Cantankerous, ever read the Bible? Proverbs is full of recommending to beat your children into submission. And the Bible is hardly alone there.

Seriously. 'Tough love' is a staple of raising children even in the relatively nonviolent West, at least among certain social groups; and you can expect everyone else to not be more benign. Where do you get that statement from?

On a side note, marrying (barely) teenage girls to aging men isn't unheared of in the west either.

All I have to say is this if he was smacking his daughter around they should have let him live. Now if he was molesting her there are two real options killing him which they did, which is messy, and then there is blackmail. And for the guy that worked in the jail. You ever heard the term Short Eyes. Short Eyes means child molester. If you want to have someone killed when they first enter prison call them a Short Eyes, because serial killers, and child molesters are most likely to die in prison, and if you don't believe me what about Father John J. Geoghan. A child mosltors in the Boston church who was choked to death in prison in just over a year in prison, and he wasn't in the gen pop. He was in one of the most high security areas in the most high security prison in the state. So you can see that even scum have some form of right, and wrong.

And this has precisely what to do with sexual abuse? Did you read the discussion?

Isshia

Um, I may have missed it, but I don't think the OP ever said that daddy was molesting her, just that he was abusing her.

Of course in my Sixth World, society is so far gone that even that is not a reason for the Runners to geek him and get away with it.

He never did. I always took it as physical abuse aka beatings (as opposed to molesting). Never really read anything about that ...

Though: for sexual abuse of minors, you have the ancients (Greek, Roman, Carthargian, Egyptean) as well as Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, lots of fringe sects in the West (like Raellians), and certain islamic sects, and, of course, pretty much all of Africa.

Again, in my quote you answered to I don't think you could have read it. We were talking, clearly, concisely about ACCEPTED or ACCEPTABLE sexual abuse of children. The statement that started that tangent was about the Sixth World being so wide open that large segments of it would be ok with it. I think that's bunk as it has NEVER been accepted or acceptable behavior anywhere, any when.

From Happy Daze:

My response:



Among none of these cultures or sects you've listed has child sexual abuse ever been accepted or acceptable. The "love of a man for his young charge" among the Athenians was restricted to the young warriors (in Ancient Athens adult aged was young; 13 year olds could own land, if they owned enough of it, they could vote) for it to be acceptable among THEMSELVES, but they were still looked askance at, more because of the youth of the young men than because of the homosexual issue according to most historians, by others. Yet even among them, it was not children.

The Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, in Islam, in Africa (in much of Asia as well, still today) ...right here in the West, in the United States, the UK, Canada, all of Europe, hell, the world over, it occurs, but is universally condemned among the societies involved as a whole. There will always be small (TINY actually) splinter idiot groups, like NAMBLA in the US and UK for instance, that try to promulgate their view point, but are condemned for it among their cultures. The same is true in Islam and in the Asian countries and Africa as well. NO WHERE is it accepted, nor has it ever been. Again, show me ONE case where a whole culture embraced it. And not the BS of using our modern technicalities of 18 or less is a child, or 21 or less, or 24 or les in some nations for god sake, but among the culture in question where the person involved was considered to be a child.


Isshia

As to whether it was sexual abuse or daddy hit me...don't get me wrong, I think that any man that physically abuses a little girl in any manner is a coward at best; but if the Runners blew the guy away because he administered spankings they need to get their street cred demolished. If there was a heinous crime involved (he was beating her senseless OR sexually abusing her) that's one thing. If he was simply administering spankings, even harsh ones, and got capped for that: if word gets out they should be treated like the mad dog killers, and worse in Shadowrun, the unreliable loose canons, that they are.


Isshia

As you note, views change as societies do. The Sixth World has had some pretty profound changes, so I wouldn't say that anything is out of the questions especially since there's so little global watchdogging like we have today that tries to impose the US's values on the whole world. In SR the closest you would have is the Corp Court (the UN and other more 'metahumanitarian' organizations are pretty much gimped) and they really only care about consumers - and since a beaten or molested child still buys more crap than a shot in the head scumbag father, where would they place the pressure? To the CC, shooting people in the face is worse than child abuse, but neither are as bad as embezzlement or fraud. The changes of society and all...

