from in-game experience—it's hard to get a clear fix on who your character is and what their moralities, if any, are at chargen.
~J
mmu1
Jul 12 2006, 05:32 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Why?
No, really—what's in it for the Johnson or his/her employers? |
Oh, I don't know, he could - for example - want to send a message to someone without permanently damaging the actual property and staff in question - to pick an example at random.
Though I suppose there is a slight difference between getting a bonus for not killing, and being told you won't get paid the full amount if you mess up and kill someone...
Still, it's definitely feasible to have run conditions which discourage violence and/or killing.
Kagetenshi
Jul 12 2006, 05:34 PM
That, absolutely. I could even see run conditions that fail if there's a kill. Giving a reward for not killing, though, seems absurd to me—either it's important enough to make a primary condition (or at least a penalizing condition) or it isn't important enough to spend money on.
~J
nezumi
Jul 12 2006, 05:54 PM
As a GM, I set no "moral tone" for my games. Every character has his or her own ethics, and oftentimes the ethics of different characters conflict. Almost by definition, shadowrunners deal with people who have looser ethics, or at least are results oriented. So Johnsons tend to either not care about unnecessary death, or turn a blind eye to it (and really don't want to know). If someone is supposed to be dead, disappeared is just as good, as long as he doesn't turn up again.
Other NPCs have ethics when they can afford them (morality IS a luxury). Bums who don't believe in begging or stealing tend to be dead.
A PC is welcome to have his or her own moral code (and in fact, I encourage it, because it gives me a way to mess with him or her). However, don't expect me to give you any breaks because of it. Sticking to a moral code may win you karma, because it's a roleplaying challenge, but outside of that, expect it to limit your behavior, sometimes in dangerous ways.
mfb
Jul 12 2006, 06:03 PM
it depends on the character i'm playing, though there are identifiable trends. very few of my characters have any compunction about killing for the job. some of my characters have no compunction about killing, period. a few of my characters are, basically, 'normal' people, so the idea of going out and murdering someone, even for money, doesn't occur to them very often; they might respond to violence with lethal or non-lethal force, but they're less likely to go out and perpetrate some of their own.
i tend to agree with McMurray, though. in-character moral loggerheads make for some really good rp. however, it sounds to me like you might be taking things a bit personally, what with the whole "walking away whenever possible" bit. i mean, if your character is walking away, leaving you with nothing to do at the gaming table, what's the point of showing up in the first place?
try stepping back from the character a bit. while it's true that the best rp comes from characters that have parts of you in them, overidentification with the characters makes for some pretty lousy gaming. at the same time, Emo needs to not hand the team many more assassination jobs. as the GM, it is his job to keep everyone at the table.
instead, he should be offering the characters jobs which maybe push a little at your character's morals, but don't quite cross the line. or maybe runs where something goes wrong, and you're left with the choice of breaking your moral code (in a minor or major way) or leaving your team to die (hint: it's more fun to rp a hurt conscience than it is to rp rolling up new characters).
hyzmarca
Jul 12 2006, 06:14 PM
The great thing about morals is that they are realitive and undebatable for that very reason. The great thing about professional ethics is that they are debatable.
Most of my characters expect everyone they deal with to act in an ethical maner and do so themselves. This ethical manner differes greatly from any standard morality, of course. It involves completing jobs that may require killing and refunding payment if the job can't be completed. It involves the runners not beyraying the Johnson and the Johnson not betraying the runners. Basic professional ethics just make things run more smoothly.
Morality is quite different. Many of my characters try not to consider the morality of their actions at all. Others are stictly moral and find themselves forced to compromise or change their values due to circumstances. Others still are Epicurean Egoists, believing that their own pleasures are the highest and greatest good in the universe.
mmu1
Jul 12 2006, 06:21 PM
In the games I play in, the world tends to be a harder place for those that can't handle violence than for those who don't mind it - but there's certainly a wide spectrum between those two extremes, and lots of gray areas.
My longest-running character, for example, prefers to kill as little as possible, and will probably, barring extraordinary circumstances, not kill someone he considers to be an innocent bystander.
However, most of the people he does kill (and there have been quite a few) fall into the "If you find me at your door, you've probably done something to bring me there." category - and those, who ought to have known what game they were getting into, he doesn't give much thought.
None of this ends up being a problem for him, really - his contacts simply offer him the sort of jobs where he's not going to be asked to kill a mother of four, or kick puppies, and his reputation for being professional, reliable and sane definitely counts for more with prospective employers than being an unfeeling killer ever would.
knasser
Jul 12 2006, 06:48 PM
| QUOTE (FanGirl @ Jul 12 2006, 10:55 AM) |
GMs: How do you tend to paint the moral universe in your games? How do your players tend to react to the morality you present, and how do you respond to that reaction?
