In my life experience, there are members of all those subcultures that can probably take the average person.

I learned aikido from a computer nerd, and a goth taught me how to escape most holds. I've also learned knife fighting from a lawyer. You never really know who's combat capable. WEll, unless you are good at reading body language, because they all display better proprioception, and it's obvious in the way they move.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

>crappy internet glitched my post again, sorry for the accidental double<

More like a fallen paladin whose lost his faith and gone mercenary. They haven't completely abandoned their principles, but the shining righteousness is long gone.

Or if you mean the kid, it would be exactly like a paladin--a paladin in a predominately evil nation. The (evil) powers that be must be cast down, and their yokes of opression crushed.

As for the whole "goths/emos/knife-weilding lawyers" bit, I find it kind of repugnant when people try to judge things like that. True, stereotypes are usualy disgustingly accurate--because most people try to mold themselves to fit whatever stereotype they want to be percieved as--but what really gets me is when people try to use job or appearance to define a person or group.

I've never worn a mowhawk, never dyed my hair. The only "punk" clothing I've ever owned is a spiked costume glove made out of vinyl and aluminum that I wore with my Terminator costume when I was 8.

I was born in 82', so I didn't "come of age" in the 80's, I generally missed the cold war, and growng up I listened to rap music and metal--whatever was playing on the radio. I only really discovered punk in the last ten years or so. Hell, I run a fraggin' Art Gallery in a soul-sucking corporate buisness center.

So what?

I am, and always have been, punk.

I may not have had that word to call it by, and I may not dress or act like you'd expect from some fashion-zombie poser, but the principles of anarchy, rebellion, personal freedom, outrage, and utter fucking nihlism have always been at the core of who I am. It isn't the band you listen to or the pants you wear--and it certainly aint the fucking mohawks. All of that is just a symbol, in the same way that words are symbols for the thoughts and concepts in your brain. Change the language, slash the vocal cords, those thoughts are still there.

I don't "dress up" when I go to punk shows, and I'm usually the most strait-laced looking guy in the room--but I don't care. I'm not going to change my style or try to pick a fight, it's the fakes that feel the need to prove themselves. On the other hand, if you understand where I'm coming from, and want to go a couple rounds in an alley somewhere and maybe shed a few teeth, I might be up for it. If punk itself dies out or changes into something else, it doesn't matter. I am what I am, independant of any "cultural phenomenon", and I'll be punk even when punk isn't anymore.

Yeah I look soft, and come across as a goof or a poser sometimes--but don't let it fool you. Nine times out of ten, I'm the hardest motherfucker in the room, no matter where I am. The real dangerous people come from all walks of life, and they don't feel the need to advertise it. The guy who looks tough and makes alot of noise isn't half as scary as the calm, easy going dude, who just can't be bothered to dismember you right now.

If you want a goth to use violence, calling him emo is possibly the safest way.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was talking about this in a modern context. I'm talking about (specifically, but not exclusively) the protests here in Australia against our government getting involved with the "War on Terror" over in the middle-east. I'm not sure what the statistics were pre-war in the US, but in Australia the majority were against getting involved, and we marched against it in our major cities and it happened anyway. Democracy in progress.

Democracy is just mob-rule, by it's very nature it oppresses the minority--and that's when you can get it to work.

Anyway, we're seriously derailing this thread, and treading pretty close to the TOS. Let's just say this was all "in-character" examples of how to RP a more mohawk style game. Yeah, that's it. Sure...

http://picasaweb.google.com/BullCon/GenCon...078695127186770

ok, i see the logic 1 sammies, where is the face?

I'm less impressed with Renfaire and Indy there but you gotta admit Bull looks rather like a heavyset SR character portrait.

Your protesters are just lazy. Most modern protesters are. It can take decades (plural) for a movement to build up enough steam to actually accomplish anything. The point of public protests isn't to make the government aware of your position, it's to make the public aware of of your position, to build popular support. Once your movement becomes large enough to seriously threaten the stability of your country and your government is afraid that peaceful protests will degenerate into violent revolution, they'll assassinate some of your leaders using a method that has a bare minimum of plausible deniability. When that doesn't actually accomplish anything, then you'll see some changes.

It helps if the greatest musicians of your time are all putting out protest albums.
It also helps if you have radicals that you can plausibly deny blowing stuff up. It doesn't even have to be much stuff.
And it helps if government soldiers kill a bunch of unarmed protesters.

hmm, i think i have some fingerless studded leather gloves somewhere that i picked up at a fairground at one time during my youth...

dont think i have ever wron them after that...

or that appear unarmed after the event, and that the soldiers cant prove was armed during the event.

