I was thinking of making a new flaw available to my players, since I want to start a campaign again soon. I was looking through the social interaction area of the main book and noticed the racism and wondered why PCs couldn't be racist as well. Tell me what you think. For a racism against a metahuman race the flaws point value would be 1 point for every two points of the flaw. For against a human it would be 1 point for every 1 point of the flaw (because they're so common). To take All-but-Own-Race the cost would be 1 point for every point of the flaw for humans, and for metahumans it would cost 2 points for every 1 point of the flaw. Any feedback/criticism is appreciated.

I think it's a good idea.

However, how would you enforce such a flaw. What level is one point worth? Do you spit on the target of your racism or just ignore them?

The book describes it simply as increasing the target number by the amount of the racism for social interaction. However, the reaction to NPCs should be roleplayed based on the value of the flaw.

I don't think something like that is Flaw worthy. Being the target of racism, maybe, but not just hating people. It's far too common in the Sixth World as it is. It's like giving people a bonus point for not liking tomatos.

I dunno, it could be a big flaw. What if your Johnson is a troll and you hate them? It'll show in your attitude (thus the increased target number when dealing with him) making it harder to get more money out of him, get more equipment, etc.

that's more of a role-playing issue i think, my orc character's racist against elves but he knows how to supress it most of the time. the only time he got into it with an npc was when the npc made a snide comment first, after that followed several references to flowers and steak and how fragile elves are. though my orc's buddy took it a bit too far after my orc stopped, he got blasted into the wall with a clout spell

For racist characters, I simply use the Racism Table to roll out what they're racist against. It isn't worth Flaw points because it's so common. Flaws are things that aren't entirely common, and thus earn you points for Edges.

Aww, you mean I can't get flaw points for having to use the restroom on a regular basis, too? Or one that states that if I don't brush my teeth everyday, my teeth will begin to rot, which in turn will affect my Social Tests after several years? I feel cheated now.

Hell, just take the intolerance flaw and apply: metahumans or orks or elves or trolls and so on.

Role-play or not, you can rack up some pretty hefty TN penalties due to your unrelenting, blinding dislike of some people.

For that matter, you could even apply it to social stations: Intolerance: Street-level people or Intolerance: Corp-suits and so on.

-Siege

I suppose you could treat it as a Social Test modifier flaw, but the cost of it will be pretty minor unless you're prejudiced against Humans. For instance, the Bad Reputation flaw gives you only +1 Build Point for having a flat -1 target number modifier on all Social Tests. Considering that, let's say Trolls, make up maybe 1% of the population in most areas, you'd have to have a -100 target number modifier with trolls just to match the amount of hindrance it would give yo compared to Bad Reputation.

So again, I stand by the suggestion that it just shouldn't be a flaw at all. It's roleplaying. That, or just say the flaw means you fail *any and all* Social Tests you make with the hated race(s)... and even then, it'd only be a 1-point Flaw.

And that just hints at how broken the "Bad Rep" flaw is.

If I have a "Bad Rep: Decker", it shouldn't affect any social tests with my corner grocer, the street gang I pay protection to or the girl I'm trying to pick up at the bar.

If you refined "Bad Rep" and narrowed the area of effect to people who would reasonably know about your rep, the whole Racism issue becomes a lot more damaging.

Or, to avoid tweaking the rules, take "Bad Rep: Racist versus <insert race here>" and paint everyone else as happy and fun-loving since they automatically dislike you for your views.

-Siege

Edit: "Bad Rep: Incompetent Decker", rather

I don't quite understand you, Siege. Bad Reputation isn't "broken" anymore than Good Reputation is. You don't normally get to pick who the flaw or edge applies to; it applies to everyone who knows who you are. There's no such thing as a "Bad Rep: Decker" flaw.

But then it comes down to who knows you or not. Sometimes your rep proceeds you, so somebody with Bad Rep: Deckers would have a bad reputation with Deckers because they've heard bad things about him. It might also apply to other people who know him, but, for the majority of the time, it applies to Deckers only.

As far as the mechanics of the game are concerned, it applies to all of their Contacts. That's the primary point of many of the social Edges & Flaws.

There's nothing broken about it.

Once again, there's no such thing as a "Bad Reputation: Incompetent Decker" flaw. You either have a good reputation in general or a bad one. For everyone who knows you -- and by knows, that means everyone who has regular contact with you and knows you by name -- the edge or flaw applies.