Players: How does your GM tend to handle the moral universe in his/her games? How do you and your fellow players tend to react to the morality presented, and how does the GM respond to that? |
Firstly, there is a problem in that Shadowrun is a team game and there needs to be common ground. You''re going to fall behind in karma, money and game fun with this division. I would ask the GM if you could maybe do a solo run to offset this. These can be a lot of fun. Your GM isn't required to change his game to accomodate you, but presented with the same situation, I would try and make some discreet compromises to run a game that everyone could be happy in.
Now the issue of handling morality in my game. Morality is something I have thought about a great deal in life and I've come to the good general rule that morality makes sense. There are negative consequences to betrayal, greed, lust, deceit et al. I don't enforce a moral viewpoint on the world, I just follow the logical consequences of actions. I'm not heavy handed or picky about it. But you'll see that the manipulative eventually end up being untrusted and the violent tend to meet violent ends. Those who are loyal to friends get loyalty back. Personally, I think that's all that's required. There's no point in laying a morality trip on people.
Players don't respond to this in any dramatic fashion because it's just a part of making the world believable. Actions have consequences. A game where someone openly murders regularly and doesn't come across fear and hostility from the majority of people they meet lacks realism, in my mind.
stevebugge
Jul 12 2006, 07:03 PM
As a GM I try very hard to not put a overarching Moral System on the world at large. I try to create several that vary by location and culture or subculture, basically to give the world some depth, and to sometimes put characters in to weird situations when they end up somewhere where the moral code is very different (stricter, looser, different emphasis). When playing I find it is fun (as in challenging to try to play the what would this character do vs. what would I do game) to try to play characters with different moral codes or outlooks from my own. Interestingly as characters develop more history during game play I find they change frequently, sometimes they become better people, sometimes more despicable.
Now if a character has a certain moral code and is offered a job that contradicts it, that can reate for a good game especially if there is conflict within the team of characters. While it it's fine, even good, for a GM to set up the situation, there is the danger of the GM getting in to the position of "I spent x Hours writing up this scenario this way, your characters are going to do it whether they like it or not" mentality which is not usually much fun for the players when they really can't see their characters doing the job.
Sahandrian
Jul 12 2006, 07:03 PM
I tend to maintain a sort of neutral morality in my games. I don't punish people for their actions, but there have been a few times where a player trying to do something will get an answer like "I know the other GM lets you play that out, but it's background noise in my game. Next."
But then there are things like the shadowy ex-mafia guy blowing off the fixer's head with a shotgun, just to get a data disk he had received from the runners.
On the other hand, there are the players. Last game, they elected to just kill everyone inside an old building in the barrens to find their target, rather than just looking for him and dragging him out. The people killed were all unarmed, and no threat to the runners in any way. They mostly just did it for fun.
nezumi
Jul 12 2006, 07:30 PM
| QUOTE (knasser) |
Firstly, there is a problem in that Shadowrun is a team game and there needs to be common ground.
|
Common ground among the team? Not really. They just need to be compatible. A blood thirsty merc may work for a pragmatic but honorable leader, beside a psychotic, but ultimately amoral (not immoral) psychic, a pacifist doctor, a goofy pilot and a loyal fighter could make an excellent team. Differences need to be addressed, but certainly should exist.
Differences between the GM and player are ultimately irrelevant, as long as the team more or less agrees. The GM offers wetwork, the team politely declines. GM offers a massacre, the team declines. Eventually the GM gets the idea.
| QUOTE |
| A game where someone openly murders regularly and doesn't come across fear and hostility from the majority of people they meet lacks realism, in my mind. |
What if that person openly murders because he's authorized by the state and his targets are dubbed as dangerous criminals? What if he carefully finds, tests and euthanizes unfortunate individuals to prevent the outbreak of a full-scale epidemic? What if he is guarding other people, and regularly kills to protect himself and his charges?
On top of that, there's the fact that most people do their dirty work in the dark, not openly. So it's sort of a moot point.
Apathy
Jul 12 2006, 07:33 PM
As a GM I liked to create situations that challenged the players moral compass, but I never actually forced them to choose one way or another. I did give what I thought were realistic consequences for their actions, and that sometimes created tension in the group because their idea of realistic consequences didn't always agree with mine.