You should have, it's fun!
Unless the mohawk is done by a friend of yours with zero experience in hairdressing who is even more drunk than you are and the damn thing ends up to be the most asymetric mohawk in human history...

And that's where the shadowrunners come in. I'm not talking about runners hired by the protesters, but protesters who happen to be runners applying their work ethic to the situation of their own accord.

Nothing's more deniable than that.



Yes it does. Just out of principle.

Also, part of the issue is escalation. People are fickle and get bored/used to stuff very easily. Protesters getting beat up in San Fransico is already so old hat it barely rates the papers, by 2070 nobody's going to care about public protest and police brutality except the people out protesting/getting their teeth kicked in. They'll just be mad if it makes them late for work.

Okay, a small group may care--but overall the public just doesn't give a sht, and it's the public you have to sway.

So you have to scale things up.

Nonviolent protest was always a piss-poor idea--the equivalent of children throwing a tantrum in the grocery store--violent revolution has the added benefit of directly harming the system and infastructure you're railling against.

So play a runner with an agenda. Maybe he only takes jobs that fit that agenda, ie: he'll smash an R&D facility but won't perform an extraction or bring the design specs to the rival corp. The idea being that getting hired to hurt their competitors may help the corp he's working for, but only until said competitor hires out a retalitory strike. Being a runner allows you to play both sides like that without getting capped as a traitor, because you're always on the outside, never affiliated with any of the groups in the conflict.

You just work for whoever pays you, furthering the conflict between the AAA's. In the long run he's tearing away at all of them.

Though realistically you can't have to much violent protest. Once you start having that be where groups start. Well. I suppose your in Iraq. Which leads to the bad kind of anarchy.

Though it could be useful against a specific foes doing a specific thing. I think that's the classic cyberpunk kind of run. Get the crowd riled up. Storm the gates. Rescue the people from the top secret research lab.

And where do we find the "good" kind of anarchy? Somalia? Burundi? Haiti?

The hypothetical ones that the neo anarchists are shooting for.

Also maybe Berlin in the old sourcebook?

Non-violent protest is a GREAT tactic, in it's place. It only works where the government is unwilling to kill annoying people in job lots. It worked fine in India and the US south, as liberal democracies are the best targets. it worked not at ALL in Korea against the Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese simply killed the unarmed protesters. Of course, they were also pretty effective at killing the 'armed protesters'.

Police states, like Japan, are exceedingly difficult places in which to carry out any sort of anti-government plot. The informer networks and monitoring of all communications media makes it no fun. It's much esier in liberal democracy where laws are followed and demands things like "proof".

Traditionally, effective urban guerrilla campaigns transform liberal democracies into police states, and then everyone on the opposition side, "deniable" or not, gets swept up. Along with their neighbors, kids, parents, and co-workers. Once the government stops needing proof the whole concept of "deniability" is as pointless a concept as "innocence".

Once you go the people war path it's always ugly and bloody. And the Government almost always prevails, as they are much better organized and equipped to apply violence and force once it comes to who is better at applying force and violence.

This is simply due to the nature of authority. When it comes down to it, all authority essentially consists of is "might makes right" regardless of the scale one is talking about (from internet forums all the way up to theological divine authority, and everything in between).

with democracy based around the idea of group might, or something like that.

but sadly it only works if the majority of the group actually pays attention and cares...

Although one has to be careful with that line of reasoning. While, from a distance, saying things like might makes right can always be applied to some degree, that does not mean that say, the United States today and Stalin's USSR are the same thing. Or even remotely close.

I see the SR world as somewhere in between. And much more complex. The nature of all the corps with externality means that some people might be having an antiwar poetry slam a block away from an Azzie corp where some "legal" executions of disloyal employees are taking place.

Also mixed in, especially in the future, is the idea that as much as anything the problem is that people don't care. There is enough food to feed everyone. There are enough resources to go around. But the general SR UCAS denizen would rather have their Star/Ares mucho mocca frappucino in the morning than support a bill to change that. Not even just those that would tax them more, but possibly those that would result in the dirty SINless being able to "take their jobs".

To that extent one can't even always blame the politicians as they're following the will of the people (who can legally vote ), not doing so would get them out of office.

Fighting against that was part of the cyberpunk thing. I suppose I can see why after a couple decades that gets depressing.

Precisely.