Despite the privatization of public services (which is nothing new) and the rise of megacorps and a wireless VR world, I haven't seen much in canon material that makes the fictional world of Shadowrun all that different, sociologically, from the world we live in today. It seems the pieces have just been reshuffled on the board. People treat each other based on standards, joys, sicknesses and prejudices just as people of today do. It pushes credibility for me to believe that even a hyper-private sector dominated society would be one where parents view their children simply as sacrifices for the altar of the almighty corporation and abuse them at whim.

Organlegging and cloned meat to feed the legalized cannibals of the world? Just for one.

Trafficking in organs isn't new.

Cloning meat for ghouls and those looking for a new taste sensation! is still described as a fringe activity.

Child Molesting is unacceptable even in SR, according to RAW (SSB).


Okay, I missed that. Yes, in that case, you're mostly right.


Not in Africa. A man who recommends raping a virgin to cure your AIDS (which, in contemporary South Africa, means a girl of about 12 years) is going to be the next president. Also, it could be argued that Mormons are a society upon themselves.


The corp court isn't the world government.


Long Pig, anyone?

I like Transmet as social satire but if that stuff becomes canon, I quit!

It sounds to me like you intended to present you players with a moral dilemma in this situation. Do the runners turn the daughter back over to the father who has been abusing her for some time, turning a blind eye on the situation and getting paid. Or do the runners do something about the situation, and forgo payment. Good for you! I highly approve of putting moral dilemma's like this in your game. Even more so because you managed to get the players to respond in the 'right' fashion. Choosing moral principle over money, which (in my experience) is pretty rare in the shadows/among PCs.

BUT a moral dilemma is no dilemma without consequences. If the players had turned to girl over, they would be a little bit richer, but would have to live with the knowledge of what they turned a little girl back over to. I would give them less karma in this case. Saving the girl means they likely get no money, and possibly take a hit to there reps, but a warm and fuzzy feeling for doing the right thing. I would give the players a point of notoriety and some extra karma. I would also have had the mom pay them some money for their efforts (but not as much as the main job). I really like the way notoriety works in SR4, it gives me an easy concrete way to measure the distaste contacts may have for PCs due to their actions.

So, I don't see what the problem is, but that is probably due to my lack of information. The big remaining question to me is was the level of abuse in your opinion appropriate for the punishment the players dished out? If there reactions were out-of line you might want to incur some additional karmic penalty. I would do this by having the mom or some other angry interested party make their lives difficult. If the response was just you might consider having karma pay them additional favor in the future for their good deeds (maybe the mom becomes a contact?).

And of course many players are going to look at this situation and try and figure out away they can complete the mission AND save the little girl. In other words, have there cake and eat it to. This is fine, if the players can come up with a clever enough solution to the dilemma, let them. Clever play should always be rewarded. But don't penalise them unjustly for not figuring out a way to do this. I mean you did just put the dilemma in front of them. Don't be mad when the pick one of the options!

---

I would also point out that responses to this situation can very a lot based upon the kind of game you and your players want to have. I prefer a game that retains some sense of morality, but other players feel very strongly that morals have no place in a game of shadowrun. This is something you need to decide upon with your other PCs. Both styles are of course legitimate way to play (there is no 'right' way to play a RPG, just so long as you are having fun), but I of course have my preferences as expressed above.

The only thing I would recommend against is putting moral dilemmas before your players where there is only one correct solution. A moral dilemma should should involve some sacrifice either way.

But there is already a meaning to Street Cred and Notoriety. Just that it is not the meaning you want it to be doesn't mean there isn't one.

Actually, I'm pretty sure cloned meat will be on the shelves a few months after they figure out how to make it cost-effective in RL. Cloned human meat probably won't technically be illegal either...

I disagree. The dude who doesn't try to win the Kobayashi Maru just doesn't have enough Kirk in him to make it when the going gets tough.

But killing the guy wasn't one of two solutions presented, it was their solution that they created themselves of their own free will. It also happened to be among the stupidest and most thuggish of all possible solutions ( I say among because it is topped by siccing Bubba on him and various other tortures), The fact that it is likely to case as much hard to the child as it prevents also apparently did not entire into their minds.

Such thugishness should carry penalties, even if they are gangster rappers.