As an example, I GM'd a run where the PCs were hired by a cult leader who had lost one of his brain-washed cult members to an extraction team (second runner team who had been hired by the parents.) When they broke into hospital room where the girl was recovering, I played up the big dramatic scene: the girl was mostly incoherent, and unhappy to be taken away, her parents were sobbing hysterically, clutching at the runner's legs begging them not to take the girl, etc.
They got to choose whatever they wanted to do next: take the girl back against her will, get the payout and make the Johnson happy, or not take the girl which would piss Mr J. off but salve their concience (if they had chosen this, they would have been hired by the parents to help protect her from subsequent snatch attempts.)
Later, after they found out that the cult they gave the girl to was actually a insect spirit hive, they felt really bad about it, but they got another chance to redeem themselves. They eventually tracked down the hive and wiped it out, saving many of the captives in the process.
Wolfshade
Jul 12 2006, 07:55 PM
As a GM morals and ethics are some of my favorite toys
I agree with Apathy. I let the players handle the results of thier decisions and that varys from NPC to NPC.
Kagetenshi
Jul 12 2006, 08:37 PM
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| They eventually tracked down the hive and wiped it out, saving many of the captives in the process. |
Did they give a thought to the many Invae made homeless by their wicked action?
~J
hyzmarca
Jul 12 2006, 08:58 PM
| QUOTE (Apathy @ Jul 12 2006, 02:33 PM) |
As a GM I liked to create situations that challenged the players moral compass, but I never actually forced them to choose one way or another. I did give what I thought were realistic consequences for their actions, and that sometimes created tension in the group because their idea of realistic consequences didn't always agree with mine.
As an example, I GM'd a run where the PCs were hired by a cult leader who had lost one of his brain-washed cult members to an extraction team (second runner team who had been hired by the parents.) When they broke into hospital room where the girl was recovering, I played up the big dramatic scene: the girl was mostly incoherent, and unhappy to be taken away, her parents were sobbing hysterically, clutching at the runner's legs begging them not to take the girl, etc.
They got to choose whatever they wanted to do next: take the girl back against her will, get the payout and make the Johnson happy, or not take the girl which would piss Mr J. off but salve their concience (if they had chosen this, they would have been hired by the parents to help protect her from subsequent snatch attempts.)
|
Professional ethics dictate that they must complete their job. he ethical thing for the runners to do would have been to say to the parents "Listen, we were hired to do a job and it would be unethical for us to quit now. If you try to stop us will will have to kill you. I do not want to face censure from the Shadowrunner Ethics Committee. However, when we receive our payment that job will be over and we will be free to start our next job. So, why don't we take this opportunity to begin and complete negotiations for that job."
You see, this why the runners can deliver the girl to the cult leader and then immediately kidnap her back after being paid. They could possibly even use that opportunity to negotiate a job kidnapping her again for the cult leader and so on and so forth.
stevebugge
Jul 12 2006, 09:07 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| QUOTE (Apathy @ Jul 12 2006, 02:33 PM) | As a GM I liked to create situations that challenged the players moral compass, but I never actually forced them to choose one way or another. I did give what I thought were realistic consequences for their actions, and that sometimes created tension in the group because their idea of realistic consequences didn't always agree with mine.
As an example, I GM'd a run where the PCs were hired by a cult leader who had lost one of his brain-washed cult members to an extraction team (second runner team who had been hired by the parents.) When they broke into hospital room where the girl was recovering, I played up the big dramatic scene: the girl was mostly incoherent, and unhappy to be taken away, her parents were sobbing hysterically, clutching at the runner's legs begging them not to take the girl, etc.
They got to choose whatever they wanted to do next: take the girl back against her will, get the payout and make the Johnson happy, or not take the girl which would piss Mr J. off but salve their concience (if they had chosen this, they would have been hired by the parents to help protect her from subsequent snatch attempts.)
|
Professional ethics dictate that they must complete their job. he ethical thing for the runners to do would have been to say to the parents "Listen, we were hired to do a job and it would be unethical for us to quit now. If you try to stop us will will have to kill you. I do not want to face censure from the Shadowrunner Ethics Committee. However, when we receive our payment that job will be over and we will be free to start our next job. So, why don't we take this opportunity to begin and complete negotiations for that job."
You see, this why the runners can deliver the girl to the cult leader and then immediately kidnap her back after being paid. They could possibly even use that opportunity to negotiate a job kidnapping her again for the cult leader and so on and so forth.
|
Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Couldn't they be brought before the SSRA (Seattle Shadow Runners Association) disciplinary board for that?
Im fairly sure that SSRA bylaws state you have to wait until the Johnson screws you or you are captured to backsell a job.
