So I'm thinking about Dollhouse, which just ended it's 12 episode run, and I've come to an unfortunate conclusion, that the writers of that series made a rather huge mistake when creating the supposedly sympathetic backstory of the protagonist.


Now, the fun thing about illegal political activism is that there is so much that you can do, and most true believer characters will remain sympathetic even if they commit horrible atrocities. An anti-war activist could firebomb military facilities are remain perfectly sympathetic. A hardcore anarchist could blow up government buildings and remain sympathetic. An Islamic militant could nuke Valencia and remain sympathetic in his own way. But people who break into research labs are "free" the white rats, well they just always come off as total idiots.

The most violent radical and zealous devotion to a cause can usually be presented as a good positive thing, with a little spin, but at some point the cause becomes so inconsequential and stupid that it's difficult to feel any sympathy for those who support it, even if they're otherwise nice people.

This is an important consideration when designing NPCs. Depending on a player's perception (and the PC's) an NPC that was meant to be sympathetic can, instead, by worthy of immediate summery execution. At the same time, characters who are responsible for horrific atrocities can be very lovable and sympathetic to the players and the PCs, either by design or by accident, and often by accident.

Given the nature of Shadowrun, it's very easy to see the good sides of even the worst monsters. Given that the PCs themselves tend to be deranged sociopaths of one flavor or another, that even the most moral do things that no sane person would do, either out of desperation or the desire for freedom, it's hard to objectively fault the death camp warden or the pedophilliac serial rapist. Any objective shadowrunner would be able to look at himself and honestly admit to probably doing worse, and any empathetic shadowrunner who took a moment to actually talk to these characters would probably find themselves at the very least understanding their reasons and motivations if not entirely agreeing with them. It also doesn't hurt if the death camp warden is Colonel Klink or Sergeant Schultz.



And these thoughts lead me to a question that is best answered IC.

You are trapped in a room with a member of PETA and a member of NAMBLA. You have no other information about them. You must kill one but cannot kill the other. You are told that when you accomplish the murder you will be released and the survivor will be elected President of the UCAS. Which one do you kill?

What has your hypotectical scenario have to do with unsympathetic idealists and lovable monsters? I do not get the connection.

What does PETA and NAMBLA mean?

PETA

NAMBLA

Kill both.
Declare yourself president.
Kill who put you into that Situation or have him be killed when President.

I'd make the NAMBLA guy president. I mean... he will certainly look like Marlon Brando! How cool would that be!

I'm with Stahlseele on this one. Ugggh.

One common theme in dollhouse is the question of identity, and specifically, the identity of Echo (who basically said she has none) is portrayed as competent, strong, independent, while the identity of Caroline is portrayed as being ditsy. Her being caught doing something stupid as freeing lab rats is not accidental, you're supposed to think Caroline is a dummy. Expect something in season 2 to highlight that Echo is an identity by her own right, and if Caroline is restored, Echo 'dies'. If you sympathized too much with Caroline, this wouldn't too much of a dilemma for you.

In regards to NPCs, the secret to creating sympathy is to show motivations and desirable traits. Putting the NPC's view of himself and his goal in contrast with the PC's views of the NPC and his actions are what create contrast. Right now I've introduced a creature akin to bugs. Right now the PCs think they're evil and deserve to burn, but soon they'll see that these creatures are trying to keep themselves alive, while reducing harm and fighting for justice (they care for their metahumans as much as they're able, like you might care for your pet rabbits. The PCs can only accept the creatures as evil if they accept their own treatment of lesser creatures as evil.)

To turn it around, you're trapped in a room with a war hero, orphaned by a foreign invader, who had the wits and ingenuity to use whatever available to strike back from within the heart of an unbeatable enemy, against incredible odds, risking everything he is, his life, his reputation, to protect his people. Who are you facing? Endor Wiggin, or an Al-Qaeda terrorist? (Alright, Endor wasn't orphaned... But he could have been!)

There's no patent recipe for creating sympathetic NPCs. Some NPCs the players and PCs just hate no matter what the GM does or did.

Ah, but you can't kill both by the rules of the game.

However, nothing is stopping you from forcing them to fight each other and then killing the survivor.