I'm still of the mind that the players should not be 'punished' for anything, but that they should have to deal with the natural consequences of their actions. They're murderous thugs? Good for them! They're murderous thugs who shot a johnson because they didn't like his haircut, and they carefully erased any evidence it was them, and framed a rival shadowrunning team? Good for them. They're murderous thugs who shot the johnson because he didn't like their haricut, then went down the pub and bragged about it? Good for them, though they might now find it tough to find work. They're altruistic robin-hood types who've decided to dispense vigilante justice (the best kind) on that shadowrunning team they heard about who shoot johnsons on a whim? Good for them, and they might just get some favours out of it from people whose lives were threatened (then again, they might not).

Consequences will arise from the circumstances naturally, but they will be void of moral judgements. A team that dabbles in organlegging using false identities that they successfully manage to keep secret will 'get away with it' (no notoriety), just like people in real life probably do - they're just going to have to be damn careful, because while the world may not have morals, other people do, and if they get found out, that notoriety is going to skyrocket as johnsons all over town realise who they've been hiring...

That's not what I meant. I meant that you should have an explanation associated with these specific notoriety/street cred points you've got. Someone who's got 1 Notoriety points because he killed innocents will not have the same reputation as someone who's got 1 Notoriety Points because he's extremely unlucky, or because he sold his team. The notoriety points will act the same way as far as the rules are concerned, but the explanation behind the points will be different and so will be the NPC's reactions in RP.

As far as the RAW is concerned there is no difference in reputation between an homicidal maniac and a traitor or a guy who is simply unlucky as long as they have the same Notoriety. The entire incident or series of incidents are lumped into a single Notoriety score. However the RAW does indeed already note such actions per the rules for Gaining Notoriety. As I said already, Notoriety and Street Cred already have their meanings.

At the delivery of his kidnapped daughter they killed the man who they were working for.

Conjectures:
Maybe they did not like him. Maybe they just did it for kicks. Maybe he double-crossed them. Maybe they killed him because he had been abusing his daughter.

Out of all of these option number four seems the least plausible. The rest either make them psychos and/or amateurs.

Congrats they just got a point of noteriety.

As for the abuse aspect. I was actually thinking about something else. Define how a child defines that they are abused?

Would a prepubescent child understand abuse in the same way as an adult? Would a child consider as abuse: being locked in her room, being told that she could not see Tommy who is two years older than she is, playing dress-up with dad, being spanked for breaking plates.

I personally find that the word abuse is emotionally charged and is used as accusation. However it is also a term used by psychiatrists to define a pattern of maltreatment of a child usually by an adult. The abuse can be neglect, sexual, physical or psychological.

A girl of ten years old may say that she loves her dad so much that she wants to marry him in her mom's wedding dress. Would this be evidence of abuse?

Bravo; well said!

It is NOT the GMs job to punish the Players. If you feel you have to punish your Players either get new Players or stop GMing. You aren't doing ANYONE any good. If, on the other hand, you actively enjoy the natural consequences of an action undertaken coming home to roost, well, that's a different story. To be a worth while GM just be sure it IS the NATURAL consequences of the actions and not you grinding an axe. The term Master in this sense of Game Master is not a license to haul out your pulpit and preach or to play daddy (or mommy if you're one of our female GMs). Save your preaching for forums where people who don't like your opinions can just bloody well ignore them


Isshia

It's actualy very plausible. Abuse can create a twisted 'need' and 'love' and 'attachement' for the abuser in such cases. The kids rationalise that they where bad, that it is normal and loving, that they caused it, etc...

Do you HAVE young children? A ten year old girl might be alittle older than most girls who say that they want to marry their Daddy but it is a far cry from abuse.

I believe that The ubbergeek was simply pointing out that sexual contact does tend to build romantic attachment over time, mostly due to the various chemicals released into the brain by such contact. And that sometimes people who experience what would be categorized as sexual abuse actually enjoy it, because it does feel good.

Physical and emotional abuse also tend to build strong attachment, mainly because the patterns of such abuse resemble being captured by an enemy tribe, which human beings tend to respond to by forming strong emotional attachments and love-bonds. Social isolation increases the strength of emotional bonds, while economic dependency reinforces this. The violence->kindness-> violent-> kindness cycle helps, as well, as does any self-esteem damage that would prevent the individual from aspiring to something grander.

The desire to marry dad in a 10-year-old, however, is either a sign of a failure of the Westermark Effect or of immaturity and naivete, quite possibly both. Such failure is most likely to be caused to long periods of paternal absence early in life combined by wishful romanticizing of the father. Perhaps the parents were divorced and the father didn't have more than a bare minimum of visitation rights. Perhaps the father was a long-distance truck driver, pilot, soldier, super-spy. or fedora-wearing archeologist, necessitating long absences from the home in the child's formative years.

