I can't find the thread about morality codes, so I'm starting one of my own. What's the moral code of your runners? And I don't just mean work ethic; I mean worldview as a whole. My character's something of a philanthropic anarchist; how about you?

"Mo-ral-i-ty"?

I've gotta go with either standard ammo or AP myself. EX is cool, but the drawbacks (in terms of botches, legality, availability and such) just outweight the benefit it gives. And sometimes you just need the AP for a hard target.

I want serious discussion; how the hell did you come up with this derail?

The art of subtlety may not be dead, but that of reading it sure is.

"Kill them all, let the editors of Guns 'n Ammo sort 'em out" is a moral code, my friend.

How did I come up with it? I changed your usage of the word "Morality" with a word a lot of other shadowrun players would recognize a little bit more quickly.

However, back on topic...when I design a shadowrun character I usually have a very mercenary neutral mindset, not quite "Me first" but definately with a focus on getting paid...unless I'm making the character for a long-term plot arc, but that hasn't quite happened yet as all the characters I have been making recently are NPC's for the games I'm running.

What's an example of a long-term character for you?

A character designed with growth as a person in mind, expansion of belief or ability that would be beyond the scope of a short mission. Long-term is generally meant (When I say it) in terms of months upon months of gameplay, if not campaigns that endure years.

I can only really talk as a GM at the moment. Last time that I played was in 2nd ed. The characters I had then were in succession, an honest hacker; a self-interested cat-shaman who was mostly honest, but mercenary; a fairly amoral fox shaman from England who was pretty much just out for fun and lied and tricked compulsively. You can see a steady progression (or descent) here. The reason being that my first character was what I'd created in isolation and the subsequent characters were progressive adaptations to fit in with the group and the GM's style.

And that's an important point. It's not what you asked, but what a GM supports underlies everybody's answers. For those GMs that run a hack-fest where PCs can happily slaughter the cops who try to stop them speeding and still go on a run afterwards, then you tend to get the sort of characters that will do that. There's little point in being all nicey-nicey if "success" in the game is defined as killing people and getting nuyen. Conversely, any GM that plays with lots of realism tends to lead to rapid death of the amoral murderous types. Not always, but often. That's because a certain level of morality is needed for (a) interacting successfully as part of a team and (b) surviving in the World at large. So to quite an extent, the answer to your question is whatever the GM will allow you to play.

I do have a character prepared for when I do get to play. She has fairly standard ethics (no inexplicable aggression to strangers, will stand by teamates, etc.). She's a mambo, though. And when possessed by her loa she becomes very wild and her ethics become, not so much different as more simplistic and black and white.

Personally, it varies from character to character.

Right now, I have three "mains."

The first, an Ork Gunslinger adept, has defined a code for herself that is basically "Take care of your friends as best you can, don't betray someone until they have betrayed you, and watch out for the underdog. And don't embarass the family." In our most recent game, this caused a lot of trouble as she argued with our elven ninja about whether or not we would leave the guards behind us alive. From her PoV, they hadn't done anything to deserve death, and could simply be tied up. From the elven ninja's pov, they were a liability, and needed to be disposed of. Sadly, she lost.

The second, a Troll Physad, is basically a hedonist and a sociopath combined (which I think is most runners).

The third, an Ork Physad (yeah, I like physads. Hush) lives by a ganger code - protect the ones you came with, gang before anyone, screw the man.

I generally GM, but my forays into the player side of things usually have me playing a human character with a fairly high (for a shadowrunner) moral code. Generally speaking, he'll not hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later if it's a firefight. But he will definately try to limit his targets to "hostiles". He actually has walked away from a shadowrun due to conflicts with his morals, which cost him a fair bit of nuyen, but certainly got kudos from my GM for staying in character.

I have also used an ork rigger/smuggler who had no morals whatsoever. In his mind, he doesn't care as long as he gets paid.

In my experience, it's been fun to try things in game from both sides of the moral spectrum.

