Kind of like KFC offering a "live chicken option" in place of regular or extra crispy. While amusing, and I'm sure that the Colonel would enjoy doing that to people, it wouldn't be particularly popular. If a ghoul wants to buy meat at all, it's because he wants something that has already been slaughtered and aged. If he wants to slaughter, age, and butcher his own meat he can just do that - there's no particular shortage of metahumans. If you take some living orkish gang boss to some ghouls and ask them to eat him, you'll have to pay them to do it. On the other hand, if you already killed, butchered, and dried the ork gang boss yourself, you can take the pieces over to some of the more civilized ghouls and get them to pay you. Unfortunately, that involves spending several days with metahuman parts dripping on things in your house or storage unit. And I know from experience that that smell gets all over everything and the stains are hard to get out of things.

It's a tough call. But probably your best bet is to take recently dead bodies and hand them over whole (if naked) to some ghouls and pay them off with a small bribe to shut the hell up about it. Like 50 ¥ and a metahuman body and you'll never hear about either ever again.

-Frank

I have two pacifist characters who's ethical code is constantly challenges by 'running. Though they are 'hooders and not total pacifists the moral conflicts are what makes playing the characters interesting. And by pacifist i mean the SR3 flaw definintion.
Hell they even sold two company men corpses to the ripper docs as a favour to another team, who had done the killing, has drastically changed how they view that team but real friends help you move bodies.

Weirdest stance I saw was with my very first group. The runner team we had then did no wetwork, but defined wetwork as "hired expressively for killing a specific person". "Collateral damage", revenge killing, killing to escape or erase traces, etc. was all fine and dandy, but they'd rather start a firefight during a meeting, killing a dozen bodyguards, instead of agreeing to a wetwork run.

I had a pacifist mage once. She had a gun she used about twice in a spray and pray capacity when she was being shot at, and the only offensive spell she knew was stunbolt, which she only used when she was attacked. The biggest obstacle to her pacifism was the rest of the team who were, to a man, cold blooded killers. The rest of the team quite liked her though because she was quite gullible and naive and generally too nice for her own good, and was tremendously handy to have about, so they toned down the violence around her, and she was typically none the wiser that the street sam was discreetly "leaving no survivors" after she'd left the room.

I'm currently running a game, and while none of the characters are pacifists, they prefer not getting into fights 'cos in fights you can die. Last run was completed with no casualties, and nary a bullet being fired.

It's funny, I've seen runner groups like this.

It seems like to them, 15 corpsec guards 'trying to kill them, so it's self defense when we throw that frag grenade' buying the farm doesn't matter. But Wetwork seems to leave a bad taste in alot of runner's mouths. One of the things I can think of is that the person they are being hired to off, well over half of the time, is some suit/politician/guy who just can't really defend himself. And wetwork seems to have a bad enough rap as it is on the streets. And it's still funny-because the same runners who might be like ''whoa, you do assassination for hire?!?!'' with a look of disbelief might have just detonated the 10 kilos of C4 they strapped on the Citymaster full of sec-guards chasing them and watched the chunky salsa festivities commence.

I don't get it too much, myself. If anything, ''More Moral'' shadowrunners would be BETTER with icing just one corp guy who happens to-unknowingly to the rest of the corp-be a dirty child-smuggler than his 30 or so guards who are probably only working at the place for the paycheck. Yeah, i have no clue, either. Personally, I'm more likely to play the guy that hits the guards/cops with flash-bangs, non-lethal melee, and stun rounds, and then snaps the neck of the actual, real, nasty person in charge and drags his corpse in for the payment. Most of my characters have nothing against the guys just doin' their wage thing.

It's funny when runner pacifism is bandied about on DS, everything turns to gel rounds, narcoject, blackout, Gamma S, and stun spells. Pacifism would be more in the practice of avoiding conflict. A pacifist runner would likely have large stealth and athletics pools in place of combat skills, so that the character can avoid confrontation, and if need be, run for cover. You don't have to knock that guard on the front door if you climb in a window.

Bingo!

Okay, I obviously don't know diddly about martial arts. What's the form where you use the attacker's momentum against him and toss him away? Like judo without actually reaching out and grabbing the guy. I want to say hapkido but that isn't right...

I think you misunderstand, I know a guy who's been doing judo for years, and he can keep me from doing anything meaningful in combat without hurting me, but it is still fighting, and fighting is, no matter how you spin it or how much you smile doing it, not pacifist...
And I think you mean aikido?