Moon-Hawk
Jul 12 2006, 09:07 PM
Wouldn't it just be more time-efficient to kidnap the girl and let both groups bid for her?
stevebugge
Jul 12 2006, 09:08 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jul 12 2006, 01:07 PM) |
| Wouldn't it just be more time-efficient to kidnap the girl and let both groups bid for her? |
The runners should have a live auction where both parties must be present
Wasn't it Grosse Pointe Blank where Bill Murray was trying to start a Hitman's Union?
Moon-Hawk
Jul 12 2006, 09:12 PM
Yes, if by Bill Murray you mean Dan Aykroyd.
mfb
Jul 12 2006, 09:20 PM
i'm actually playing through a sort of ethics vs morality situation, right now. our team is comprised of some pretty high-end runners, all of whom were contacted seperately by a Yamatetsu security asset (read: anti-shadowrunner shadowrunner) named Irina. Irina had discovered that one of Yamatetsu's biowarfare divisions was basically creating a horrible pandemic in pursuit of a bioweapons contract. because of who was behind the project, Irina couldn't use her normal assets to put this down, so she hired us to prove to her superiors that the biowarfare division was being naughty.
thing was, she couldn't actually secure any payment--only the promise of payment, based on our reputation. basically, she said "you guys are too high-profile for me to betray; my reputation in the shadows would be ruined." because the promised payment was so high, we all accepted. the actual run went off without a hitch. we went through a high-security facility like a hot knife through unsuspecting butter and got away with a sample. but when we went to meet with Irina and talk about getting paid, Irina's boss ambushed all of us--Irina included. we got away clean again, with Irina in tow.
and at that point, several of the runners decided they were done. they had performed beyond the call of duty, made the impossible look easy, and now they were looking at doing even more impossible crap with no payday in sight. my character agreed, in principle; nothing in his personal ethical code said he should stay involved in this goat-rope.
but he'd been through the Arco, and he'd fought through a genocidal revolution in Indonesia. the reason he could sleep at night, after those and several other incidents, is that none of the piles of bodies had his name on them. so he decided to keep working with Irina to get the virus project killed.
the difference between this and FanGirl's situation, though, is that if it weren't for the virus thing, my character would probably shoot Irina in the neck and kick her body off the back of the transport they escaped in.
Apathy
Jul 12 2006, 09:20 PM
What the runners actually did was (predictably) neither of the things I thought they might do. Instead, they arranged a meet and handed over the girl, then tried to kill the Johnson and steal the girl back as soon as Mr. J handed over the money. Didn't work out well, though - Johnson got away, screwed over their reps, hospitalized their fixer, girl went catatonic (guess what? you just picked up a high level dependant flaw
).
stevebugge
Jul 12 2006, 09:25 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| Yes, if by Bill Murray you mean Dan Aykroyd. |
Hey they were both in Ghostbusters and I'm easily confused!
sorcel
Jul 13 2006, 01:10 AM
Personally, I think that exploring morality is what makes these damn games worth playing.
Imagination and Cheetos only take you so far.
-S
Ravor
Jul 13 2006, 02:07 AM
Also something to remember is that the Cyberpunk Genre tends towards the dark and bleak end of things, now I know that Shadowrun tends towards the 'Carebears and Rainbowbrite' side of Cyberpunk Settings, but even so think about the fact that kidnapping someone, doing a full body plastic surgery to make him/her look like someone famous and then using BTLs to make him/her be a sextoy version of that person is not considered a crime so terrible that the mere thought of it sends the majority of people rushing to a toliet to retch.
Now think about the fact that some of the people in the Barrens might actually consider that life better then the one they are currently living...
emo samurai
Jul 13 2006, 03:03 AM
FanGirl, trust me, I'm doing what I can to make this not a wetwork run while giving the dudes something fun and creepy to do.
I will not elaborate further.
Tiralee
Jul 13 2006, 04:27 AM
My players tend to make their own morality, which can lead to certain issues cropping up (no Dove Shamen thank the gods), but the group mantra of, "STFU, be cool, don't crap in your own nest and don't frag each other up" works surprisingly well.
Sure, Mr-look-at-my-new-missile-launcher-what-can-it-do? has to be sat on before he attracts unwanted attention to the entire group, but "play smart and live" means that:
A: "Innocent Bystanders" are left alone, for the most part (Some memory-fogging spells, not a total mind-wipe)
B: Structural damage is kept looooooooooow. Nothing attracts the fuzz like a building collapsing/bursting into all-consuming flame/detonating/developing a sudden case of Great-form Earth Elementals.