My dude Johnathan Crowley doesn't seem to take the idea of killing people very seriously, mostly because he hasn't done much of it. He's always running away from people; he's somewhat like Rincewind in that regard.

Be practical, make money,try not to kill any kids. At least not on purpose. That's about it.

Morality should vary from character to character, from team to team, and from campaign to campaign. Some moral paradigms are incompatible with certain campaigns or certain teams.

The sadistic mass-murder blood mage and the honest to gosh superhero don't mix very well and any campaign that caters to one will destroy the other.

I find that flexible morality works best for shadowrunners teams. Rigid moral codes quickly default to "we do what we have to do to get out alive." Those that don't die off due to maladaptivity. Likewise, given the prospect of being forced to work with someone you hate, you learn not to hate so many people or else you fail.
In the end, all characters with strict moral codes must compromise them, to the point that the sadistic blood mage who skins children alive for the fun of it and the idealistic superhero who fights from truth and justice and never lets a wrong deed go unpunished are best buddies.
Such compromised can be gut-wrenching cathartic or they can by unfelt and gradual. They can make for great roleplaying experiences or they can lead to existential absurdity. The latter is far more likely in the extreme circumstances.
To keep a strong moral code without violating it one instead has to distort the actions of those around him. The superhero trivializes the murder's skinning of children, reducing it from 'horrific' to 'naughty' in his own mind and thus justifying his failure to imprison or destroy his friend and partner.


My preferance is for psychopaths.
There is Scout, who was raised by hardcore Alamos 20kers. They taught her how to shoot and make bombs for the upcomming race war and, of course, indoctrinated her with their propganda. When she goblinized into an Ork she killed them as a matter of self-preservation. She vaccilates between wanting to kill all orks should be killed because orks are evil (after all an ork did kill her parents) and wanting to kill all humans because orks are evil.
Overall, she just enjoys killing stuff.

There is Fat Samurai, the only adept you'll find with a third arm (a cyberarm implanted so he can shoot his assualt rifle and eat his chillidogs at the same time.
A selfish glutton who doesn't revel in destruction but finds it much easier just to level everything with rockets and grenades.

And then there is the Roman Catholic incestuous lesbian nightone catgirl. She found herself being forced to compromise her once rigid morals quite often.

Dammit Hyz, I have been trying to build a mental block for that charcter of yours, and now you go and remind me how batshit crazy SR historys can be.

I hesitate to ask what morals the Roman Catholic incestuous lesbian nightone catgirl has left to violate.

My characters have run the range of morality.

"Nice" Eddy - He was a truely cold-blooded killer. Didn't care who he killed or how many he killed as long as it got the job done. Once shot a team-mate in the head for being late (though to be fair time was important at the, er, time). The sort of person who would give you a count of three and fire on two. Died when the lorry full of ordnance he was driving was hit by machinegun fire. Nobody mourned.

Marie - Current character. Still quite naive and innocent (as shadowrunners go) and strongly dislikes killing. Will always prefer stealth and cunning over brute force and is favouring less-than-lethal ammunition loads for personal weapons but keeping the armour piercing rounds in her drones sniper rifle.

The gaming group as a whole is in the mid-ground: minimise casualties though not at the expense of self preservation.

Things characters in a game I'm running have done:

• Taken jobs from a boy they knew was an insect shaman. They considered betraying him but decided against it.
• Acted as bodyguards for said boy while he inhabitted a spirit into a host.
• Purchased a Latvian woman who had been set up as a buraku who looked like and behaved as Alice (from wonderland) with the added effect of being a sex toy - and then kept her around the house as a sex toy.
• Sold some Plutonium to a Toxic Mage in the Scottish Fringe Toxic Zone.
• Hired ghouls as consultants.
• Gave a talk to a convention of Eagle Warriors in Aztlan.
• Taken a job to give information to a Great Eastern Dragon in Aztlan who is apparently "very sick".
• Sold a nuclear weapon on auction in Vladivostock to an unknown African military.
• Implanted a Tir Tairngire Blood Rose into a thug they had captured and then kept him alive on life support in their house "for ambiance".

