Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jack in the Box on <07-21-18/1934:01>
-
see title
-
First three that come to mind are Netcat, Puck, and maybe Dodger.
-
First three that come to mind are Netcat, Puck, and maybe Dodger.
There's also Pax (Dr. Penelope Ann Xavier, Lockdown p.215), and maybe Soldat (Kazuma Tetsu, from Dark Resonance). Other technomancers with write-ups in 5E sourcebooks that I know of include White Rabbit (Lockdown p.226), Lilith (Book of the Lost p.130), Qin "Sledgehammer" Xio (Complete Trog p.145), Cynthia "Spook" Fields (Complete Trog p.156).
-
And the recently introduced Respec from DT I think. Not exactly 'most notable' but mention worthy.
-
First three that come to mind are Netcat, Puck, and maybe Dodger.
Slightly off topic here, but does anyone else find Netcat to be the least likeable recurring runner in the franchise?
-
Slightly off topic here, but does anyone else find Netcat to be the least likeable recurring runner in the franchise?
I think's ok, she way better then clockwork.
-
As an individual, I hate Clockwork, but I don't find his posts uninteresting to read like I do Netcats. For the most part, I think his worldview makes him an interesting foil to many of the more moral shadowrunners - my only big beef with him as a character is his bias against technomancers - not because he's prejudiced, but because he just seethes vitriol and has no apparent reason for it. It's bias that doesn't seem to have any grounding in his personal experience or history, and seems inconsistent for a character who otherwise seems to be driven by pure pragmatism.
Netcat, on the other hand, is inconsistent an a lot more things. If it's not a topic relating to motherhood, being a woman, or being a technomancer, she's waffled on it like McCain in 2008. In many ways, she reminds me off (and I know this is weird) Debra from Everybody Loves Raymond. I can't fault a single one of her posts about injustices and whatnot, but when it's all she ever seems to go off about, it gets pretty tiresome. On top of that, while I won't dispute that technomancers are often persecuted, and she's certainly had to deal with some shit because of it, in a world where corps are fucking everyone over, magical animals oppress a population in Siberia with secret police, and people are having their souls shredded and then being bound to their bodies as cyberzombies, she writes like she has suffered and gone through more arduous trials than anyone in the history of suffering, and she's quick to pounce on people and tell them that they just don't get it. Her whole persona to me is reminiscent of a lot of people I know who come home and bitch about their retail job (or something similar) and talk about how they saved the day for everyone but no one ever thanks them. Ultimately, she comes across to me as two-dimensional and oppressively negative.
-
I would love to see a fairly BA TM Added. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
PAX is certainly the toughest TM we have seen on paper in 5th, and she still seems boring to me.
-
My experience has been that they're ALWAYS boring on paper. When I went into my Boston Lockdown campaign, I just reworked her from the ground up, with the idea in mind that, with FastJack gone, PAX is probably (in my own game world, at least) the planet's best hacker when it comes to straight up cybercombat. I tried to give her numbers that basically meant my party's matrix-savvy characters had next to no change of defeating her in a standup matrix battle. She was also a dab hand and controlling devices (and if you were dumb enough to chase her into a host that she could dissonance up, you were done), but she wasn't so hot (relatively) at things like matrix perception and some of the less direct matrix tricks, and that was how the party had to beat her (or get her in a room with them for a shootout).
-
I would love to see a fairly BA TM Added. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
PAX is certainly the toughest TM we have seen on paper in 5th, and she still seems boring to me.
One idea I had for a technomancer (a contact for the party) was an info-broker named Forge who no one ever met in person, who seemed to be able to crack any database on earth, and who had an uncommon affinity with AIs. The party would get a chance to meet Forge in person later and discover it was a teenage girl who was so severely autistic that she couldn't function in the world and needed some help with basic self-care. Seldom speaks, get angry easily when people don't understand what she wants, etc... But when she became a technomancers, the Matrix was able to interpret what she wanted to say and display the information in a way that was understandable by others, revealing a staggering intellect that just didn't have an outlet in the meat world.
-
@Lorebane24
Personally, I like Netcat, but she was much better in 4E material, IMO. For one thing, there was more going on with TMs, which was her focus, and the writeup she did of Serrin/Ire for Street Legends was pretty damn cool. Unfortunately, her 5e material just isn't as strong, in part due to the fact that the Matrix is her primary area of expertise, and other than the CFD stuff, the matrix has just been quietly fucked. I hope for some good things in the new matrix book, but wouldn't count on it. You are correct that she needs to branch out more, though.