C: Loot opportunities are maximised. This can never be stressed enough.
D: Police aren't there as target practise. Sure, professional criminals don't like the star too much, but the players aren't thrill-kill gangers bored on a Friday night.
E: Thrill-kill gangers ARE there for target practise, sometimes. Sure, they might have chapters and may have heavier connections, but if you're trying to shake down the newcomers, just know in advance what you're shaking down before that pissed mage sends a butt-load of Force 10 elementals through the Ganger's HQ-Squat.
F: Repercussions exist and hurt. If something happens, it's connected. No tree falls in the forest unobserved, no good deed goes unpunished and a problem shared is a problem doubled.
IMHO, this last one is where the bastard-GM makes the most mileage. Sure, taking out the suit stopped the project, which means that something else, possibly nastier and now much-better guarded has been greenlit. That loot you snaffled is way sweet - who's going to install it? And is the lid going to hold on those rumours going about regarding your "sellout" to Renraku, etc....
You make the notes during the campaign, go back to them. Did they shoot everyone in the lab and steal serum X? Yes, well, pity that you have delayed a cure for diabetes by decades then, isn't it? Hang on, your Street-Doc called, said you need to come by...
Survivors are fun. Corpses are limited. (That's how we view the world, players and opposition alike.) Your actions are your own, roleplay them AND any little problem that might develop from your shreds of decency.
-Tir.
Ps: Of course, there are occasions where all-out firepower is warranted and necessary (Anything involving the Invae, for instance) but even then, some ID'able bodies may be needed. Int 6? Use your better judgement!
Glyph
Jul 13 2006, 04:56 AM
On the PC side:
Shadowrun lets you create complex, nuanced characters. You can be idealistic or cynical, mercenary or altruistic. But you need to remember that this character will be played in a game, in a specific setting, with other players. Your character's morality should not come up and either derail the game or mess up the other players' fun. In other words, don't make your character such a violence-averse pacifist that the other players have to metagame like crazy to justify why, exactly, they work with you. On the flip side, don't play someone who is a completely unprofessional nutcase who goes on a killing spree that destroys the campaign.
On the GM side:
On the one hand, I don't think the GM should impose morality on the game... just realistic consequences. But the GM should keep the setting in mind. Shadowrun is a game where the setting is dark (but not hopeless), and where there is a lot of moral ambiguity. I don't think good guys are out of place in Shadowrun, but I strongly feel that one of the main themes of Shadowrun is that it is often hard to do the right thing. And sometimes it is hard to even tell what the right thing is.
SuperFly
Jul 13 2006, 06:03 AM
Situations that test the moral fabric of a team is a very good thing for a GM to try out, but they also need to be handled gingerly. In my campaign there was even a chapter called "Morality Play" where the team was hired to take out a Dock Owner and kidnap his family.
As more information came available, it turned out that the target was a retired shadowrunner and their Johnson was an ex-teammate trying to settle an old score. At that point, they had to make a choice...Continue on with the mission as planned, or turn on the Johnson and warn their target of the impending danger he and his family faced. Keep in mind that this is a group of runners who crashed a tanker truck full of gasoline into the home of a Yakuza Oyabun's son's home, slew all his guards, his wife and child, and him.
The female of the group (and the one emerging as team leader) had a hell of a time convincing them to 'do the right thing' and not destroy their target's family. In return they got a 2nd level contact of an ex shadowrunner turned dock owner named Roy "Burning" Embers, who looks over the team like a godfather and has aided them on a few occassions.
If they'd gone on with "business as usual", they would have faced a heavily armed and very well-trained former shadowrunner with years of combat experience and a "Home Turf" edge of -1 to all actions in his own home.
Just some food for thought. maybe he could have turned out to be a vengeful mofo who tried to kill the team for even accepting the job against his family.
Crusher Bob
Jul 13 2006, 10:32 AM
Well Googling "mercenary ethics" gives this interesting
paper (pdf file)
knasser
Jul 13 2006, 05:48 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
You see, this why the runners can deliver the girl to the cult leader and then immediately kidnap her back after being paid. They could possibly even use that opportunity to negotiate a job kidnapping her again for the cult leader and so on and so forth. |
Gah! This reminds me of Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. It's set during WWII and Milo arranges for a squadron of US bombers to strafe their own air base in return for payment by the Germans. The US gets compensation for the damage that has been done. The germans achieve their objective at less than it would cost them to fly the run themselves and with less loss of life.
There's something wrong with it, but no-one can quite put their fingers on what.
