Which of the Tir elves were blood elves? Specificaly Im wondering about Sean Laverty. One of my players took Friends in high places an wanted a Tir Price, so I made her a spike baby, and gave her Sean as a contact and told her she was raised in an Orphanage that was run by this guy and she was born in 1983. She's having a blast being a spike baby in the campaign since her character is damn near 80 (and has like 3 masters degrees) anyways, Im digressing.
Once my game gets to the year of the Comet I plan on having her Gain the chronic ostio..... the Blood elf flaw. Im not sure how I should have her mentor (old Seany Baby) react to it. Basicly was he a blood elf or not.

Hell, while we're at it what ED nations did each of the IE's come from? Im pretty sure I know that Aithne, Jenna (although she might have been born after the blood wood not sure), and Alachia were all blood elves, and that Harlequin was Sosarian, but what of the others?

Check my Immortals page, but at the very least Aithne Oakforest and Alachia were blood elves. No data on the others.

Alachia, Ehran, Harlequin, and Aithne were all originally from Serethea or thereabouts; I can't give you a canon answer on Aina but I believe her parents were from the Wyrm Wood. I've gone into more depth on where the various elves might come from in my old Alamais(e) Conspiracy thread.

All I have to say about this thread is HaHa. I could go into more detail, but really you seem to be playing D&D with guns. Maybe Drizit could show up....

?? Yeah, because in half of my game sessions there isnt even combat. Thats so much like D&D with guns. Yeah....

Especialy since the important metaplot people never show up in my D&D games too. Maybe I just dont know how to work roleplaying games..

D&D is not whole about the combat. It is also about the scale. What next, someone with friends in high places is good pals with fastjack,Jane-in-the-box, Captain Chaos, or maybe Hestaby. I know, I'll take mister Cross as one my friends.

And Really spike babies, are damned rare,and I would be shocked to see a spike baby shadowruning at all in the 40's, or 50's. But hey they are 80 years old, have friends who are royal,and they spend their time doing low to mid level corporate crime. No, they aren't fixers,or the people behind groups of shadowrunners.They are working with a team in hands on level. Before you point out the laughing man,and his runs.I would point out that he was in a big way using a team of runners for his own ends.He sets the runs up,and achieves his goals,it just so happens that other people could benefit that aren't him.

So when I say that you are playing D&D with guns, it is because you are taking finite amount of people who have little or no reason to be adventures.Then you are placing them with "friends" and thus resources that would making their way of life to be less than reasonable.Not only from a safety point of view, but flat out from economic,and even political view. I mean what would the back lash be from the other powers that be that one of their peers was using the shadows in such a way that he could be openly tracked to them. Note, a reaons the Tir is so messed up after the later 50's.

So why is she risking her life when she clearly has enough resources and knowelges to do basically do her own thing.Also why would other people trust her? I mean if you are a runner and you have no reasons to be running, I wouldn't really trust you on my team. And why would her friend, be her friend? Why would he put his neck on the line instead of just helping her out of her life style.After all the royals have enough resources to set up their friends for life.

If everyone likes the game, I don't see the problem with playing on the upper end of the Shadowrun universe. It is written for the purpose of integrating it into a GM's story. Hell, I've been running my campaign for years and routinely have my group interacting with prime runners and their ilk... and my game is vastly different than D&D (which I despise).

Your opinion of scale is just that, your opinion. Take it easy on the guy. He was just asking a question.

i'm also not sure it's fair to lable (libel?) D&D as a "my best friend is Thor, yes that Thor" game. amongst those of us who actually play it, rather than just badmouth it, that sort of thing is actually pretty rare--for many of the same reasons it's rare in SR.

and, honestly? in the scheme of things, Sean Laverty isn't exactly a major player. he collected some spike babies, but it's not like claiming Aithne Oakforest or Lofwyr as your bosom buddy.

Don't mind Cynic. I all the posts made by him or her the mentioning of high powered fun makes for a rant about how one can only play Shadowrun correctly if it is worthless scum runners in a monotonous game of life or death. Apparently, from what I've read, one can't be the pawn of powerful beings and still make for a fun game. Many people have fun playing at the lowest level and at the highest level and everything in between, often switching styles between characters. But I guess exploring and interacting with the whole game world is taboo, right Cynic?

[edit] Sorry, I'm just sick of people trying to make Shadowrun into Cyberpunk.

Hehe, Well, she runs because she's bored with her life. She is a Rigger with the Day Job flaw (she flies airliners), and she just runs for the thrill of it.

Flying airliners tends to be a bit more than a "day job"…

~J

Semi-retired. =P

One of best aspects of Shadowrun is it's flexibility. The limitations are those set by your GM and fellow players. The "metaplot" is just another operatic device a GM can use on PCs. If you don't like it, don't use it. I won't tell. I promise.