You prolly mean Aikido, which is about as soft a martial art as you can get, but still involves throwing people to the floor and twisting their limbs in ways they were never designed to twist.

In SR3 there were different levels of the pacifist quality, and at the lowest level it was just not using force unless in self defence, and even then it must be non-lethal, which is workable. Noone I know would take the more restrictive, "if you hurt anyone receive a -ve modifier until you somehow atone".

There is certainly an argument that a pacifist could not be a runner, and I'm not about to institute an SR4 pacifist -ve quality. If you want to eschew violence in my game, then fine, but you aren't getting any points for it beyond RP karma.

Well, only one solution for it.

Find out where the Sec Guards drink, get them all drunk, steal their uniforms and do the job (Mage with Physical Mask really useful!).

There, no violence, aside from a hangover.

Score.

Just hope none of the guards are orcs or trolls or your paycheck for a good run will have already been spent keeping them in Hurlg!

My player group's Face man always tries to find out as much as he can about the regular security and where the corp gets its uniforms so that he can give infilitration a try.

I would completely refuse to run with a true pacifist. Now, if a team member is opposed to killing, and would rather user tasers, narcoject, etc., I'm fine with that. But when the shit DOES hit the fan (and it will at some point or another), I DO NOT want dead weight on my team. Someone who will not kill is one thing, but someone who will not FIGHT is a whole different beast. If you are in my team, you WILL fight, even if that means suppressive fire, stun balls/grenades, or just drawing fire. You WILL actively participate in saving your own ass, my ass, and the collective asses of the rest of the team. If you don't, then you are dead weight and will just end up getting the rest of us killed. If I know that ahead of time, I can exclude you from the run. If you keep it a secret, and I find out about it while we are under fire, I will put two in your brain pan and move on.

Again, I can totally respect a character that has convictions against killing. But someone who refuses to fight/defend themselves is about as useless as a submarine with a screen door.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (Attributed)

While not about pacifism, seems relevant...

"Do unto others before they do unto you."

Shadowrunner's Creed: "Do unto others, then run."

My ex was a pacifist, and would rather take a beating than lift a hand to defend herself, and did actually interpose herself between an aggressor and his victim. Of course, if the aggressor had not had compunctions about beating on a girl, it's hard to see what would have happened other than both victims getting beaten up.

In a nutshell pacifism is not synonymous with fear of pain or suffering, but is ineffective in the face of brutality.

Me, I'm more practical. Whatever is best for me and mine goes, regardless of the pain or violence required.

I'm curious about your last quote, TheOneRonin. The attribution got lost. Who was it?

What horribly simplistic binary thinking. "If you're not with us you're against us". Also the use of the incredibly subjective term "evil" destroys any intellectual credence to the quote.

Those shifty pacifists. They're don't agree with our own idealism of conflict, so they must be aiding and abetting evil. It's all a communist plot to subjugate us and taint the purity of our bodily fluids.

One of the hardest things I have / had to deal with is a stubborn player who refuses to kill people in game no matter what character he plays.

Pacifism is a flaw for a shadowrunner and even more for the rest of his team.

If you want to play a crippled character please let everyone else know (Same goes for the psychopatic Sam going on a rampage every 5 minutes) and ask if they are OK with it.

Why? Aren't dealing with surprises supposed to be part of the fun?

Yea, but this isn't what I consider a surprise. It's constant grievance, because their character commands the way you have to run.

And while shooting another character is actually fair game when I GM, this does not hold true for most I had the 'pleasure' to play with.

Yes, aikido. Thank you. The argument can be made that there are shades of pacifism and the definite extreme would be don't lift a finger even when your life is in danger. But like any kind of fundamentalism that's a dangerous philosophy to live by. I suppose the definition I work from is avoid physical conflict at all costs and when it does come down to it, do nothing assertive, only defensive and only so that you don't physically harm the attacker. But your mileage may vary.

While I agree that fighting to defend is a valid option for a shadowrunner, it can only be applied properly if you are the superior fighter. If you are a bad fighter, pacifism and unwillingness to hurt (I agree with you here, these two issues have to be looked at seperately) will eventually get you killed.

I can see your frustration but as a GM I don't allow any one runner's quirk to dictate how a game is run. If their personal philosophy doesn't jive with the mission then he or she can either sit it out or suck it up and adapt to the situation. Hell, bonus Karma to him if he can role-play through it.