But for all that, there are lines that they apparently won't cross:

• When they found a powerful magical focus beloonging to a Baggy they killed in Laos they decided that it was probably too dangerous an eventually destroyed it.
• They put their foot down on a vampire cult that was attempting to release biowarfare agents into the port of Hong Kong.
• When offered reasonably steady employment with the Hive they turned it down.
• When one of them accidentally became a Formula Pact for a powerful Shedim he turned his back on the eternal life in order to defeat it.

So what does that mean? Well apparently they'll fight against any group that they believe is going to destroy all life on Earth on the grounds that "this is where I keep all my stuff". Even when fighting the Vampire Apocalypse they had taken the job on the grounds that Doc Wagon had offered them Operative Level Health Insurance (they're rallying cry during the final base assault was setiously "For Health Insurance!")

That's I suppose a moral code.

-Frank

What's with hiring ghouls as consultants?

Alright.. aside from the joking at the very beginning..

generally speaking, my two initial characters stance somewhere along the lines of "good of the many, few are irrelevent". They'll cause mass destruction in a small part of the planet.. if that small part of the planet contains, for instance, a splinter cell of Winternight.. that was kicked out for being TOO extreme.

Of course, they'll also take money to steal something that is letting Renraku beat Deus (Brainscan didn't happen in our game.. yet, at least). It was a lot of money, but hey, they still did it. Knowing full well what they were doing.

They'll also use MMGs to clear a path through a mob.

Of course, the other characters are nicer... erm.. sortof. One did let a pair of force 4 spirits she conjured beat someone to death for RPGing her apartment. And another has done some pretty nasty stuff to an elf... it just so happens he's one of the two responsible for the deaths of her parents.. and he needed to drop him, but was told not to kill him.

I meant why did you hire ghouls?

My character's ethical code consists mostly of:
1) Paint scenes such that every player has trouble going to sleep at night, but still has to come back for the next game and
2) Kill all the PCs and make it look like their fault

I'm the GM, of course.

Most of my long-term characters basically had the view of 'must survive...' and are basically willing to do whatever is required to live to the next day.

My characters run the gamut.

The newest character I'm working on is a bit of a sociopath. Due to his background, he's fallen in with Neoanarchists in a big way. He doesn't see people as people so much as social archetypes.

How he deals with people depends on what mental cubbyhole he's stuffed them in. He is a very caring, considerate person to those he has labeled as the little people, the powerless, and the like. He is extremely ruthless toward those who are aligned with the Man. Those are not real people anymore, just faceless drones of the social machine, in his view.

This is not a normal, heallthy worldview. If you can dehumanize a portion of the population, you can feel little remorse about dealing with them in not-nice ways. Its a black and white world he lives in, and those grey bits are going to be fun to explore.

This is much more complex than the D&D alignment system. I like it.

Neutral Evil.

~J

I never figured out the difference between neutral and chaotic evil.

Apathy.

Well, that's a joke though there's a bit of truth to it.

Lawful people in the D&D alignment system believe in Order and Process. They may be altruistic (Lawful Good) such as the policeman who upholds the law because he believes it brings peace and harmony or the paladin who holds to a strict personal code of ethics and honour. Or they may be totalitarian (Lawful Evil), like a Hitler or Stalin order must be maintained no matter the cost and the system should serve them (or their ideals). Sometimes you get Lawful Neutral people which is less iconic but represents either those who don't have strong ideals, but simply have a natural incliniation to "tidiness" and consistency; or else an esoteric point of view such as a stereotyped monk that believes in harmony regardless of "Good" or "Evil". That's a bit of a wishy-washy cop out, though.