Of course not - they chose to exercise their might in very different ways. But the authority of the state, when challenged always basically comes down to the state's ability to do something about that challenge. Stalin saw dissidents as a threat and exterminated them. The US on the other hand saw dissidents, shrugged and said "meh", and bought them off (post Nixon) with suburban homes, cozy jobs, and TV - in essence integrating them into the system rather than seeing them as a true threat. That's how I see the corps in SR working - why bother fighting someone when you can buy them? Only the most hardcore, dedicated, or objectionable dissidents would be opposed directly - the rest can be bought or ignored.



*nods in agreement*



Presuming that votes truly matter of course.



Yup. Old cyberpunks/anarchists/hippies get tired, get worn down, get depressed, because thing they are fighting against isn't just the corps (though even on their own the corps are too big for any punk or punk movement to significantly effect), but rather the entirety of society and the societal system. Once they realize that, in the long run, their actions don't truly make a difference - well, then retirement, settling down, opening a business maybe and integrating into the system (selling out in essence) begins to look pretty good.

That's when the next generation comes along, slams the retired punks for selling out, and begins the process all over again. In the end, this entire process of rebellion and reintegration doesn't hurt the system, but actually feeds it. That is the core irony of the cyberpunk genre. One of the things that makes SR so unique, almost anti-cyberpunk in a fashion, is from day one of 1st Edition SR has realized/proposed the idea that runners are in fact the lubricant (so to speak) that makes the system work (as opposed to "devolving into a series of strongholds" as RC puts it). The old neo-anarch runners of Shadowland were in essence fooling themselves.

Stalin saw vampires as a threat and decided to exterminate them under the guise of exterminating dissidents.


Maybe it doesn't matter if you can fight the system or not as long as you can live free on your own terms, kicking ass and chewing bubble gum, raging against the dying of the light, and all that good stuff.

but then if there are no place on the planet where you can be your own master, the only way to gain that freedom is to fight the system and carve out your own slice of land.

Actually there are a fair number of places like that in SR. For a wide variety of what constitutes being your own master.

In the classic sense where runners are still their own masters as they can pick and choose their jobs that's all around.

But beyond that you could choose to live, I think tax free, in a range on NAN or African countries if you do so in the wilderness.

In the cities you could live in the barrens and do whatever pretty much.

Berlin was taken both as proof for the hypothesis that anarchism can work out or that it absolutely can't, depending on who made that statement.

Not really. Mohandas Ghandi proved you could expel an empire without throwing a single stone, ie Satyagraha. Violent overthrows against any system of government perpetuates a system of government that turns to violence.

"Well, we threw stones and drove out the previous regime so we'd better crack down extra-hard on any dissidents who might throw stones at us."

Anarchism encompasses a lot of variations and neo-anarchism is just one of them. (according to how it's described, it's probably close to Anarcho-capitalism).

Your balls must be the size of Nebraska. I would never dare to attempt to run, of all things, an art gallery.

I remember when I was reading about Anarcho-capitalism I thought "wow. This sounds just like Captain Chaos and the other Shadowrun neo-A's".

As for the bit on non-violent protest. Isn't the point of all these self-espousing democracies that you don't have to kill and die to institute sociopolitical change?

Funnily enough, the majority of the Sixth World is not really democratic. Sure, you might vote for the president of the UCAS, but due to the power of the corporate court, extraterritoriality and corp law, you're not really voting for a leader who can institute change, but really just a figure-head. It's an extreme version of the huge lobbying we see today.

An interesting take btw.



That in a sense is the fundamental paradox of cyberpunk - is living free yourself enough if the rest of the world is in chains, the answer from a cyberpunk perspective being both yes and no IMO.

Just as an aside to real life. Do not be mistaken. Anarcho-capitalists are not punk. Well, there are probably some misguided souls. But generally the anarcho-capitalists ARE the bigwigs. Under anarcho capitalism you are king of your own land. Others on it are your serfs for all intents and purposes. And you are free to build up your own security forces.

Secuirity forces that are not privately owned are highly unlikely as why would someone spend more money voluntarily to protect everyone when they could spend much less to get themselves a much greater degree of protection.

I could go on about how many of the "rights" libertarians and their ilk want back are the right to have a colored drinking fountain and a "gays need not apply" sign out front, but I'll leave it at a caution to watch out for them.


The neo-anarchist were, however, a punkish movement. Contianing, as I recall, some elements of colectivism to make it work that anarcho-capitalists would vomit at. Also they had the idea of using technology in ways to bypass some of the realistic problems. Such as means of production being availble to many if not all through micromachine shops, and coordinating a large body of people effectively.