But as for least likeable recurring character? That 'honor' would go to Clockwork, Rigger X, or Sticks. All three of them just annoy the hell out of me, though Sticks has gotten a little more interesting with the revelations about Ares.
-
Netcat is a social justice warrior. Clockwork is a right-wing extremist.
Sometimes, what makes a character interesting is how much we love to hate them.
But, I don't think Netcat is notable in 5e. She's just some chick married to an administrator of a popular web forum.
PAX, on the other hand, is notable, what with her ties to CFD.
Other than PAX, I just can't think of anyone else.
What I'd like to see is someone like Damian Knight, but is a TM and, maybe, is the new head of GOD, but is also similar to J Edgar Hoover and McCarthy.
-
an administrator of a popular web forum.
Hey I'd like to think FastJack would think Slamm-0! is notable :p
-
Besides singular notable characters:
The german lore mentions the Order von Laodicea, a fanatical group of Technomancers in the service of the German Catholic Church in the Free State of Westphalia. Part of them are just Matrix Preachers, but others are doing more crazy stuff, like searching for traces of god in the resonance realms or performing "digital exorcisms". Also, they hunt down and delete AIs, which the German Catholic Church sees as emissaries of the devil.
Makes for some pretty good plot hooks: Imagine playing bodyguard for a scared AI hunted by the order 8)
-
Netcat is a social justice warrior. Clockwork is a right-wing extremist.
Sometimes, what makes a character interesting is how much we love to hate them.
But, I don't think Netcat is notable in 5e. She's just some chick married to an administrator of a popular web forum.
PAX, on the other hand, is notable, what with her ties to CFD.
Other than PAX, I just can't think of anyone else.
What I'd like to see is someone like Damian Knight, but is a TM and, maybe, is the new head of GOD, but is also similar to J Edgar Hoover and McCarthy.
Sums it up pretty well. I don't like Clockwork, but he's a character I like to not like. :D NetCat is just uninteresting at best and annoying at worst. Her best moments are their marital teasings with Slamm-0!
Honestly, they should just hate-fuck it out with Clockwork, in a dim motel room somewhere, because their ongoing bickering starts to get a bit old.
-
With the guy who threatened to go after their kid? And who brags about selling TMs to MCT? Do you honestly expect that to ever happen? The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
-
Netcat in 4e was interesting. As one of only two TMs who were regulars on Jackpoint, she had a unique perspective on the Matrix, and provided some insight you wouldn't get elsewhere (since Puck plays silent a lot). She was big on TM rights, but it isn't like she was always harping about it. If you look, it only comes up when Clockwork is being an ass, or when it was relevant to the matter at hand (MCT or NeoNET black labs, etc.). The times she wrote 'TM-y' articles for Jackpoint, it wasn't a SJW thing, but a 'how I see the Matrix' thing.
In 5e, however, she is a bit boring, but that has less to do with her, and more to do with the devs trying to forget TMs ever existed.
-
The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
Or emerges as a technomancer himself.
-
The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
Or emerges as a technomancer himself.
That would be a nice run. Kidnap CW and sell him to MCT.
-
With the guy who threatened to go after their kid? And who brags about selling TMs to MCT? Do you honestly expect that to ever happen? The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
Stranger things happened.
Netcat in 4e was interesting. As one of only two TMs who were regulars on Jackpoint, she had a unique perspective on the Matrix, and provided some insight you wouldn't get elsewhere (since Puck plays silent a lot). She was big on TM rights, but it isn't like she was always harping about it. If you look, it only comes up when Clockwork is being an ass, or when it was relevant to the matter at hand (MCT or NeoNET black labs, etc.). The times she wrote 'TM-y' articles for Jackpoint, it wasn't a SJW thing, but a 'how I see the Matrix' thing.
In 5e, however, she is a bit boring, but that has less to do with her, and more to do with the devs trying to forget TMs ever existed.