Nice loophole. +1 Clever

Coming up with sympathetic villains is actually fairly simple (though not always easy), the real trick is figuring out how to put the PCs face-to-face with the needed info. You need to get to know your player's legwork habits, and put the breadcrumbs where they'll find them. THEN you need to make the crumbs look tasty and inviting so they don't just ignore them anyway.

i like the way you think ^^

Then you need to make them look not so tasty and inviting so they don't go, "Tempting... a little too tempting..."

I disagree with the idea that shadowrunners are likely to be deranged sociopaths. I see many people in the forums follow that path, but I prefer the idea that many shadowrunners are in the business because of bad luck or bad choices. They are still people, trying to live their lives. Lumping them in with pedophilliac serial rapist doesn't sit right. Even among the most hardened, violent convicts, the pedophilliac serial rapist would be beaten to death by the inmates. As for the death camp wardens, these people aren't necessarily sociopaths, any more than KKK members are. They do not believe they are killing humans, as they see Africans (in the case of the KKK) or Jews (in the case of Nazi Death Camp Wardens) as less than human.

If you wish to play a shadowrunner that has no empathy for other people and runs the shadows for the joy of it, and the cash, go for it, but I believe that is the easy route. Those stories could easily end up on the Sci-Fi channel. I personally find sociopaths uninteresting. They don't have moral dilemmas. The drama in their stories is in the people around them, not within them. Now, give me someone who feels they have a moral debt to repay, or a family to support. I want to see someone who is seeking to prove themselves to themselves, or maybe looking climb out of their current station in life. Money and violence as motivations are good for action movies, but I wouldn't want to be that shallow.

What happens when Good people do Bad Things and Bad people do Good Things?

What's good, what's bad?

All fun stuff for RP games.

Well, I guess I would have a long talk with the PETA member about issues and responsibilities in politics. Positive answers might save the people who trapped me in the first place. No harm, no foul. Then I punch my exit ticket.

I'd kill the PETA member of course.

PETA is pretty much accepted amongst the general populace. Most people think that they just really like dogs and don't know how mentally screwed the organization really is. The PETA member would be able to get a lot of BS laws put into place to further PETA's cause.

NAMBLA on the other hand, is a universally reviled entity. What laws would this sort of person be able to pass to further NAMBLA's cause? None. The NAMBLA member would instead focus on other laws.

And here is some other benifits. Blackmail! Can I blackmail the PETA member? Not so easily. A NAMBLA president? HELL YEAH!!!!!

And if I didn't want him in charge I can bring his affiliation to light along with pictures which I'm sure he has. Oh, and afterwards I can still kill him right?

If the crazy sheep are willing to elect a NAMBLA memeber as president then they deserve it. And who am I to stop them? Besides, the other moron would be likely to outlaw corned beef.

This assumes that making a pet of an animal is morally equivalent to making a pet of a person. That is a very, very large (and, I suspect, unpopular) assumption.

It's pending, okay?

I see PETA as a terrible blight upon society that should not be allowed to come into any power. NAMBLA, meanwhile, don't want to force you to change your lifestyle to fit their preferences. I'd choose to kill the PETA member and make the NAMBLA member President. As others have said, the NAMBLA member would be incapable of progressing their agenda anyway. PETA might actually command enough good favour to progress theirs.


Stop making choices on the basis of taste, and look at the situation rationally. NAMBLA may be more distasteful from their public face, but because NAMBLA is publically distasteful it is the more impotent of the two. PETA presents a reasonably nice public face but funds domestic terrorism and produces a constant stream of insanity. Inane insanity.

I would put several bullets into the NAMBLA member and turn to the PETA member and tell him/her that he/she will be next if they don't change their ways.
NAMBLA is an excuse to have child porn. At least PETA is trying to make the world a better place (in the worst way possible but at least they are trying).

On a rational level, it's true that a NAMBLA President really couldn't pass much legislation to support his organization's stated aims (not yet, at any rate, maybe in fifty years we'll think that sort of thing is normal and healthy again, the way the ancient Greeks did). By killing the PETA wacko and letting Captain Nambla get elected POTUS, I know that his man/boy love isn't gonna take any great strides, because we've got enough laws on the books and social taboos firmly in place to let him get any legislating done to found National Hump A Preteen Day or anything. A rabid PETA member, however, maybe could effect changes in legislation (likely by masquerading or explaining his ideas as environmentally friendly, yadda yadda yadda), and would be far more capable of abusing his power, and the (relative) good name of his organization (compared to NAMBLA, at least) to screw things up.