I think any extreme can end up too much after awhile. The rampaging every 5 minutes sam is a liability to his team just as much as the complete, utter, total pacifist that refuses to even attempt to shoot a non lethal round back to save his team's life.

However, a character who chooses the non-violent way and ONLY fights if absolutely necessary(IE, to save himself or his team), I think could be really interesting.

I've played a few more 'bloodthirsty' characters in my time-my current one can get carried away with certain kinds of people. But if there is one thing he'd never do it cause that to harm the team or put that in danger. He has his own vendettas.

Too much of anything can cause dischord, IMO.

You want to see a female "pacifist" do a 180, just physically threaten/assault her small children and watch all that pacifistic bullshit fly right out the window.




I'm in 100% agreement.




I'm not sure. I have a text file with a bunch of quotes I've collected over the years, and this particular one doesn't have the author listed.

I prefer "scenario driven". Yes, in most circumstances, that quote itself doesn't really apply. But take it in context. Pay special note to the two sentences immediately before that one: "If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one." He is talking about trying to remain pacifistic in World War II. In that case "if you're with us, you're against us" was pretty much how it worked. If you didn't work against the Nazi war machine in Europe, you were actually helping it along.

Likewise, if my team comes under fire, and one member actively refuses to do anything that might be remotely defensive, then he jeopardizes the lives of the entire team. Think of it like a sporting event where one member of the team refuses to actively put forth any effort. His actions (or lack thereof) do nothing but serve the opposition.




I suppose now you are referring to the last quote in my post. Here, let me change it up a bit so it means the same thing, but doesn't include that reprehensible word "EVIL" in it.



Feel better about it now?





I won't drop to the level of acknowledging the above quote of yours, but I will say this. If my community is threatened, I'm much rather be surrounded by neighbors who are willing to fight to defend themselves and those around them than be surrounded by pacifistic neighbors who would rather let their families be injured/killed and their property be stolen/destroyed than lift a finger to aid in common defense.

Oooooo! Found another good one in my text file.

Which is just plain wrong. There are pacifists working for exactly that. Please note, that I am not saying I agree with anything written here or in the quote above.
And if you quote for the sake of an argument, it really helps including the author and source.

Basically an idealistic view of pasifism does not survive the rigors of the morally grey terrain of runners lives. That is what makes it interesting to play.
The oxy moronic almost kaon like destination of the path of the warrior is a wonderful example of how pasifism or at least compasion may compluse you to use effective violence to preserve peace.

Edited for stylistic sense.

True pacifism is a tactic. And sometimes that tactic pays off. Gandhi did not, and could not defeat the Nippon Empire because the Supreme War Council was in favor of killing innocent civilians. General Tojo Hideki was not going to stop murdering women and children just because Indians passively refused to follow imperial orders. But it did stop the British Empire. The non-violent obstinance of the Indian people actually did bring the United Kingdom to the table and caused the largest imperial collapse in human history. It has a time and it has a place. There are times when it works. There are times when it is the only thing that works. Any jive fool can kill for a cause, but it takes a certain special someone to be legitimately willing to die for a cause.

But the thing is that for it to be an option under any circumstances it has to have advocates in every circumstance. If there is not always someone holding the torch for a pacifist approach it will not be an available tool when it is needed. Like malaria resistance it has to be bouncing around in the DNA when you don't need it or it won't be there when you do.

Society is stronger when there are people in it who refuse to fight for it.

-Frank

Well said Frank, not willing to fight for it doesn't mean not willing to die for it...

So what has to be in play for pacifism to work? The opposition must not be willing to commit violence against non-resisting targets. I understand how this can work when dealing with governments, but not how this can, at all, work when dealing on a smaller, individual scale. It MIGHT get you out of a barfight, but probably won't stop that street urchin from knifing you for your shoes.

We may need those pacifists for that 1 in 100 chance that pacifists will save us all. But I'm not going to be with the other 99 that get themselves or their families killed in the process.

Just for clarification, the quotes I used were actually people's opinions that very much match my own. They don't prove anything, and it shouldn't matter who said them. They are all opinions, and like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink.

Secondly, I have a text file with a list of quotes I've gathered over the years. For some of them, I have the names of the people being quoted, for others I don't. For the quote in reference, I don't have the original speaker's name. And if you see me do something like that again, just assume that I'm quoting myself.


And there very well may be pacifists that are working towards those goals. But I'll bet my first born those same pacifists wouldn't neglect to call the cops if they see someone breaking into their homes.