Chaotic people either have no inclination towards order or have a philosophical prejudice against it. A Chaotic Good person doesn't really give a fuck about rules or convention, but has everyone's interests at heart. A Chaotic Evil person likewise doesn't care for order or stricture, but is entirely focussed on her own needs and very much to the detriment of those around her. While the LE type above might be a nazi, the CE is your twisted and unreliable type - if a warrior, more of a marauder than a soldier.

Neutral will kind of go with the flow to a certain extent. They're not "Evil", so there's community spirit and basic ethics, but they're not "Good" so they ain't out there breaking their back to go beyond that.

I've never really liked Neutral. It just seems like timidity to me. You either agree with the ideals of "Good" (justice, equality, protecting the weak, etc), but don't care enough to help bring these about, or you are out for yourself but lack the guts to actually follow through on the theft / revenge / plot / etc.

So neutral evil people will do office politicking, while chaotic evil people are serial killers.

From the Tome of Fiends:

Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?

Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.
…
There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.

Ethics Option 1: A level of Organization.

Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.

Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force.

Ethics Option 2: A Question of Sanity.

Some DMs will want Law and Chaos to mean essentially "Sane" and "Insane". That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Chaos is funny. In fact, insanity is generally about the least funny thing you could possibly imagine. An insane person reacts inappropriately to their surroundings. That doesn't mean that they perform unexpected actions, that's just surrealist. And Paladins are totally permitted to enjoy non sequitur based humor and art. See, insanity is when you perform the same action over and over again and expect different results.

In this model we get a coherent explanation for why, when all the forces of Evil are composed of a multitude of strange nightmarish creatures, and the forces of Good have everything from a glowing patch of light to a winged snake tailed woman, every single soldier in the army of Chaos is a giant frog. This is because in this model Limbo is a place that is totally insane. It's a place where the answer to every question really is "Giant Frog". Creatures of Chaos then proceed to go to non Chaotically-aligned planes and are disappointed and confused when doors have to be pushed and pulled to open and entrance cannot be achieved by "Giant Frog".

If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. For reactions to be sufficiently inappropriate to qualify as insanity, one has to go pretty far into one's own preconceptions. Actual mental illness is very sad and traumatic just to watch as an outside observer. Actually living that way is even worse. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between good and bad. That and there is a certain segment of the roleplaying community that cannot differentiate absurdist humor from insanity and will insist on doing annoying things in the name of humor. And we hate those people.

Ethics Option 3: The Laws of the Land.

Any region that has writing will have an actual code of laws. Even oral traditions will have, well, traditions. In some campaigns, following these laws makes you Lawful, and not following these laws makes you Chaotic. This doesn't mean that Lawful characters necessarily have to follow the laws of Kyuss when you invade his secret Worm Fort, but it does mean that they need to be an "invading force" when they run around in Kyuss' Worm Fort. Honestly, I'm not sure what it even means to have a Chaotic society if Lawful means "following your own rules". This whole schema is workable, but only with extreme effort. It helps if there's some sort of divinely agreed upon laws somewhere that nations and individuals can follow to a greater or lesser degree. But even so, there's a lot of hermits and warfare in the world such that whether people are following actual laws can be just plain hard to evaluate.

I'd like to endorse this more highly, since any time you have characters living up to a specific arbitrary code (or not) it becomes a lot easier to get things evaluated. Unfortunately, it's really hard to even imagine an entire nation fighting for not following their own laws. That's just… really weird. But if you take Law to mean law, then you're going to have to come to terms with that.

Ethics Option 4: My Word is My Bond.

Some DMs are going to want Law to essentially equate to following through on things. A Lawful character will keep their word and do things that they said they were going to. In this model, a Lawful character has an arbitrary code of conduct and a Chaotic character does not. That's pretty easy to adjudicate, you just announce what you're going to do and if you do it, you're Lawful and if you don't you're not.