This, however, does not seem to be the case in this event. The child was clearly frightened to return to the father's custody, according to the GM.

Punishing or not punishing your players is a GM decision, and saying that players can get away with anything and not be punished is a very pink mohawk approach. This is not a bad thing, but it is a different style of play. Now trying to argue people who are playing the game more black trench coat that punishing players is the dumbest thing every is just plain foolish. Just like someone saying that pink mohawk is stupid. Different interpretations only lead to arguments that go nowhere.

I for one would knock one point of loyalty off of every single one of their contacts for the person who shot the Johnson in the head. I don't generally deal with street cred or all that other business, because I believe it to be totally arbitrary for the GM and therefore not helpful at all. That is my take on the situation at least.

To an earlier point that was made. Confessions by the child are not very helpful as influence, video altering, mind control, and all sorts of other things can be altered for the party to make them seem in the right.

The reason why I would punish the players is because they had a job to do. They not only didn't do the job they shot the person they were working for and.... well the other reasons have already been mentioned many times. Now it's not to say that maybe they didn't make a bad choice, and they were certainly doing a moral good (possibly,) the fact of the matter is though that this is a contact that the team has worked with for a long time. A very very long time and this person was probably a high loyalty contact. You snuff a Johnson that you have been doing a lot of biz with over something that the local police could have handled... well that just asks for punishing the players in my GM handbook. They are only getting punished for not thinking the situation through. I as a player have been punished for my actions, and when I GM I punish people for making the wrong move. I don't see anything wrong with this play style. Sorry but in the SR world Mind Probing is also taboo. So a little girl said she had been hurt by her father and the Shadowrunners first inclination is to basically rape her brain.... did they even ask her permission? Did she say "sure you can root around in my brain to your hearts content!" Should the players not be punished by ingame consequences? That is always a GMs call, and my call would be yes punish people who didn't really think things out.

@ Cantankerous - Would you mind toning it down a little? Honestly other people have made fairly good arguments and your response has been your a bad GM if you do this and you are preaching. Does your argument give you a license to haul out your pulpit and preach or to play daddy or mommy to everyone here in the forums? I would love to have that license if it was available for purchase. Sorry mate but this is a forum and you can choose to ignore or not ignore whatever you feel like it, and everyone else here can do the same. Your in your camp and I'm in mine, but there is no need to put people down because they have a different opinion then yours.

If the players were smart, they could have a new Johnson and the job was to kill their previous Johnson, even if the job was pro bono. Then in this case, technically the runners could fulfill their obligation to their initial Johnson by turning his daughter to him however briefly and then fulfill their obligation to their second Johnson by killing her father. So the runners weren't killing off their Johnson, they were killing off their mark.

And I disagree with this. I think its misleading to set a PC up in a situation where he has an obvious moral dilemma, and an obvious choice to make, and then punish him when he isn't creative enough to come up with an option C that gets out of it. To me its rather like if I give you a set of choices A or B, and then when you choose one of them I punch you and say 'Fool! You should have chose option C!.' In most moral dilemmas like this the PCs have a decision, a dilemma, present to them by the GM. He should not punish them for choosing one of the choices. Worse then railroading, its railroading where the PCs can't even see the tracks!

As I said before, clever play should always be encouraged. Finding a way out of bad situation can be lots of fun for a player. BUT if the player can't see a third way out, he shouldn't be unduly punished for taking one of the choices you laid out for him.


However, I may agree with this. Without knowing the specifics of the situation its hard to judge, but it may be that killing the contact was way out of line for the acts he has committed. In such a case some additional harshness might appropriate. On the other hand, I do feel like killing the father WAS a logical solution to the dilemma presented (if a somewhat thuggish one), so there fates might be tempered by this some what.

----

I think it's important to note that when I say 'punishment' I do not necessarily mean in game reactions to a players actions. One of the most powerful tools a GM has in his disposal is karma distribution. You should distribute more when players do actions you approve of and do actions you approve of in the game, and less when they do not. Be explicit about it. Let the PCs know that turning the girl back over to their abusive father cost them some karma, or that saving her from that abuse was worth a bonus.