Still a neo-anarch society would likely be doomed as well. Especially in the SR world where it's hard to hide under the skirts of bigger nations so you can get away with a crap or non existant military and federal police force.

Actually that's what they should have done with Berlin. Had a bug city like sourcebook covering its existance. Maybe some stuff for being around back when it broke off. But then something set more contemporarily dealing with it's collapse into something else. As people who had bought up much of the land and had built up huge personal armies battle it out with each other and those who remain that care more about ideals than their own well being. And then near the end some government or group of megacorps comes in and sweeps up the pieces.

It's astonishingly expensive to have a real personal security detail. By real we are not taking PotUS secret service level or one (essentially symbolic) bodyguard, but 6+ people per shift, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's a few million per year once you pay all the assorted bills. It's also pretty suffocating, as you have no privacy from them and they know all your secrets. To a large extent it makes sense to support the police rather than living inside a triple layer of armed omnipresent personal security men.

As kzt pointed out, the effectiveness of non-violence depends entirely on the testicular fortitude of the people whom you are protesting against. For every India you have a Tiananmen Square, a Trail of Tears, and a Auschwitz.
Early on there was, in fact, horrific slaughter. The problem was that the British had lost their taste for wholesale murder at that point and the only people willing to follow through with such activities were ostracized and removed from power.
Satyagraha was also aided by both World Wars and the resulting international political changes. By that point, all of the great empires were falling apart; Britain was very independence-happy, granting it to practically anyone who asked; and actually having an empire was more of a liability that it was worth. India would have probably gained independence if Ghandi hadn't done anything, simply due to the political winds, though it might have taken a few more years.

Likewise, the opponents of the American Civil Rights Movement produced several corpses and many more broken but alive bodies. In fact, I had a great aunt who gave away axe-handles for just that purpose. But, of course, beating the crap out of civil rights workers gets old. So does killing them and dumping their bodies in rivers. Without strong government support, it's hard to keep at it. Funding alone can be a problem since axe-handles tend to wear out after your beaten several people with them.

Support for King's non-violent movement in the government was motivated less by basic human dignity and more by the perceived threat of a militant Black Nationalist movement that might have been able to successfully capture and hold several States, transforming them into a New Africa, of sorts. Today, this is obviously stupidly implausible, but people really considered it to be likely possibility at the time. Giving into King's non-violent resistance was, at least partially, a way of heading off an unwinnable race.

Some governments, however, have the guts to run non-violent protesters over with tanks and then arrest and "reeducate" anyone who complains about it. Many governments do, in fact. In these places, non-violent protest is unwise. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the government. Early attempts to jumpstart a Civil Rights Movement in the 20s and 30s were nipped in the bud by dudes in white sheets and pointy hats. Everybody knew who they were but no one gave a crap, they had the tacit support of the local governments for such activities.

Its also a balancing act. The point of violence is not to harm the target but rather to gain the support of people who already believe in our cause but who were too afraid to act. Non-violence is to win people who don't give a crap about ou one way or anotehr over to your cause. You don't want to alienate the massive people who don't give a crap demographic, but you also don't want to leave your supporters cowering in fear in the face of an apparently invincible foe.

Obviousy every person isn't going to have a private sec guard. The very wealthy however? Oh yeah. But I'd doubt even the rest of us would be giving cash for general forces. Instead I'd expect, for example, the equivalent of a local homeowners association to get together and put together a force.

Of course in SR the already have megacorps with their own armies. So in many respects they'd have less to risk. Though even in SR the denizens still have Lone Star and the Metroplex Guard on hand in case a corp got any bright ideas.

Though since they already have military forces all the more reason why they'd be able to lay into a Free city. Actually isn't that more or less what happened to San Fransisco?

or it may well be the local government. one can wonder how many sheets hid a badge or similar...



also known as a walled garden?

snow crash anyone? or hell, SR's A+ areas?

You mean Mahatma Ghandi?

The thing is, violence and power-jockeying are an ingrained part of human nature. When you try to remove it from society, all you do is make it easer for those who are still willing to do things the "uncivilized" way. If you make a nation of sheep, the wolves will take over.

Likewise, governments really aren't that hard to take down--the main problem is that everybody views them as invincible, so no one really tries.

That's pretty much what's happening in my gaming group right now: We fragged a Mitsuhama strike team, thinking we were doomed the whole time, and suddenly realized just how easy it is to take out "unstoppable" corp forces in millspec armor with smart tactics and balls-out ruthlessness. The key is to play harder and dirtier than the other guy. Whether that's shooting the rotors off the strike team's helicopter as it flies in, running them over in an antique bulldozer, or sniping the rocket pods on their drones with a Barrett-121.

