I enjoy our arguments too, Marcus. And when I say argument I mean discussions of different points of view.. it's never been personal and I'm glad to hear you see it the same way. I too place value on hearing someone challenge my opinion.
Some more thoughts on other Codes you'd like to discuss for SRM evaluation:
Tier 1 (15 PTS, RAW wording, Applicable, Enforceable, Non-disruptive)
Assassin’s Creed: A character never kills anyone
that they are not paid to kill. Being precise as an
assassin, not leaving collateral damage, and be-
ing invisible are important hallmarks of those
who believe in the Assassin’s Creed.
This one already is legal per the FAQ, so it needn't be evaluated by us but can serve as a baseline of what a SRM CoH should look like: It imposes a real restriction on the player but better still it doesn't impact the
other players at all, nor does it require the GM to handle your character in any special way.
THE PATH OF THE SAMURAI
Restriction: May not kill anyone from surprise or via
treachery. May not break his word once given.
Comparing it to the Assassin's Code: I think it meets at least two of the same ticks: doesn't negatively impact the other players nor the GM. The first tick though, where it has to impart some sort of a restriction on your character isn't quite met. If it were may not
attack from surprise or from treachery, perhaps. But beating someone within a millimeter of their life but stopping shy of outright killing them in an ambush situation? Seems against the spirit of what the Code is trying to convey. Honestly, all you have to do to get free karma out of this CoH is just slap a clip full of Stick-N-Shock rounds into your gun before the bushwacking begins. If you play it by the spirit of how one understands the "Code of the Samurai" as opposed to just the RAW of the quality... well you get into table variation on what exactly IS the Code of the Samurai. But more than that, I think many GMs would interpret the Code as being incompatible with willfully looking the other way while your team acts in dishonorable ways.. it wouldn't necessarily be enough that YOUR character acts honorably. Whereas in comparison the Assassin's code has no reasonable assumption that the Assassin wouldn't associate with sloppy killers.
THE PALADIN’S CODE (A.K.A. ELVEN CHIVALRY)
Restriction: Cannot break one’s word. Cannot harm the
innocent. Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm.
As opposed to the Samurai Code, this one uses "harm" as its delineator rather than "kill". Makes it much more apt to satisfy tick #1 (it must give a meaningful impact to the character who has the code) "Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm" is potentially a problem for tick #2, however (shouldn't impact the other characters at the table). However, I don't think this potential snag is a deal breaker as it doesn't really seem, given my (admittedly limited) exposure to SRM material really ever insists on measuring mission success/failure on sheer mayhem/destruction. The only real threat to the other players if your character were to have this particular code, in my view, is that you're going to be strongly against any plan that involves senseless destruction of art (or perhaps natural beauty). For tick #3 (negatively impacting the GM) it's really on the GM to rule what counts as "art or beauty" for the purposes of the code circumstance by circumstance. The GM decides for him or herself how much of a problem the Code is going to be. Is that stained glass window the party wants to smash for ingress/egress going to penalize the Paladin if he allows it to happen? Is killing that amazing looking person considered harming "beauty"? Is allowing the merc to blow up that sleek sports car currently chasing the team a code violation? On one hand it's good for the GM because he's only stuck with as much trouble handling as he wants. On the other it's bad for table consistency.
All in all though, the question of whether or not to destroy "art or beauty" doesn't really come up much in practice, so while this code isn't quite up to the treble standard set by the Assassin's Code, it's close enough imo that maybe it's fine for SRM.
THE SOLDIER’S CODE
Restriction: Must obey orders from superiors. Must not
loot the dead or allow them to be looted. Must not lie to
superiors. Must maintain honorable conduct and obey
the rules of war. May never torture or harm prisoners.
This is five rules. Presumably, equally important. So I'll treat them all as one for the purposes of the triple standard set by the Assassin's Code. Does it give a reasonable restriction to the character? Only rules 4 and 5. 1 thru 3 may as well not be there, as almost all the time the players are all doing those things anyway. Does it negatively impact the other players who's characters don't have this code? Potentially 4, but moreso 5 (no torturing/harming prisoners). The Soldier being against some blowtorches and wrenches being used in an "interrogation" is a plausible threat to party dynamics. Arguably however, the Soldier can simply excuse himself from some hard interrogation and permit the party to play hardball with some captured mooks without his direct involvement. Does it negatively impact the GM: No.