Jrayjoker
Jul 13 2006, 06:10 PM
| QUOTE (SuperFly) |
Situations that test the moral fabric of a team is a very good thing for a GM to try out, but they also need to be handled gingerly. In my campaign there was even a chapter called "Morality Play" where the team was hired to take out a Dock Owner and kidnap his family.
As more information came available, it turned out that the target was a retired shadowrunner and their Johnson was an ex-teammate trying to settle an old score. At that point, they had to make a choice...Continue on with the mission as planned, or turn on the Johnson and warn their target of the impending danger he and his family faced. Keep in mind that this is a group of runners who crashed a tanker truck full of gasoline into the home of a Yakuza Oyabun's son's home, slew all his guards, his wife and child, and him.
The female of the group (and the one emerging as team leader) had a hell of a time convincing them to 'do the right thing' and not destroy their target's family. In return they got a 2nd level contact of an ex shadowrunner turned dock owner named Roy "Burning" Embers, who looks over the team like a godfather and has aided them on a few occassions.
If they'd gone on with "business as usual", they would have faced a heavily armed and very well-trained former shadowrunner with years of combat experience and a "Home Turf" edge of -1 to all actions in his own home.
Just some food for thought. maybe he could have turned out to be a vengeful mofo who tried to kill the team for even accepting the job against his family. |
I think I read that run. Was it on #S-run?
Shadowboxer
Jul 13 2006, 06:22 PM
if I gm (has been some time though): sr is a cruel cold (emotionally;) ) fascist world!
=> you don't want to do wetwork? oh get another fixer... I don't deal with pussies...(next assignment will be extracting some poor sasquatch from a zoo
)
as a player I depends on my char... I had the most fun with my vindictive troll with a gatling gun... didn't last long though... after killing a teammate for a prank (he decided to jam my gun so I couldn't eradicate a humanis policlub joint...well to bad I decided to replace his stim patch with a lvl 8 tranq patch...well he was levitating at that time...go figure the rest of the story)
but I mostly play "troubled" runners...(tried to run a chopshop once and sell bodyparts... but the gm didn't like it and sent me to prison)
Wounded Ronin
Jul 13 2006, 07:13 PM
When I GM my campaigns are strictly amoral. I don't think I need to say anything more to prove this than to point out how in some of the campaigns I posted to this site there's a secret bonus karma for people who Mai Lai the NPCs while saying "get some, get some, get some". With my players I used to roughly have an equal amount of "moral" characters and "evil" or sociopathic ones. Maybe sometimes there were more "moral" ones than "evil" ones. This actually lead to a lot of conflict within the party which was fun since the "good guys" would shit a brick whenever the "evil" characters started doing their stuff.
Come to think of it, I think I've only encountered one GM in my entire RPG career (mostly SR) who had an underlying moral axis in his campaign. With this particular GM he'd act mildly exasperated when and if the PCs committed slaughter that wasn't strictly speaking necessary. I remember a D&D campaign this particular GM ran where the party ended up burning down a warehouse and slaughtering all the guards (my PC, a fighter under an invisibility spell, "anointed" an unconscious guard with oil and "gently nudged" him over the edge of the roof into a fire so as not to break invisibility, and the GM really looked exasperated) and afterwards the GM seemed to be voicing a little bit of annoyance through the employer who had only hired the party to retrieve a small box from the warehouse as a test of competence.
But, besides for that, I think all the GMs I'd ever played with were really strictly amoral in their games. They utterly didn't seem to be affected one way or another whether the players were saints or sociopaths.
Telion
Jul 13 2006, 09:46 PM
As a player I've hit the entire spectrum. I've played the jerk who followed the letter of the law dictated by my superiors to fit my own needs, and then doomed them in return for my own gain. I've even played the person who refuses to use anything but gel and stun rounds on people. Other characters had no qualms with killing as long as they justified it, did he shoot at me first? I suppose sometimes it all comes down to what toys the character has to play with though, I mean that 20 kilo pack of plastic stored in the back of the closet needs to be used sometime right?
as a GM I see myself hiring the groups out to people who will want the players based on their rap sheet, if they are brutal, then I expect brutal people will hire them. really, killing is part of the game, just like it is in any system, I don't feel bad when I frag someone in quake, so I don't really see an issue in SR.
| QUOTE |
A: "Innocent Bystanders" are left alone, for the most part (Some memory-fogging spells, not a total mind-wipe)
B: Structural damage is kept looooooooooow. Nothing attracts the fuzz like a building collapsing/bursting into all-consuming flame/detonating/developing a sudden case of Great-form Earth Elementals.