Well, I know I likely won't be popular by saying it, but... Honestly, technomancers always felt as an unnecessary addition. They're ok, but quite the same niche as deckers. I get that some people ike to play Neo, but for me, I never was a really big fan of the whole virtual reality stuff. I never felt the inclination to play a Virtual Adept in Mage the Ascension either. Just not my cup of tea. So for me, if technomancers would disappear from the game altogether, I won't bat an eyelash. Maybe they were a more important setting element in 4e, I don't know, I'm familiar with 3e and 5e, so I tend to forget them or jsut thinking about them as "those hackers who don't need a deck" and that's all.
I wouldn't want them to disappear, since clearly, some people like them a lot, but to me, they're an aftertought.
The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
Or emerges as a technomancer himself.
I'd totally buy that! :D Existential angst never goes out of fashion.
-
Ah, you don't like TMs. No wonder.
-
Technomancers seem like an unnecessary addition if you view them only through the 5e lens, sure. That's because this edition has done everything possible to minimize them and delete them short of retconning them from existence.
In 4E, TMs were the spiritual successors of the Otaku of older editions. The Matrix had evolved, and so too did its children. No longer bound by tribes or requiring even basic 'ware to connect to the Matrix, when they Emerged, they lived and breathed the Matrix as easily as a child took in sights and sounds. They did things in a fundamentally different way than people who hacked with a link. They were the Swiss army knives of the Matrix, able to do any number of things (though not at the same time), but they paid for it by being glass cannons at times, especially in Matrix combat. They could hack, and they could rig, but the way a TM hacked meant they needed to do things differently than a hacker would. They would focus more on stealth and a devastating opening salvo, and then escaping if it came to matrix combat, while a hacker who didn't take matrix damage directly to their brain could slug it out with their better defenses.
Along with a great many other things the nostalgia-induced 5E Matrix screwed up, TMs have been brutally served by Catalyst this edition.
-
Ah, you don't like TMs. No wonder.
"Don't like" feels a bit too strong to describe my attitude toward them. Let's call it polite disinterest. :)
Technomancers seem like an unnecessary addition if you view them only through the 5e lens, sure. That's because this edition has done everything possible to minimize them and delete them short of retconning them from existence.
Well, as I said, I view them through 3e-5e lens. I started playing SR only 2 years back and the group knew 3e and earlier editions (those came out in Hungarian back then). I was curious about how the game1s right now, both in rules and metaplot, so I've started to read 5e too. So, I just doesn't have experiences with 4e, beside reading a bit because of the fluff, like Clutch of Dragons.
So, Technomancers were't a thing in 3e, Otaku were highly tied to the plot. There were no technomancers in the older books, not in the old novels. What I want to say, Technomancers just didn't feel like a profound part of the game, or the core archetypes.
In 4E, TMs were the spiritual successors of the Otaku of older editions. The Matrix had evolved, and so too did its children. No longer bound by tribes or requiring even basic 'ware to connect to the Matrix, when they Emerged, they lived and breathed the Matrix as easily as a child took in sights and sounds. They did things in a fundamentally different way than people who hacked with a link. They were the Swiss army knives of the Matrix, able to do any number of things (though not at the same time), but they paid for it by being glass cannons at times, especially in Matrix combat. They could hack, and they could rig, but the way a TM hacked meant they needed to do things differently than a hacker would. They would focus more on stealth and a devastating opening salvo, and then escaping if it came to matrix combat, while a hacker who didn't take matrix damage directly to their brain could slug it out with their better defenses.
Along with a great many other things the nostalgia-induced 5E Matrix screwed up, TMs have been brutally served by Catalyst this edition.
I get that and I don't want to argue with the notion that they could have been better served by Catalyst, for the pople who do love them. I'm just not into the virtual reality stuff (lot more into the magic part, to be honest) so these differences between deckers and TMs dn't mean anything special to me. I totally get that they're different, i get that some people like the idea of being one with the Matrix and stuff, but for me, they're more-or-less just hackers without decks.
Sorry, I don't want to belittle anyone's favorite archetype, it's really just that they aren't adding much things of interest to the game for me. I'm not really interested in deckers either, but at least those are iconic parts of the setting and gadgets are fun.
But to be clear, I don't want TMs to go away, because others like them and I wish them a better treatment. It's just not a priority for me.
-
I've never understood the comparison often made between deckers and TMs.
To me, deckers are hackers without peer. TMs are more like shamans. They don't need to hack on the fly or brute force. My TM's only matrix skills are software and electronic warfare. I don't need anything more than that. I do complex forms for everything with sprites assisting. And then there's all the things my TM can do outside of the matrix (such as diagnostics on machines) and skinlink pretty much everything.