---

I also think that a lot of responses to this thread indicate that there are a number of different responses you could take depending upon the style of your game. In some games violence might be desensitized to the point that it might be appropriate for the PCs could put a round in a contacts head and laugh about it with some of the other contacts over drinks later that night. Since there is no one 'right style' of play, you should probably turn your question around back on yourself. Given your style of game you want to have, how do YOU think it is best to respond? We all have our various styles of gaming that we like, but only you know what is best for you and your group.

You seem to be mistaking 'punishment' with 'consequences.' As a result, you have your terms backwards; Black Trench Coat encourages consequences, while discouraging punishment. People get away with murder in real life, if you want a realistic Black Trench Coat style game, then PC's should never be punished - they should only have to deal with the repercussions of their actions.



But we don't know if any of his contacts even know he shot the guy. Sure, if they find out they should lose loyalty (possibly more than one point of it too), but if they honestly don't know, why are they suddenly less friendly?



Again, you seem to have what I'm trying to say backwards. I'm using 'punished' to mean the GM applying abstracted metagame penalties for doing the 'wrong' thing. Having the cops catch up to the runners after they do some sloppy wetwork isn't punishing them, it's just being realistic about it. The only thing the real world 'punishes' you for is stupidity - we call this form of punishment 'consequences.'



And I, in my turn, disagree with your take on things. =)

Sometimes life sucks, and this seems to be a fairly central theme to SR. If you hand the players a choice, you don't have to make sure there's a 'right' way out - it's perfectly fine for all the coices to be wrong ones. You shouldn't do this too often, or they players will get disillusioned, but sometimes you just have to try to choose the lesser of two weevils.

If the players get creative and see a third solution that you didn't, good for them! The consequences of such creative problem-solving are generally positive ones (and there is a specific karma award for creative problem solving, I believe).

If they don't see a mystical third way out, though, well tough luck.



I vehemently disagree with this kind of handling. As I stated before, the universe does not pass moral judgement, and neither does karma. You get karma for surviving, applying creative solutions, moving the plot forward, excellent roleplaying and occasionally being in the right place at the right time. Note how none of that has anything to do with wether the GM thinks the players are doing the 'right thing.' Now, if you, as a GM, want to run it that way, and you explain that to the players and they're OK with that too, that's fine, just bear in mind that that's not how the core rules were set up to operate.

The only 'moral' judgement the core rules imposes comes in the form of street cred / notoriety, which has nothing to do with the PC's 'alignment' and everything to do with how the world percieves them. PC's that were framed for someone else's organlegging will gain notoriety just the same as if they'd actually done it, unless they can come up with some conclusive proof to the contrary. PC's that actually are organlegging, but manage to frame rival runners for it when their operation gets busted will remain notoriety-free, unless soemone manages to successfully pin it on them.

Shadowrun is intended to be a game with a 'realistic' morality, where there are no inherent consequences for being an arsehole - there are only consequences if you let everyone know you're an arsehole.



Different game styles is a valid point, and one that SR encourages, but those game styles should arise out of the player's play styles, not be arbitrarily imposed by the GM's own moral code. If the players are doing things that make you, as the GM, uncomfortable, then you should talk to the players about toning it down for the sake of your stomach / sanity, rather than forcing their characters to conform to your personal ideals via metagame penalties (karma).

The default SR setting (which you may freely tailor to your group's tastes) is one in which the motto is 'anything goes, but don't get caught.'

I think our opinions have crossed paths at some point. I don't disagree with putting players in a situation with no 'best' solution. But I have experienced (and heard tale on these forums and elseweare) situations where the GM placed two mutualy unpleseant situations in front of a team of runners, and then dropped the hammer on them for picking one of them, often berating them for not seeing solution c which was unstated. I have even been slightly guilty of this myself from time to time. To me this was a situation in danger of becoming that.

I guess what I am saying is moral dilemmas and/or no-win situations are fine, but go easy on them. Its not fair to put the players in a solution with no good choice and then just heap more crap on them. As you say it breeds disillusionment in the game. If bad things continually happen to the players no matter what they do, their choices begin to become meaningless.


We disagree, on this but as I say I believe it is more a question of style the rule of play. I firmly believe that karma certainly should be used as a tool to encourage the style of play you (and of course your players) want.