C: Loot opportunities are maximised. This can never be stressed enough.
D: Police aren't there as target practise. Sure, professional criminals don't like the star too much, but the players aren't thrill-kill gangers bored on a Friday night.
E: Thrill-kill gangers ARE there for target practise, sometimes. Sure, they might have chapters and may have heavier connections, but if you're trying to shake down the newcomers, just know in advance what you're shaking down before that pissed mage sends a butt-load of Force 10 elementals through the Ganger's HQ-Squat.
F: Repercussions exist and hurt. If something happens, it's connected. No tree falls in the forest unobserved, no good deed goes unpunished and a problem shared is a problem doubled. |
I'd say I need to print these out and hand them out to my group before each game.
I'd say each person violates 3 of these each game. such a shame.
Shadow
Jul 13 2006, 11:51 PM
| QUOTE (FanGirl @ Jul 12 2006, 07:55 AM) |
GMs: How do you tend to paint the moral universe in your games? How do your players tend to react to the morality you present, and how do you respond to that reaction?
Players: How does your GM tend to handle the moral universe in his/her games? How do you and your fellow players tend to react to the morality presented, and how does the GM respond to that?
|
Fangirl, first let me say that I always enjoy reading your posts. They are well thought out, articulate, and they make sense. Of course this leaves me wondering why you play with Emo...
However the issue at hand: I think it is an issue of perception. Using the dreaded word "realism" I find it un realistic that a team would one week be hired to do B&E and the next week get hired to do high-pay high-risk wetwork. Using some examples from movies, once of my favorite characters (and a fan fav around here), is
Leon (The Professional). Did you ever see
Tony hire out
Leon to do anything other than put the fear of god into someone, or kill him. Was there any hint that
Leon did anything else? There wasn't. So let's assume that
Leon was a Hitman, and a dammed good one. That is what he did.
Another favorite character of mine is
Vincent from
Collateral, again he is a hitman, his job is killing people. He is very good at it. He would not be hired to break into a penthouse and rob the safe or shake down a local business man.
My third example is
Martin Q. Blank from
Gross Point Blank. Again a hitman, a professional hired to kill people. Not rob them, not frame them, he kills people. As someone else said,
"If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there".These are all examples of Hitmen. Now there is a big difference between hiring a team to kill someone and hiring a team to do something that may involve killing.
I give you the excellent movie,
Ronin. The team in
Ronin, led my the American
Sam (played by
Robert Deniro) are hired to steal a briefcase. That’s it. How they do it is up to them. The way the end up doing involves lots of killing, of both enemy agents and innocent civilians. They could have done it a completely different way that involved almost no killing, their choice.
My point to this is, if your team are hired assassin then wetwork is what you will be doing, and you should in fact role up a new character. However it doesn't sound like that, it sounds like Emo decided to just throw some Wetwork your way. I don't have all the facts but it sounds like your team doesn't really do wetwork and this may be he first one. There are two ways you can handle this (imho).
In Game: Your character (being the smart, logical, reasonable member of the team) can spell this out to the rest of your group.
Hey guys we aren’t assassins, we're runners, why did they hire essentially armatures to do this job? At this point (in game) your characters can maybe start turning the wheel, instead of being turned.
Out of Game: You should talk to Emo and let him know that you, as a player, do not enjoy games where the object is killing. And that you, the player, would rather not play in such games.
Now he can say, great I will change my games so there is less killing, or he can talk to the group as a whole and see what they say, or you guys can work something out so that the games that involve mass graves can be skipped by you the player.
Sidebar: If I come off sounding condescending to Emo, I do apologize. I myself enjoy running, and playing in Action movie type games myself. My morality on killing is usually based on the Leon rule set, no women, no children. I have played harden assassins and newbie runners. Some of them kill as a means of communicating, others would never dream of firing a weapon at a live target. Having said that, the players and the gm should work together to make a game both can enjoy. If the player doesn't enjoy killing, then the GM should really try make the game enjoyable for her.
Shrike30
Jul 14 2006, 12:05 AM
If a group has members who refuse to do wetwork, there's two solutions:
In game - the group doesn't do wetwork. The J knows this, he won't call them for those jobs. He might call them if he thinks he can con them into it (or could ask the person who's actually got him listed as a contact to arrange for an accident on-site in exchange for a bonus), but there's no reason for him to call the group in the first place if they won't do the job.
Getting a group involved indirectly in wetwork (their job is to escort someone else into the location, do random shit, get him into a building or something and then escort him out... little do they know he's a sniper/bomb-planter/assassin) could be an option, too. Or do it Predator style... send a rescue-oriented group into a place you want flattened because you know they'll do it... they simply refuse to go missions that are specifically "search and destroy."