-
Netcat in 4e was interesting. As one of only two TMs who were regulars on Jackpoint, she had a unique perspective on the Matrix, and provided some insight you wouldn't get elsewhere (since Puck plays silent a lot). She was big on TM rights, but it isn't like she was always harping about it. If you look, it only comes up when Clockwork is being an ass, or when it was relevant to the matter at hand (MCT or NeoNET black labs, etc.). The times she wrote 'TM-y' articles for Jackpoint, it wasn't a SJW thing, but a 'how I see the Matrix' thing.
In 5e, however, she is a bit boring, but that has less to do with her, and more to do with the devs trying to forget TMs ever existed.
On a somewhat related note is it just me or does Slam-O! seem different as well? In the past he seem like a bit of a joker but still serious and mature but now he seems more like a man-child dork.
-
dad-syndrome
-
The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
Or emerges as a technomancer himself.
I think he'd go the Glory Route (Shadowrun: Dragonfall Reference) and cyber himself up so much that his Resonance Level could only be found by DataWorms, and even they'd have to be looking under their bellies.
-
The only way Clockwork's problem would ever be solved, is if he dies a horrible death.
Or emerges as a technomancer himself.
I think he'd go the Glory Route (Shadowrun: Dragonfall Reference) and cyber himself up so much that his Resonance Level could only be found by DataWorms, and even they'd have to be looking under their bellies.
That'd be such a bummer if he actually did that. Though as of Twilight Horizon he's already at 3.95, but that'll drop in the conversion to SR5. Could make for a really good story if handled well, rather than just a "oh drek, time to become a cyberzombie" suicide route.
-
There's that platitude that there are four things that will change you - love, art, music, and loss. I think the setting of Shadowrun lends itself best to the fourth being more common. I think that if either Netcat or Slamm-0 were to, y'know, die, it would the catalyst for a lot of development for the other.
-
There's that platitude that there are four things that will change you - love, art, music, and loss. I think the setting of Shadowrun lends itself best to the fourth being more common. I think that if either Netcat or Slamm-0 were to, y'know, die, it would the catalyst for a lot of development for the other.
That also tends to be lazy writing, as you see in how many crappy romance novels?
-
What I want to see (and please read through to the end) is we learn that Clockwork has always been a self-hating Technomancer and, now, he has been outed and is running into trouble with his old bigot comrades as a result. He reaches out for help. Slammo and Netcat argue over whether to help him. Netcat wants to help him, Slammo doesn't. Netcat eventually convinces Slammo to help. Clockwork sacrifices his own life in order to save Slammo's. Clockwork's last words are something like, "Tell Netcat I'm sorry." Nevertheless, both Clockwork and Slammo die. This changes Netcat who becomes much more active in social justices for technomancers (even more than she already is). She is now the single parent of a young boy and decides that she needs to stop shadow running. She becomes an in-house consultant for GOD. She rises quickly in the ranks and she leverages her growing influence in GOD to look out for the needs of technomancers. She also, slowly, becomes a true-blue believer in the GOD company line. But, over time, she has looked too long into the abyss and she begins showing signs of losing the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Finally, the head of GOD gets assassinated. Startlingly, some evidence which Netcat is the first to discover suggests that Clockwork did it.
-
I'll be honest, Jack... that sounds like the SR version of Days of Our Lives, or As the World Turns.
-
Lets keep in mind Clockwork work is famous for EATING his fellow runners. I agree with Mirikon. The only thing I wish for Clockwork is two rounds in the head.
-
Thank you both for the constructive criticism. I'll use it for the second draft.
I didn't know Clockwork has ate his fellow runners. I mean, DAYYUM!! :o
-
Yeah, literally the only reason Clockwork is on Jackpoint is that he is a good rigger with a different POV than TurboBunny (and less BTL issues). No one actually LIKES him. It is the same as with Puck, or Haze. People actively hate them, and for good reason. But they are on the site because they have useful info and are not locked in to the same viewpoint as others.
-
Clockwork as a TM and ensuing wackiness sounds like it should get dealt with in dribs & drabs, maybe with a couple of infodumps to set the stage, as it were. Not front plot stuff, is what I'm getting at.