As to what style of play the rules encourage, I believe you are overstating your case. I don't think shadowrun is 'intended' to be anything. The core rules don't encourage you to play merciless assholes any more then they encourage you to play valiant white knights. Indeed as you point out they are pretty much completely ambiguous as towards moral issues in most cases. And while you are correct that the core rules also don't mention awarding karma for moral (or amoral) actions, virtually every published adventure does. Sometimes giving karma award for actions that we would generally consider morally decent and penalties for actions that don't. In any case in most situations moral punishment or bonus generally fits nicely under succeeding the mission objectives or pushing the story-line along.


I didn't say this, but consider it an unstated point. A game style should of course arrive from the mutual desires of the players and the GM, and shouldn't be forced down anyone's throat. This works both ways of course though, so while a GM certainly should force a moral game on the players, neither should the players force an amoral game on an unwilling GM either.

The relationship between the PCs and GM over game style is always tricky though. Heck it can be a thorny issue between players! There will always be some conflict. Indeed a game in which the players and GM are in perfect agreement over play style would probably be boring. The players need the GM to be an arbiter in there games, which means that he is (on occasion) going to penalize them out of game for there actions, which in SR generally means karma. Note that this doesn't have to be about moral issues, a GM is expected to withhold karma for the players failing their objectives, disrupting the story, and so on. Without this, there would be no challenge, and the game would be boring. The GM in turn need the players to be independent actors in his story, or else he has just puppets, or worse no players at all. Its a balance.

But I still think that using Karma to enforce adherence to a mutually agreed upon play style can be an important technique. Since it is almost guaranteed that all players and the GM are not going to be in agreement on this subject. So I think karma can (and should) be used as a reward or punishment for player actions that do not meet the style expectations of the group.

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you've saud, but I've underlined some key points of disagreement. You're right, the game doesn't encourage you to be merciless, and it also doesn't encourage you to be robin hood. It doesn't encourage anything which is why the idea of adding or subtracting karma at the end of a story irks me somewhat. The whole point of SR (to me at least, and it seems to be somewhat supported by the flavour and rules in the books) is that you are living in a 'real' world, which doesn't much care what you do - though the same cannot be said for the people inhabiting the world.

On the point of the published adventures supporting your argument, while it may be true that most of them encourage robin-hood type gaming, it'a also worth noting that those published adventures are part of a 'living' style game (for the most part), which is supposed to be playable by kids. When you have a younger audience, priorities in terms of content neccessarily change.

I still disagree about any kind of out-of-game panalty for in-character actions, and while you're right that failing a run nets less karma, I don't see that as a penalty for failing so much as 'not earning the bonus for success.' There is a certain amount of karma one can earn in each scenario, and, generally, you want to fulfill as many of the criteria for earning it as possible, but not fulfilling that criteria does not equal being penalised so much as not getting the bonus.

And I still disagree about using karma awards / penalties to enforce a playstyle. If the playstyle is actually 'agreed' upon, you shouldn't need those measures in place (though if there are problem players at the table that cannot easily be gotten rid of, it might be justified, but even then I'd be wary).

I think this might just be a case of having to 'agree to disagree,' but I still stand by my comment that, by RAW, there's no precedence for karma awards / penalties for appropriate / innapropriate behaviour - it's purely a house-rule.

And this discussion is a show of why approach some touchy subjects with carefull attention and know the possible consequences of it.

Wow, did this cut a bit to the bone? Punishing Players? Seriously? I didn't think that anyone actually even contemplated this. It seems bizarre. I was making a joke off of what I obviously misunderstood to be a flippant remark. My bad.

The idea of Punishing the Players, to me, misses the entire idea of what the GM is supposed to be doing. All of it.

The GM is supposed to be an impartial judge of how the game rules interact with the Players. He sets the stage as well, the tone and tenor are in no small part also his bailiwick, but hopefully not solely so. He/she is no better than the Players. His/her role is not ever to make the Players behave, but to adjudicate what happens when they don't. Usually, if they aren't damned smart about it, that means death. Pretty final. Also, as I said, if the Players are doing things that so get under your skin that you can't take it, this isn't something you hector them for IN GAME. After the session, before the session, between them, fine and dandy, as it has to be enjoyable for the GM as well as the Players, but "Punishing the Players" for doing something other than what you would have done? Huh?