Out of game - Increase the group size. Allow some players to run multiple characters, they simply have to pick which one is involved in the run (or the GM picks, with an eye to things like "will they shoot someone in the head?").
Dawnshadow
Jul 14 2006, 12:05 AM
Morality when I'm playing is somewhat ambiguous and very character dependent.
There are some characters that have very strong moral stances -- they won't start fights they don't have to, but they will finish any fight someone starts with them. Some are "good" people, others are at best "amoral".
One at least has "If I say I'll do something, I'll do it", others have twisty moral codes that I haven't even fully defined, other than things like no compunction against killing, scaring, hunting, but is also equally likely to heal, comfort, and so on.
As for the game that I'm in? Well, we're on the side of the "good guys", but we're so far either directly or indirectly responsible for many, many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. (Early on, one fought his way through a crowd using assault weapons, and then shot a helocopter down on top of said crowd...) Some don't care. At least one has lost sleep over certain individual deaths, but I'm not sure about the larger numbers of them.
eidolon
Jul 14 2006, 12:06 AM
As GM, I have nothing to do with the morality of the world. I portray the morality of NPCs based on their "moral code" or what have you. The players play out the moral code of their characters. The players react and act as they will.
This isn't D&D.
edit: A closer review of your initial post leads me to another, separate comment: You're playing yourself. If you're the only one that doesn't like the "morality" of the game, you're the minority.
Don't take this personally. This is simply a view from another GM. That said:
From a GM's perspective, it can be maddening when one player seems to be vehemently set against the overall tone or path of the current game. Not because they don't have valid opinions or views, but because it can severely detract from the game for all other participants. If, as seems to be the case, you spend time
during game arguing with Emo about his plots and his game, you are wrong. (Unless of course, the view is shared by all players. Then it is arguable that the GM should adjust the game, of course.) It is not up to Emo, as the GM of the game, to put his current game or campaign on hold or drastically alter it based on your personal,
out of games feelings on the matter. (The fact that you wrote your character to closely mimic your world view is not all that uncommon, but I don't feel that it's a solid base for building a "my character doesn't fit" argument.)
However, there is another item to consider that we don't have information on. Did Emo present his game world and its "moral tone" prior to character creatoin? Prior to the beginning of play (allowing character adjustment)? If not, you can hardly be "blamed" (for lack of an easier way of labeling it) for your character not fitting. After all, you had no idea what to plan for. If he did, however, then this is not an issue to be handled between the GM and the player, so much as it is something to play out in the game. However, if you honestly reach a point where you are uncomfortable, then yes, speaking to the GM about it is the right course of action. (Away from game, preferably.)
In simple, logically falicious terms, you can either adapt to the game or leave it. As one player among many, you can't rightly expect the GM to change the game to suit you just because your character (in this case an extension of you) is a goody two shoes.
Just random thoughts on it.
edit2: And no, I didn't read the whole thread.
SuperFly
Jul 14 2006, 12:28 AM
| QUOTE (Jrayjoker) |
Just some food for thought. maybe he could have turned out to be a vengeful mofo who tried to kill the team for even accepting the job against his family. [/QUOTE]
I think I read that run. Was it on #S-run? |
Yep. Chapter 5 or 6 if I'm not mistaken. The Camapign is currently in Chapter 16 and will continue for about another year or more through Chapter 25 before coming to a close. Then we roll immediately into "A-Team II, The Sequel". =P
knasser
Jul 14 2006, 05:14 PM
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
However the issue at hand: I think it is an issue of perception. Using the dreaded word "realism" I find it un realistic that a team would one week be hired to do B&E and the next week get hired to do high-pay high-risk wetwork. |
Odd because I'd say it is a great deal more realistic that characters' work of one type should bleed into another. I politely query whether action movies are the best guides to this. In my experience (not knowing hitmen as far as I'm aware, but having known some pretty rough people), I think it extremely likely that anyone who did wetwork would also take work in robbery, assault or plain old destruction. It all depends on the purse and the skill set, but the scenario of a professional hitman sitting around at home waiting for the phone to ring is unlikely. There's plenty more to be doing.
James McMurray
Jul 14 2006, 05:20 PM
Also, regardless of what reality might say, Shadowrun is a game about Shadowrunners, not modern day professional criminals (from movies or otherwise). Shadowrunners are by their nature supposed to be versatile. It's certainly possible to play a campaign where the team focuses solely on one particular crime, but the game itself isn't set up that way.