The same things that allow you to win an argument on the internet when your opponent flames you and you don't respond in kind. Nothing more, nothing less.

-Frank

Fair enough. Usually quoting others (mainly those supposed to be an authority) is a way to strengthen your own point. It is part of my work and really annoying because you can really find a quote to back any claim. I've fallen into this trap alot of times.
And lets not start with those who quote out of context to prove how the world is working. (Nothing to sue here Alex, keep browsing!)

Don't be afraid to say things on your own, even if there was already someone who said it (in fancier words) before you. There always was.

PS: My GoogleFu claims your quote is from this site.

It's interesting that you call pacifists (not shadowrunning pacifists, but real ones) hypocritical for falling under the protection of a police force. The police are not just there to beat up some-one who tries to beat me up because I can't do it myself, the police are there as a preventative measure, because whether I can or can't exert equal or greater force over some-one else, I don't want, as an individual, to harm some-one else. And the whole concept of a judicial system and the police force is so that I don't take matters into my own hands.

Now, pacifism is an ideology, and like all ideologies and belief systems, it is not infallible, and I'm sure that anyone who labels themself a pacifist, in some situations, whether out of fear or anger, might raise their hand in violence.

However, saying that pacifists actually contribute and enhance "threats"? The exact same criticism can be equally, if not more powerfully levelled at confrontational ideologies. By adopting an aggressive stance to a problem, you can easily exacerbate it. "Oh, that guy was only going to take my wallet, but now I'm lying in a gutter bleeding from my head because I decided I would take it into my own hands".

Did you know that statistically, the safest thing to do during a home invasion is lock yourself in your room. The staggering majority of casualties during home invasions is because some-one confronted the intruder, and escalated the situation. Here's a real world example, that I found out from a mate's dad, who works an emergency room.

A man in Sydney was in his lounge-room when he heard a sound from the street. He peered out his window to see what was going, and saw that some-one was sitting in his car. He immediately ran out of the house and said "Oi! what are you doing in my car" etc. etc. and upon approaching the door, the burglar freaked out, and shoved a screw-driver into the man's eye. The man was taken to emergency, but the shiv damaged his brain and he was a vegetable, and would have had to eat and breathe through tubes. He didn't deserve it, and I don't condone what happened to him in the slightest.



But will your own process prevent people or their families getting killed?

So your definition of successful use of pacifism involves "winning"? So if someone breaks into your house and decides to stab you because you saw his face, and you choose not to resist and simply sit there and get knifed, that's a win? Granted, in your example, the person who DOESN'T fire back comes out on top, but that's more of a social perception thing than anything else. The guy/girl flaming you on an internet forum doesn't really pose any real threat, and the flames don't have any substantial cost.

On the other hand, someone trying to physically harm you (or your family, friends, neighbors, etc.) or trying to steal/damage your property IS a real threat, and that persons actions DO have a substantial cost.

Like I said earlier, if the bad guys just walk away because you refuse to actively resist them, then you win. Maybe you will bank on that happening. I won't.

Indeed. You have my apologies for the unintentional misdirection. I was simply trying to present the words of others who share my opinion, not prove anything substantial.




If you do a search for all the posts that I've put up on this board, I reckon you'll find that I don't have much fear when it comes to stating my opinion in my own words. I just don't see myself as being quite as articulate as the people I quote.




Ahhh, indeed. That site does look familiar. And that uncredited post looks like it was just some user leaving a comment on the page. That person's identity probably isn't very important, which is likely why I didn't capture it in the first place.

According to dictionary.com this is one of the definitions of pacifism:

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.

So, if you follow that line of thinking, a pacifist opposes violence of any kind. So not only does the true pacifist oppose the use violence to defend himself from violence, but by extension, he should oppose the use of violence by others, even if they are acting in his defense. This isn't an argument about who has legitimate authority to beat someone up, it's about a real pacifist not wanting ANY counter-violence to happen in the first place. If you call yourself a pacifist and are okay with cops tackling your attacker to the ground and cuffing him, then you are a hypocrite. What's worse, is you are a coward. Violence done on your behalf is still violence, whether it is done by the cops, or by your best friend. What you are saying is that it REALLY IS OKAY for someone to use violence to contain a situation, as long as it isn't you. That's the worst kind of irresponsibility and pretentiousness, if you ask me.