It doesn't matter if you sit around and chat up with that Bartender (Level 1) contact you have or not. He/she knows who you are, and has likely heard of you -- as your reputation is well known enough to constitute actually having the edge or flaw to begin with.

Do you think that everyone who suspects Michael Jackson as being a pedophile knows him personally? No, they know his reputation -- a rather powerful reputation [-4 at least], admittedly, but it's a reputation born from his popularity/infamy. The fact that he also has a Good Reputation as a pop start helps counter that a bit, but that's neither here nor there.

So yes, IF you have the edge or flaw, it represents a rather *sizable* reputation on your part. If you're just an incompetent decker, that's covered by the Incompetence flaw. If you have a Bad Reputation of even just 1, you're pretty damn well known in most areas where it's going to matter.

No, it doesn't/shouldn't apply when talking to a complete stranger, such as flirting with a stewardess or hiding under the guise of a Physical Mask spell, but it does apply most of the time in most social situations where you're going to be throwing dice.

After some thought, I put together a flaw that's actually worthy of being a flaw in my opinion.

Extreme Racism
1-Point Flaw (2-Point for Large Groups)

The amount of racism you hold towards a significantly-sized group of people -- such as trolls, elves, corporate suits, or magicians -- is well above the norm even in this day and age. You must make a Willpower(8) Test every time you come into conflict with this group of people. If you fail to make any successes, you and everyone you're with is met with a Hostile Reaction (see SR3 p. 94 for details) with an additional +2 target number modifier for any Social Tests you personally make while exposed to these people. A botch indicates you cannot control yourself and attempt to attack the target of your hatred. In addition, metahuman rights activists and similar individuals will meet you trepiditation, causing you to suffer a +1 target number on Social Tests made with them if they're aware of your extreme prejudice.

If the character takes this flaw for a large group of people -- such as all metahumans, a major religion, or corporate wageslaves -- the cost of this flaw increases to 2 points. This flaw cannot be taken for extremely small groups of people, including examples like Jamaican trolls, toxic shamans, corporate CEOs, or seal shapeshifters. GMs should feel free (moreso than normal) to bitch-slap players who try to abuse this flaw.

Oddly enough, I think there are two archtypes who have an inbuilt Racism flaw.

Deckers Vs The Okatu.

It seems, well, every bloody time I actually read up something about their ongoing stoushes, there's a line that gets crossed by the more rabid of the groups.

-> I'll take the liberty here in calling it the "FanFreak-Wirehead Line".

So, why no offical errata in this bigotry?

_L

Whatever, man. I'm not in the mood to continue it. In fact, you win. I'll even join your crusade.

<ahem> O! Woe is me! Bad Reputation is a HORRIBLY BROKEN flaw! Nothing is more foul in the game of Shadowrun than this terribly, terribly put together flaw! The very fabric of the already suspended-disbelief in reality of the Shadowrun setting is unravelling because of this woeful rule not only because I have some weak mental block on what it accounts for, but because it's actually a flaw and I don't want to have to deal with it when I choose it! O! The pain, the pain of it all!

You could take the Allergy flaw for whatever Metatype...

"Oh God! A <metatype>! I have to sneeze!"

Exactly.

I gotta admit if I was allergic to say...Elves...violently, I might just hate them...

I mean if I bust into hives and fall to the floor when I am within 10ft of an Elf, I am gonna wanna cap those bastards so they never get within 10 ft...just saying...

Mind you those two are completely different things.

Nah, cause if you avoid them, you have to take extra effort to stay away from one. With the shaman, you have to be in good with a shaman. Shooting them is easiest.

You don't have to be in good with the Shaman. You just have to find a Bear Shaman. They can't turn down somebody who has a good reason for healing, and I definately think this applies.

What if the Bear Shaman also hates Elves?

"Yeah, I sneeze whenever I see an elf...so I shoot them. I wanna stop that. Can you help me, man?"

"Man, I hate those daisy eaters. Cap a few for me."

Then find another Bear Shaman, obviously.

Edit: Or some Shaman/Mage who likes Elves and has the propler spell for you and is willing to do it for money.

Sure, Tanka. Find obscure ways to chip away at my points. When are you going to ever meet a shaman that likes elves?