I'd strangle the PETA member and send the NAMBLA guy off to the White House.

On a more fun level? I'd flip a coin...by punching each of them, back and forth, one at a time, and just let loose whichever one didn't die first. Either way, I'd get to have a good time.

Shoot myself, preferably in a way in which causes both of them to be scarred for life. I refuse to play by their rules.

That's what I came up with.

Now, if I had to choose one of them to be alive and that he had to be president, I think I'd pick NAMBLA. PETA is full of idiots (seen their "fish are see kitties" campaign?). At least NAMBLA is only after man-boy sexual relations; despicable, but not brainless.

That was my alternative. In fact, if you hit both really really hard, maybe the one you didn't kill will die from his injuries anyway.

Whoever said kill the lot and nominate yourself as President gets my vote.

Jokes aside, when I read the subject line, I immediately think of Cigarette Smoking Man from X-Files. Its hard to recall a villain from any book, film or TV series I sympathised with so strongly (with the notable exception of Raistlin Majere).

I liked him because he had all this power, believed so strongly in the cause and was willing to die for his convictions, yet was so completely selfish and self serving and it was obvious that despite his pretty speeches was ultimately in it for himself. He just seemed so flawed and thus, so human.

- J.

Of course I find this greatly amusing with some further analysis because means that the tension of the whole situation has gone out. What is he going to do? Get back on the speakers and say "Umm... look one of you still needs to kill the other. Okay?" or "Hang on, I'll see if I can find a replacement. Don't go anywhere."

Although shooting both in the gut and seeing who will craw fastest to me would be also entertaining. After all power is not about position but loyalty.

Do we have food and shelter and a bathroom as long as nobody is killed? If we do, I'd talk them into playing some RPG until the people who sent me in realize that it's a completely retarded way to kill people and find a new leader. Or until the police or someone else finds us.

I don't quite understand this thread. How is this SAW II-like game connected to the title?

You simply cannot create "likeable" or "unlikeable" characters because these attributes are totally subjective. You can only create characters with depth and facets, which will certainly have some impact on how others see them. However, it's impossible to pre-program another person's feelings for them into their being. If that would be possible media would totally be dominated by "the most favorite star of all time" everybody just has to love (but I'm sure Horizon is working on something like that). It's all just in the eye of the beholder.

The game, on the other hand, is not really impacted by moral questions beyond "Am I willing to sacrifice another human being for my own gain?" The only thing that's important here is the justification for the course of action our protagonist finally takes. The reason for if, who and why someone has to die is the only point where you can apply ethics, and this point is not really shaped or defined by the scenario.



I think this is the best way to handle the situation. This setup is unquestionably perverse and insane. If you play along with it, you're only supporting it. The real winner would then always be the mastermind behind it, no matter what choice you take.

Eh... or me because I got to shoot a PETA member. I don't mind being a tool as long as I'm having fun.

And yes, I kid. Kind of.

It's not hard to create an unsympathetic idealist or a lovable monster in shadowrun. You are talking about NPCs, so play to the strength of that. Player characters (I'm generalizing a bit) generally categorize NPCs as friends or foes. If an NPC is a foe, then don't expect the player characters to spend a lot of time trying to understand the NPC's motives, or asking themselves if they are really any better. They won't care. They will only want to kill that NPC.

It's that simple to have an unsympathetic idealist. Make them an antagonist. The PCs won't care that the LoneStar undercover officer risked his life out of a selfless desire to make the city a better place - they will only care that he busted their favorite arms dealer, got the rigger's van impounded, and compromised one of their safe houses.

Similarly, to create a lovable monster, have an NPC be both friendly and useful to the PCs - a fixer who tells corny jokes, fixes them up with good jobs, and pays 10% more for loot than the other fixers, for example. Then have the PCs find out that he beats up prostitutes, or shoots squatters, or belongs to Humanis, or deals snuff BTLs. Or all of those things.

A metahuman PC would be wondering when his fixer will mount him over the trophy cabinet.

A lovable monster should be useful to the runners but pose little threat or minimal risk to them. Desolation Angels, perhaps. Or the ghouls they sell the assorted spare parts of the people they kill to. Certain people, runners want safe, secure and trustworthy. Their fixer would likely be one of these, even if sometimes he doesn't set them up with very lucrative jobs.