Funny. Sounds like a LOT of hypocrites I know. Many people have these lofty ideologies that fly right out the window when the shit hits the fan. It's not a real conviction and doesn't matter worth shit if you throw it out when its down to the wire. I don't rape. Period. You can ask every female I've ever been intimate with, and I've NEVER not stopped if they've said stop. I've never had sexual relations with a woman against her will, nor will I ever. THAT is a conviction, one which I will never, ever break. If your pacifistic beliefs only last up until someone takes a swing at you or you've had a bad day at work, then you are one of the worst kind of hypocrite.




Again, re-read the George Orwell quote, and what I had to say about it. In general, you being a pacifist doesn't always directly enhance threats. It is circumstantial. Just like being overly hostile can make a situation worse as well. What I was getting as is that there are plenty of times where the pacifist DOES make things worse. Being dead weight on a team that is under enemy fire is one. Not doing anything to stop that gang punk from raping your 13 year old daughter on your front lawn is another.




Well, I have two daughters, both under 13, and they have their own rooms. So if I want to insure their safety, locking myself and my wife in our bedroom isn't an option. Locking the three of them in my bedroom while I grab the Benelli is going to do a lot more towards keeping them safe.




There are right ways to handle situations like that, and wrong ways. If victim had any police training or practical self/home defense training, he probably wouldn't have gotten stabbed in the eye. Running up to badguys and being totally unprepared is almost always going to make the situation far worse. Why do so many people assume that those of us who believe in aggressive defense are complete idiots? Any any police officer and he will tell you exactly how to handle that sort of situation without getting stabbed or shot or whatever.





There are no guarantees, but I take defense of my family, home, and my neighborhood very seriously. And I'd like to think that if my neighbors are threatened and I'm aware of the situation, I will be able to contribute to their safety/survival. I will do my damnedest to help, and if that means shooting an armed assailant that is threatening my neighbors, so be it.

While I agree with you in principle, I am going to call you on your example. If, for example, someone held a gun to one of your daughters' heads and demanded that you do the deed (for whatever reason, and for argument's sake, assuming you didn't avoid manage to the situation), then I am pretty sure your stated convictions would fall before the gunman's hammer did.

Touche'. I suppose every person has a breaking point. I guess my point would been better illustrated by talking about how far one has to be pushed before he/she will be willing to violate his/her convictions. Exceptional circumstances are one thing. Routine circumstances are another.

"She's hot and dressed like a slut" is not an exceptional circumstance that would push me to committing rape. If it does, then my claim that I have a conviction against rape is null and void.

Likewise, "He slapped me" should not be an exceptional enough circumstance to prompt a pacifist to commit violence. If it does, then his claim of being a pacifist is null and void.

Here's another from dictionary.com: "Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes", the idea is that as long as you have the ability to do so, you will actively pursue non-violence. Honestly, I read that website linked, and since you've begun to equivocate rape to pacifism, I don't even want to get into this discussion, because neither of us are going to compromise or likely even understand eachother.

Back to the actual topic as it relates to shadowrun, it all comes down to roleplaying. Personally, I've played all types, from a covert ops specialist who didn't mind letting loose with his pistols, to a rough expat Aztlaner ork Fenrir shaman, who would kill some-one if he was in the right bar and it would get him his drink faster and pass some time. I even played a hacker who took every electronics/cracking skill except for cyber-combat, had combat paralysis and ironically refused to fight on the matrix because she thought it was an infantile display of cowardly anonymous geek machismo. Although, I've never really been into the combat side of shadowrun, preferring to use other skills to make runs work, and whipping out the weapons when needed. I did have an ex-Israeli Defense Forces troll, who had worked in black ops and as a torturor in the middle-east, but was attempting to kill less as a shadowrunner, because his daughter resented it.

Would you accept "he was about to stab me?" as an excuse? Or if not that, "he was about to stab my wife"?

I'm not sure that pacifism (or a conviction that violence is wrong) can be compared to a conviction that rape is wrong. Rape is, by its very nature, violent; so what you are saying is that some forms of violence are unacceptable, while a pacifist would say all forms of violence are unacceptable.

I agree that its a hypocritical 'pacifist' who reverts to violence with little provocation, but not all pacifists do, and there are historical examples of those who have died rather than compromise their principles.

For the record, I don't have any problem with someone who sees war/violence as the last possible resort. I can respect that line of thinking. I think it's a little naive, but noble nonetheless. Believe it or not, I do not use violence as the first option when trying to resolve a dispute. Indeed, it is far down the list. But I was under the impression that we were talking about people for which violence isn't even on the list of available options. At the very least, that is the sort of person that I am talking about. The person that will allow themselves or their loved ones to be stabbed/shot/raped/abused/etc without being willing to use any manner of violence to stop the act is the type of person I'm talking about. That's a TRUE pacifist. Not the person who only believes in violence as a last resort or as a means to protect one's self and family from harm.