However, it does look to run afoul of table variation. What exactly are the "rules of war" that you have to follow? I've sat through more than 20 years of annual training on the Laws of Warfare, but many other GMs haven't. The sorts of things you're required to do to avoid being an unlawful combatant are exactly the sorts of things Shadowrunners do as a matter of course (concealing your identity being foremost among them) And more to the point, who's the authority on what the Rules of Warfare even are in the Sixth world anyway? IIRC there's not a 5th edition sourcebook that even addresses the military/merc trade.
While I'd say the Soldier's Code meets the standard set by the Assassin's Code.. the large potential for table variation on interpreting how the soldier must behave to satisfy tenet #4 makes it iffy for SRM.
Warrior’s Code: character will not kill an unarmed person, take lethal action
against an opponent who is unaware or unprepared
for an attack (i.e., a guard who doesn’t
know the runner is there), or knowingly take an
action that could kill someone who is defenseless
(i.e., from a stray bullet or allow someone to
be killed from a sniper shot). The character loses
1 Karma per unarmed or defenseless person that
they kill or allow to be killed through their actions.
Warrior's Code occupies a special place for SRM consideration, as it's called out as the counter example that's explicitly banned to Assassin's Code that's explicitly permitted. As for why, I'm not sure. I would imagine that it has the very real threat of being the cause of party arguments that boil over into player arguments. The Warrior will be penalized for permitting the rest of the party to violate the terms of his Code, so it's pretty well a hard fail on standard #2. It puts the table in a position of the Warrior quitting the mission, or everyone else playing by his Code.
Like a Boss (This is Already Legal so I'm gonna leave it alone.)
Tier 2 ( 5 PTS, RAW wording 2 of 3 Applicable, Enforceable, Non-disruptive)
OMERTA, THE CODE OF SILENCE
Restriction: Cannot kill police officers. Cannot oppose
a superior in the family. Must not give information to
legal authorities.
(This goes into 2 b/c Cannot Oppose a Superior in the families, isn't likely Applicable)
I think this fails standard #1 (must impart a meaningful restriction on the character). Smart runners aren't killing cops anyway. Can't oppose a superior you don't have (may not have Made Man in Neo-Tokyo). Runners aren't ratting each other out in SRM anyway. Arguably they're not even
allowed to as it'd be indirect/passive aggressive PvP.
THE CODE OF WUXIA
Restriction: May not harm the innocent. May never
accept bribes or misuse authority. May not serve the
corrupt.
(The first one works, the 2nd mostly work but also a little bit don't I'm splitting the difference and putting it in 2, may need end up in 3.)
Whereas some Codes surely work in a Home game but maybe not in a SRM context.. I'm honestly having trouble seeing how this even works in a home game. Maybe as an NPC code for non-shadowrunners? Never serving a Mr Johnson or Tanaka-san means you don't go on Shadowruns.
HARMONY WITH NATURE, THE SHAMAN’S CODE
Restriction: May only Bind spirits after agreeing to a
fair exchange of services (see below) Must always treat
spirits with respect. Must honor deals made with spirits.
(The first one is missions disruptive but i think the other two hold.)
Sounds like a nightmare on standard #3 (not putting a burden on the GM)
Tier 3 ( 3 PTS, RAW wording, rarely applicable or rarely enforceable, but still non-disruptive )
WHITE HATS, THE CODE OF THE HACKER
Restriction: Cannot destroy/erase information. May
edit if, and only if, a copy is kept safe and easy to return.