Man, if you have Players that are Pink Mohawking on you, to borrow your terminology, maybe you should look at how you as GM are presenting things? It may not come back to you at all, but hey, very often Players take their ques for how to act from how the GM handles things. Personally in more than 30 years of running games in every genre out there I've never had a problem with it past a couple of sessions, because instead of "Punishing the Players" (dear god, that term itself offends the hell out of me) they were simply forced to face the consequences of their actions...and this in any and ALL genres, not just Shadowrun. Between that and communicating with the Players as equals when they did something I really couldn't tolerate, instead of putting myself into a superior position and punishing them, it has NEVER been a problem.

Ohh, and please, if my posts bother you so greatly, please, feel free to ignore them entirely.


Isshia

There is punishing the players, which I imagine involves a large wooden paddle and the phrase "Thank you, sir; may I have another?", which I do not believe we were actually considering, and then there is punishing the characters with the consequences of their actions, which is perfectly reasonable.

Shooting a guy in the face in order to protect a member of his family really shouldn't produce spectacularly good results for the family. About the effects of noteriety, I agree that it would depend on how well they covered their tracks, but it doesn't sound like they've made much of an attempt.

Precisely. Or, and this appears to be popular, I can't imagine docking karma points from my characters if they have otherwise fulfilled the requirements for the karma as a result of their later actions. For instance, if I had set up a 2 point karma award for rescuing the little girl successfully, I sure damned hell would not strip that from them if they afterward blew daddy's face off. One has nothing to do with the other.

As a GM I'm not naive. If I set them the table for them of daddy as an abuser (especially as a sexual predator), I would have my pre-determined results in place. If, for instance, the little girl lied about it, and hey, especially in today's society this REALLY actually occurs some times, with a child naively WANTING to get mommy or daddy in trouble, not realizing the repercussions of their actions in accusing the parents of abuse of one type or another, and the characters offed daddy based on her sad little story, whammo, karma point loss. But it would be written down ahead of time. I wouldn't be standing as morals judge of the characters actions. That is NOT my job. My damned morals have no place in the game world at all, period, world without end and amen. (This sermon brought to you by the pulpit lovers for ethical snideness )


Isshia

I have always viewed character punishment and player punishment as the same thing. I think it is just a difference of interpretation and created a miss-understanding. I would punish the "characters" heavily for what they did, I just find that a lot of people get really attached to their characters and can sometimes take it as a personal affront that you are giving out harsh consequences to the characters for making a bad move. Luckily I have finally found a group where people are fine that the GMs are not going to hold your hand, and at the same time everyone doesn't take it personal if their character is punished when the player makes a bad move.

Anyways the problem with a thread like this the obvious answer is "Your the GM, so figure it out as it is completely arbitrary."

The whole "punishing players" comes back often when discussing GMing. I think it has two different causes:

1. A good GM should challenge PCs. Consider all good fiction out there. No matter how good characters will be, they'll always end up facing some challenge which'll require them to push their abilities to their limits to succeed. Even the most badass character will eventually get this. If he doesn't, the audience will be greatly disappointed. It's the same for PCs. A PC who's very good at something will deserve scenes where he easily best his opponents with talent and style but will also need scenes where he'll be challenged. The problem is that it's not very easy to get the border between "challenge" and "punishment".

2. Most of the time, the PC survive and "win" against the opposition (leaving Cthulhu out for the sake of the argument). That's good because if they didn't the games would be much shorter and far less satisfying for players. But everyone has a tendency to want to be the best. So some GM will end up frustrated to keep "losing" and will want to take revenge over the PCs. This is good if it leads to challenge, as explained in the first point, but it can also lead to punishment, which isn't a good thing.

Yeah, I think this was a lack of communication. I thought you were talking about things like deducting karma for actions not within your own personal moral compass. I am abso-friggin-lutely HUGE on cause and consequences. Even non-obtrusive ones, like certain contacts getting slanted information about how a Runner acted. We've had this in game where a contact, snarling, angry, accused a character of something they didn't only not do, but something they did the near opposite of, because the situation itself was unclear. The Player involved LOVED it, although his character was shocked, angry herself and went off on a rampage as a result where she did things that were worse than what she had been accused of.

It's just been so often on other forums that I saw guys who got off on how they were going to "get the Players" for doing something that they themselves didn't like morally. I was shocked when I thought (that's what I get for thinking ) I saw it happening here.

SO, excuse me if I seemed overly harsh. I misunderstood you.


Isshia