First off, I never linked any websites in this thread, so I don't know what you are talking about. Secondly, in regards to equating rape to pacifism, I have done nothing of the sort. I have equivocated my conviction to not rape to a pacifists conviction to not use violence, and if you would bother reading my posts carefully, you would have understood that. And I think I understand you perfectly well. I just don't agree. And I believe I've been very clear in explaining the reasons why I don't agree. But you haven't really presented any meaningful reasons why you disagree with me.






As it pertains to the game of Shadowrun, I think it's easy to play a character that is opposed to killing. You can be an effective member of a team and strive to not kill. Hell, you can be an effective and try your best to avoid violence of any kind. I could handle a character like that on a team I'm in. But don't delude yourself into thinking that makes you a pacifist. Actively choosing not to commit any level of violence regardless of the circumstances, AND seeking to prevent your allies from doing any violence on your behalf would actually make you a pacifist. Incidentally, it would also make you a serious liability.

But can you retain the title of "pacifist" if you are willing to resort to violence when exposed to that sort of situation? If you believe that a true pacifist ONLY uses violence as an absolute last resort and only in circumstances where a person's life is at stake, then yes, you can be a "pacifist" and shoot someone who is about to stab your wife.

Of course, Mahatma Gandhi would disagree with you calling yourself a pacifist at all.






Yeah. Violence wasn't on his list AT ALL. Period. Not that I agree with his philosophy, but at least he wasn't a hypocrite.





Let me offer a little clarity. My comparison was about distinguishing a "conviction" from "something you just sorta believe in but will abandon as soon as the chips are down." A REAL pacifist will not use violence, even when it might be the only option left. If you call yourself a pacifist, but are perfectly willing to open up a can of whoop-ass if your kids are in danger, then you aren't really a pacifist.

And for me, yes, some forms of violence are acceptable means of response to certain threats.




Indeed there are. And someone who was faced with only two options (letting the bad guys kill you, or violent response) and chose "letting the bad guys kill you" could easily be labeled a true pacifist. But, as I have said a dozen times before on this thread, being willing to bust heads only when the going gets tough does NOT make you a pacifist. And if that's your stance and you still call yourself a pacifist, then you are a hypocrite.

First off, I don't consider myself a pacifist. I'm fully prepared to fight back if I'm driven to it, although I would prefer to avoid it.

I would agree that absolute pacifists who will die before compromising their objection to violence are few and far between. I imagine it takes great conviction to do that.

However, to insist that a pacifist who resorts to violence when pushed is not a pacifist is to yourself be called a rapist since you acknowledged that there may be circumstances in which you would be driven to rape. I would certainly not consider you a rapist on those grounds, and likewise would not denigrate a self proclaimed pacifist for resorting to violence when under extreme pressure (most definitely past the point where I would respond with violence).

Getting back on topic, in SR there are levels of 'pacifism', as reflected in the different levels of the SR3 -ve qualities. In the more severe form, breaking your conviction of non-violence leads to a penalty ostensibly to reflect the remorse felt by the character. The milder form could, perhaps, not be considered true pacifism, seeing as it mostly precludes killing rather than violence, but it exists under the title 'pacifist' in the SR3 RAW.

I don't think it's a good quality to introduce in SR4. If your character has a particular aversion to killing, RP it. For example in the game I ran last night the street sam severed a ganger's arm with his fist (9P final damage after damage resistance in one hit), traumatising the sheltered hacker (who incidentally has combat paralysis) who was unused to such displays. The player will get RP karma, but beyond that, nothing.

I've been terribly responsible for the derailment of this thread, so let me work to get it back on track a little.




I've never run a game with truly pacifist characters, but I've seen lots of effective variations of it. In general, the players in my games try to stay professional, and only actually take lives when they have to. No one has ever really been opposed to pulling the trigger if its "me or him", but most try to keep the body count to a minimum. Sometimes, keeping any sort of violence as the last possible resort works as well. Especially if the whole team is on the same page.

Mechanically, it's often more effective to stun opponents into unconsciousness than to try to kill them with physical damage, though that's already been mentioned on this board. However, I firmly believe that a true pacifistic shadowrunner is not only in the wrong line of work, but is a liability to his teammates.