It will probably surprise everyone that's paid attention to any of my rants in the past (i.e., none of you) to hear this from me, but if this person wants to play a game where characters are friends with Immortal Elves, more power to them. I personally hate almost everything SR tries to tell me about the metaplot, but I can definitely see the appeal of playing a character that's not a cold-blooded killer trying to scrape up enough cred for ammo. In fact, I've dabbled in the past trying to come up with a game that would have the characters shaping world events through the leaders they tried to influence (not SR, a whole different game I made up). I mean, if somebody tried this in a game I was running, I'd slap them down so hard they'd forget where they were, but that's because the group I play with isn't that type of group. If I was in a group of people that had gotten into it with different role-playing goals in mind, I might slap someone down for trying to play guttertrash when everyone else was trying to bring about peace in the Sixth World or whatever.

I would just point out that, the character being a shadowrunner makes little sense. Add her friend,and it makes less sense. Now let's bring in the D&D term,it is not wholly about the named Uber NPCs,it is also because characters in D&D sooner or later will gain enough power to make adventuring to either be a game of one upmanship on the part of the DM,or pointless. You have someone who has enough power and resources that she would most likely make a great fixer,or Johnson. Her level of skill,experpertise and contacts set her up perfectly to tell other people to do the dirty work. That is of corse if she is a spike baby,and is 80 years old. Now don't get me wrong the idea that all shadowrunners have to blood thirsty killers is in no what I am saying, but the idea that people go on shadowruns because they are bored is risky.

I mean truthfully if I was a shadowrunner, I wouldn't trust someone who's whole reason for risking their lives is because they were bored. Think about it.They are in it for some adrenaline rush. Adernaline doesn't mix well with logic. Lack of logic ,plus shadowrunning makes for big reddish-brown stains.

So, really why does she run the shadows personally,and not have underlings do it for her?

By the way, about half of my shadowrunners do not kill,unless backed into a corner.

and the overpowered-PC complex magically doesn't apply to SR? sooner or later, characters gain enough karma pool, equipment, and stats that standard runner fare just doesn't challenge them. there's been at least one thread dedicated to the problem within the past month. when your SR character hits 300 karma, and no longer finds street gangs to be a threat, that's not a D&D thing. it's a high-powered-game thing. the fact that D&D is flexible enough to allow both low-power and high-power games isn't a drawback, it's a benefit.

that said, eh. i'm usually leery of characters who run 'just for fun' myself. i like my SR gritty, and playboy runners just isn't very gritty.

people who kill for fun and the thrill of getting away with it are damaged goods. that's different from gritty, to me.

yes, but the character under discussion doesn't come off as particularly gritty, and neither have any of the other 'playboy runners' i've seen. it's possible to play a gritty playboy runner, sure, but it just doesn't happen all that often. and because of that, i think it's fair to say that playboy runners are not, as a general rule, a gritty character type. the possible exceptions to that generality are just that--exceptions.

Both types are plausible.

plausible, yes. but if you take a random selection of 'playboy' runners run by average gamers, most of them are going to be of the grit-free variety. it's like shapeshifters. yes, it's possible to play an animalistic, realistic, non-munchkin shifter. but how often does that happen?

yeah, but--again--how many times do players actually play characters as gritty as Wayne or Bond? most of the ones i've seen end up coming off more like Richie Rich. it's not a matter of whether or not a gritty 'playboy' runner is possible, it's a matter of whether or not a given player will put on a gritty portrayal of their 'playboy' runner. in my experience, very few players who are interested in playing a rich, bored runner want to do so because of that archtype's potential for gritty roleplaying. most of them want to do it for the kewl toys.

I guess it really depends on your personal experience. I tend to shy away from things like convention games or those held with total strangers (even when I play online). So for me, it's not all that uncommon. But based upon comments I regularly see around here not to mention TSS articles demonstrating how to make "non-runner" runners in order to address an apparent problem, I can see how it may be otherwise for others.

I haven't really run into that many of the bored rich runner types myself, but if they tend to be that stereotypical it's a pity. They have a lot of potential. They could be jaded thrill-seekers, spoiled runaway corp brats due for a rude awakening, or driven by idealism - which could make them either whacked-out fanatics, Don Quiote types tilting at windmills, or level-headed realists who are changing the world in the most direct way they can. If someone plays a rich thrillseeker as merely a twit with fancy toys, they are missing a lot of roleplaying opportunities.


As far as the non-runner archetypes, I wasn't trying to "fix" anything. I just wanted to make some characters who could be used as either NPCs or PCs.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked the "non-runner" archetypes. It's just that title seemed odd to me. Half the archetypes in the corebook are "non-runner archetypes" as far as I can tell -- the Investigator, Tribal Shaman, Adept Bodyguard, Tech Wiz, etc. But I already mentioned all this elsewhere.

She does it pretty gritty. She's definately not in it for the toys (her intro run was her hiring the rest of the runners to help her hijack a docwagon helicopter ambulance for her to convert. She also plays up the elven superiority bit, mucho racist. She puts lots of thought into her characters. Hell, she has a 4 page write up on her history that we have been working on.

One of my favorite characters was a rich-but-washed-up Rocker back in SR1.


*Gets ready to duck ... *

ah, it's okay. we've all been tempted to play Keith Richards in SR, at some point in our lives.

Especially after watching Pirates of the Caribbean.