Runners are actually extremely well positioned to take on the corps. They have access to weapons, resources, information, and contacts that the average revolutionary couldn't dream of. There's a whole infrastructure in place that allows runners to damage corporate assets and avoid reprisal or identification. The best part is, your initial moves won't even be noticed until someone realizes you aren't just being paid to do all the damage you're doing. Runner's taking over the world is roughly equivalent to a military coup d'etat--they have all the toys and organization, the only thing keeping them in check is their loyalty to the chain of command.

And really, how much loyalty do runners have for the Corporate Court?

For our group, the current plan involves setting up a number of "Shadowrunner Charities" to organize and ingratiate ourselves with the runner community (as well as sponsoring events like "Global Steal A Plane Day" to mask our own activities and keep the star overworked), while taking merc jobs to solidify our association with Ares and possibly a few other AAA's. Eventually, we'll take over Ares (and any other corps we can grab) through blackmail/hacking/social engineering/buying shares/whatever, but leave the current management in charge and use it as a shell--essentially becoming the shadowy "power behind the throne".

When the time is right, we use the thor shot satellites controlled by out puppet AAA's to take out the other thor shots as well as key orbital habitats (ZOH this means you!) in a swift, coordinated attack, and then bombard the earth into submission.

So you see, it's really just a question of how far you're willing to go--and what kind of anarchy is acceptable to you. King shit of the post-apocalyptic stone age sounds good to me. After all, it's not who can keep the spice flowing...



Clearly, that is an understatement.

Though it helps to not care if you make money at it, and have a guaranteed income from the gubment due to being permanently clinically insane. I consider it protection money from society.

It's the same person. Mahatma is an honorific.

its just that it takes more then one man and some explosives.

one need to rally the horde. and as long as the media and similar keeps hammering individuality over community, that not going to happen unless a whole group of people (say based on race or worldview) gets slapped to the ground by the powers that be (or someone else, while the powers that be looks on but dont react).

Wow... I could have sworn I wrote this. I'm playing right now and this is exactly the path I followed, except I went with the pink mohawk and leisure jacket. Unfortunately, the clothes I tend to pick are precisely opposite of what is considered stylish by the game, so I have trouble picking up girlfriends.

(I have to assume you also kept working until you could get hitman skill with the micro-smgs, so you can wield them akimbo like Ghost-who-walks-through-walls.)


In regards to the topic at hand, there are some important differences between say 19th century colonial India and 2060 Seattle. A big one is the people in charge are seriously displaced from what's happening on the ground. The bigwig at Ares doesn't really give a rip if the auto plant by the docks stops production for a protest, because he has a hundred other plants in China, Africa, the Ukraine, etc. that can make up for the slack, he can shuffle money and get government subsidies to make up for the difference, etc. Non-violent protest is largely irrelevant to him, at least no more relevant than an iron shortage in Singapore or tariffs in Canada. Conventional violent protest is quickly taken care of by Lone Star or Knight Errant or whoever. He doesn't have to worry significantly about that because there aren't a lot of rules he has to follow to take care of the street trash and continue production (the exception being when the employees who are rioting are somehow too valuable to be easily replaced, but that doesn't come up often).

At this point, protests need to take it to the next level - targeted violence. The bigwig may stand up and take notice when a group of Shadowrunners break into his house and kidnap his daughter. That is not something he can write off or contract out - he must deal with it one way or another.

This is where Shadowrunners as punks come in, and the difference between a guy with a mohawk and an AK and Mission Impossible. In Mission Impossible, they know where their bread is buttered, and almost always they are working with or for the system, representing another system. Even in the Bourne novels, Bourne isn't against the CIA or whoever, he's only acting in self-defense. That isn't punk, that's just being a human with a backbone. Punk is when you bring it to them. Whether effective or not, punks are ultimately pursuing the next level of social change using whatever methods seem to be available, in this case a little directed ultraviolence. As the song goes, "I don't know what I want, but I know how to get it."

It's not Mohawks, but it's very 1980s. One of my PCs has a character history of having been brought up by the Trid rather than parental guidance, and wants very hard to be a ninja.

In fact, when Mr. Johnson was explaining the extraction from Disneyland was being recorded, his immediate responce was, "Wait, I get to be in my own NINJA MOVIE?"

He doesn't want very hard to be a director of Acquisition? I guess it takes a carboard box along with the Trid.

Nezumi, I guess that people who play Shadowrun think alike.