Here's where it gets weird though: That means that Lawful characters have a harder time working together than do non-lawful characters. Sure, once they agree to work together there's some Trust there that we can capitalize, but it means that there are arbitrary things that Lawful characters won't do. Essentially this means that Chaotic parties order one mini-pizza each while Lawful parties have to get one extra large pizza for the whole group – and we know how difficult that can be to arrange. A good example of this in action is the Paladin's code: they won't work with Evil characters, which restricts the possibilities of other party members.

In the world, this means that if you attack a Chaotic city, various other chaotic characters will trickle in to defend it. But if you attack a Lawful city, chances are that it's going to have to stand on its own.

Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law

Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.

Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law

Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic.

----

Somewhat off-tpic, but a glimpse into the total fucking clusterfuck that is totally fucked which the D&D Alignment system is. Please stop talking about what makes something Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral. It's retarded and I hate you.

-Frank

I think Frank's alignment right now is Angry/Bitchy
He does have a point though, the D&D alignment system is really messed up. When I run my groups, I dont allow anyone to choose an alignment to start out. I might award one later in if they lean VERY far in that one direction, but it's a double edged sword to have it.

neutral evil is purely self serving. Chaotic evil does the nasty stuff because it's AWESOME!!!! basically they do it for kicks and with no regard to any rules other than I rule. Neutral evil will curtail their evil if it's to their advantage, and can be considered ruthless doers of what ever gives them the best deal.

There's a reason I don't play 3.5 any more. Arcana Evolved pwnz0rz j00!

That being said, I think far far more people are Lawful Neutral than most people realize, at least fundamentally. People say that they want to do things for the good of society, etc. But honestly - how many people don't speed on a deserted road if they have a radar detector? They are obeying the law because it's the law, or because they expect to get caught if not. Few people believe in the innate goodness of the speed limit. It's just the law.

And conversly, how many people are really out spending their time helping the homeless, volunteering to sit with elderly people with no family, counseling children of murder victims, or what have you? I sure don't.

I think the default alignment of society, in fact, is LN. You hope that your laws are made for good purposes, but fundamentally, the purpose of a society is to be sure everyone does what they're supposed to.

It certainly could be! Among other things, at least.

Well, if the Shin Megami Tensi II alignment system means anything then one could create a Law-Chaos alignment system in which the genetically engineered reincarnation of Jesus is Lawful if he kills Lucifer and hangs out the YHWH, Chaotic is he kills YHWH and hangs out with Lucifer, and Neutral if he kills both of them.

What if he hangs out with both of them?

~J

I also have had charcters run the gamut. Sadly as the GM in my party, I dont see much play time.

I think having them answer the YHWH / Lucifer question is a good demonstration. Sadly Im keeping out names because I have started to have my players read here, and I use a lot them as NPCS.

1. Would off them both, and then go looking for someone willing to pay him to off Zeus, Ra, and Odin. Would wack Mohammad just because he was a witness.

2. Would kill Lucifer, and negoate triple the fee to kill YHWH. And then hopefully have enough money to stop killing people.

3. Would hang out with Lucifer, talk YHWH into being cool with it, and hang out with him too. Or just not let on that he swings both directions. (social adepts= so broken!)

4. Would tell them both to 'Shove off' and hang out with louie the bartender.

5. Would kill Lucifer, get a hearty thanks from YHWH, and ride off into the sunset.


Having done all this now, I might add this to my list of "questions PCs should answer.". Its actually pretty usefull.

Shen would kill whoever's more oppressive for free.

My current character would definitely shoot YHWH, because Lucifer would be seen as the most likely source of income. He also throws better partys.

Angelone is hard to pin down in DnD terms, chaotic neutral maybe, Palladium's anarchist is probably the best example. She won't think twice about keeping people (including teammates) in the dark about things that she can use to her advantage. She won't outright betray her team however. Killing doesn't really phase her. She thinks nothing of smuggling BTLs or drugs across the country, but won't sell them to users herself. She won't do any job that involves getting close to someone (misleading them into believing you're an ally) and then betraying them, whether it's killing or just damaging to that person somehow.

Boo! I think some clarification is necessary.