(This is tough it's a good code, just rarely happens)
I dunno, seems kind of disruptive/violation of Assassin's Code standard #2. I say this because if you're a hacker with this code, you're either betraying the code or betraying your team (or if hired to eliminate evidence, betray your employer). "Yeah, you're edited out of the camera feeds." *mm but of course I have the original, unedited feeds stored here in this folder that's easy for the security team to restore once they find it....*
This is absolutely the kind of Code that might fly in a home game where everyone knows you have the code and are ok with your shenanigans... that's not a standard that can work in organized play though.
THE AKICHITA CODE
Restriction: Never show fear. Challenge your strength
against worthy foes. Do not allow yourself or your
loved ones to fall into decadence or slothful behavior.
Never harm the weak or innocent.
(Love this code to much stuff not really define to make into the other two.)
Well on one hand I don't know how thematically appropriate/common it'll be for a Neo-Tokyo campaign, but but on the other there's no rule saying you can't play an Amerind in Japan plus the North American/Chicago Campaign is still legal for play, so this code is still worth discussing. Seems like a breeze to satisfy thresholds 2 and 3. It's just a question of whether it's adequately restricting the character for any karma it gives, which in my opinion it does. Honestly I'd have to say since Assassin's Code is legal I don't see any good reason this shouldn't be.
BUSHIDO 2.0
Restriction: Must always follow the commands of
one’s superiors, no matter the personal cost.
(Too little information. Probably it should be removed totally but I'd really like to have Bushido 2.0 in for NT.)
I dunno about this. Seems it needs attention more from the errata team than the SRM team. As is however, I'd support keeping it banned just on account of being so poorly defined. Besides, what little is there is begging for a threshold 2 failure.
Everyone but the Bushido Code PC: "Ok, yeah screw this we're backing off and trying a new approach."
Bushido Code PC: "We were ordered to do this, and I'm doing it with or without you! BANZAAAAIIIII!!"
One PC to another" Can I have his stuff after he's dead?"
THE CODE OF THE WHITE HAT
Restriction: Must not take advantage of law-abiding
Matrix users. May not use lethal code against fellow
deckers
(I really want to put this in category 2, but it's just rarely applicable one.)
Whereas this satisfies tenets 2 and 3, I'm not sure it meets #1. Whereas perhaps being legal for SRM but at a lower karma return could be possible, that seems to be just as much overhead required as rewriting it would have. I'm not convinced creating tiers of Codes at different karma values is the best approach, but this certainly could be a code that could support the idea.
THE HERMETIC CODE
Restriction: Never destroy information, especially
magical knowledge. Always speak the truth and denounce
falsehood. Capture rare things intact rather
than destroy the unknown.
Always speaking the truth and denouncing falsehoods sounds like a nightmare companion for the Face to have along. Almost entertainingly so, if it didn't have pretty severe implications outside negotiations with Mr Johnson/Tanaka-san.
Covert Ops character: "Hi Mr Security Guard, as you can see from our totally not faked passes, we're the deliverymen with a totally not suspicious package for the good folks up on the thirteenth floor!"
Hermetic: "*cough* Actually, Mr Security guard....."
If the Hermetic is bound to denounce falsehoods, he's pretty much an un-viable teammate for a Shadowrun. Maybe better as a code for NPCs.
To disruptive
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
Restriction: Must provide medical aid if able. Must not
use lethal medicine. Must keep a patient’s confidence.
(Tragically this is probably to table disruptive, in the sense that medical aid to the enemy is almost certainly gonna draw wraith. As much as I personally like the code, I'm not ready or willing to drop it in 3.)
Actually, I don't see this as being particularly disruptive. Providing medical aid doesn't have to mean "healing all damage". Slapping a trauma patch on each of the security guards or thriller killers the gunbois and razorgrrls put into physical overflow isn't going to ruin the party dynamics. IMO being required to expend finite/nuyen tracked medical supplies on behalf of any violently defeated NPCs makes for satisfying the first check. The only teammates that should be put out by the party medic taking a combat round or three after the fight to stabilize the enemy are the frothing at the mouth killdozer types (which SRM already frowns upon by banning those relevant qualities) and certainly no trouble is incurred on the GM so check #3 passes. All in all, I'd say since Assassin Code is legal, I don't see any reason why Hippcratic can't be.