Things characters in a game I'm running have done:
[*]Taken jobs from a boy they knew was an insect shaman. They considered betraying him but decided against it.

Hey we where going to jump him after Africa remember? Or at least I wanted to anyway. I got distracted.

[*] Acted as bodyguards for said boy while he inhabitted a spirit into a host.

I was doing more damage to other insects while working for him at the time.

[*] Purchased a Latvian woman who had been set up as a buraku who looked like and behaved as Alice (from wonderland) with the added effect of being a sex toy - and then kept her around the house as a sex toy.

Ummmm, no comment.

[*] Sold some Plutonium to a Toxic Mage in the Scottish Fringe Toxic Zone.

Hey I informed the "authorities" on that. I can't help if they get some nutty idea that seems great just because some wanker is fairly charismatic. One of us has his head screwed on straight. I'd kill that guy in person if I ever met him.

[*] Hired ghouls as consultants.

Well ya. I'd have hired nazi eskimos if it was necessary. Besides I don't have anything against ghouls.

[*] Gave a talk to a convention of Eagle Warriors in Aztlan.

Not quite yet, but here's hoping they've outlawed powerpoint by 2070.

[*] Taken a job to give information to a Great Eastern Dragon in Aztlan who is apparently "very sick".

Hey he knows something I don't. Besides I might try and take his ass out.

[*] Sold a nuclear weapon on auction in Vladivostock to an unknown African military.

Those bills don't pay themselves. Besides I don't like Africa all that much.

[*] Implanted a Tir Tairngire Blood Rose into a thug they had captured and then kept him alive on life support in their house "for ambiance".

Nobody said the big U was playing with a full deck of cards. Hmmm not that I wouldn't have done the same myself out of curiosity.

But for all that, there are lines that they apparently won't cross:
[*] When they found a powerful magical focus beloonging to a Baggy they killed in Laos they decided that it was probably too dangerous an eventually destroyed it.

Seemed like bad mojo to me.

[*] They put their foot down on a vampire cult that was attempting to release biowarfare agents into the port of Hong Kong.

Hey I live there damn it. If anyone destroys the town it'll be me.

[*] When offered reasonably steady employment with the Hive they turned it down.

We also turn down constant Firewatch offers too.

[*] When one of them accidentally became a Formula Pact for a powerful Shedim he turned his back on the eternal life in order to defeat it.

Gee I've only got a few thousand years left now. Besides the damn thing touched my property. Nobody messes with my stuff.

[/LIST]So what does that mean? Well apparently they'll fight against any group that they believe is going to destroy all life on Earth on the grounds that "this is where I keep all my stuff". Even when fighting the Vampire Apocalypse they had taken the job on the grounds that Doc Wagon had offered them Operative Level Health Insurance (they're rallying cry during the final base assault was setiously "For Health Insurance!")

Dental too! Those bastards where going to lower my stocks, something had to be done.

That's I suppose a moral code.

Moral code my tail.

Besides our universal reciprocation factor...

The sams set fire to and shoot anything that remotely looks like a threat. Kid with a gun? BAM. Shooting for some mystical high score or just to look cool while doing it.

The rigger seems to just be recording everything for posterity and perhaps to cut a deal later to avoid indictment.

Our enchanter buddy is delusional wrapped up in his own paradigm and seems to do everything for 'fun', 'cause it'd be cool', and the wacky factor.

I on the other claw have been thinking about this quite a bit lately. I try and tend to take the long view on matters.

I was the only one that tried not to take life. Remember the parking garage? Urza beat that unconscious dude's head in with a pipe. That annoyed me cause it wasn't required.

So I may be a selfish bastard but at least I don't go around killing everything that moves to boost my ego.

Avoid loss of life unless necessary.
Defend allies.
Self is most important.
Lie when appropriate.
Others are to be valued but used.
Destroy magical threats when possible.
Profit comes and goes but your code stays.

I summon thee, AH!