I'm sort of surprised there hasn't been any [more] movement by Clockie against Netcat & Slamm-0!'s child, even if handled the same way.
Incidentally, i thought it was Rigger X who had that whole 'collect info on fellow runners & sell it' M.O.
-
The notable difference I see between Rigger X & Clockwork is professionalism. If Rigger X screws your hoop it's just business, but if Clockwork screws your hoop it's personal.
-
Rigger X is an asshole, but he's a professional asshole. Clockwork is, well, a bigot, pure and simple. That he gets paid to hunt down people he hates and give them to people who are sure to make them experience hell, well, that's just icing on the cake. He's getting paid to do something he'd do anyway.
And the only reason Clockwork hasn't moved against Netcat and Slamm-O!'s kid is because he's been told rather pointedly that the entire Jackpoint board would likely be hunting him if he did. And he is a bigot, but he isn't stupid enough to believe he can beat those odds. Especially since he's a rigger, not a hacker, and Jackpoint has some of the best hackers in the game.
As a side note, one of the most interesting things I saw was that back in 4e, after Netcat got pregnant, she was reading the boards one day when morning sickness came along, and you got some crazy stuff in that instant. It was one of those little things that highlighted how TMs interact differently with the Matrix than other users.
-
Yeah, I remember that post of Netcat's. Very intriguing . . .
There was some theorising on which Jackpointers would come down on whose side too. Entirely non-canon, of course . . . .
-
Have they ever explained why Clockwork hates TMs?
-
From what I understand he ate the whole “Nothing in the World is safe from TMs” propaganda. He entirely livelihood is matrix based but constantly threatened by rogue TMs (in his mind at least). He sees them an abominations, freaks that cannot be of nature and must be put down.
I’ve never liked TMs either. I skipped the entire 4e and when I came back and read about them it was just “yuck, matrix magicians, just what the setting needs”.
I still dislike them, find them unnecessary... but I know many love them, so ... guess it comes from being a child of 2e.
As for tolerable TMs I honestly prefer Puck. The Netcat/Clockwork thing is just as old and tiring as the constant Fuji/novatech/whatever Villiers company going down in flames- thing :/ Puck at least is nicely unpredictable with streaks of both black and white. That he and Pax used to be Otaku is a bit bummer actually. Killing them off with Deus and build up new villains would have been better
-
Pixel, the problem is that you skipped 4e, where TMs weren't 'matrix magicians'. They were essentially spiritual successors to the otaku of earlier editions, and had a distinctly different style of play from 'normal' matrix users. It was 5e that turned them into 'matrix magicians', in the process of screwing up the rest of the Matrix, of course.
If you can find a copy of the Emergence campaign book, give it a read, and the TM chapter in Unwired. That'll explain a lot of what TMs were intended to be. Otherwise, it is like trying to talk about the Universal Brotherhood without reading the Missing Blood book, or Deus without reading the Shutdown book.
-
Pax works brilliantly for Lockdown. I so want to set a campaign in that plot one day.
-
I have read most of the lore of 4e, but never understood the need for a character that can do everything “magically”?
If you want to rig why not be a Rigger? Same with with hacking.
From various forums reactions to what happened to the archetype in 5e it sounded to me like their were too powerful to begin with.
-
I have read most of the lore of 4e, but never understood the need for a character that can do everything “magically”?
If you want to rig why not be a Rigger? Same with with hacking.
From various forums reactions to what happened to the archetype in 5e it sounded to me like their were too powerful to begin with.
Only when taken out of context. TMs were glass cannons, who were less effective in the meat world than a mundane hacker or rigger would be (because augmentations hurt their abilities). Because their Matrix condition track was their Brain, getting into matrix combat, any matrix combat, was dangerous. I like to compare them to D&D 3.X Wizards and Sorcerers. A 3.X Wizard has an insane number of things they can do, to the point where a prepared high level wizard who only has one fight that day is going to destroy pretty much anyone not made of antimagic fields, but they run out of gas quickly, due to limited spell slots. On the other hand, a Sorcerer has a more limited playbook, but they have more HP, can use their spells longer, and are generally more specialized. In this case, a Hacker would be like a Sorcerer, while a TM would be a Wizard. They are similar, but have different playstyles, different strengths and weaknesses.
The problem with 'arena' comparisons, which is what people did comparing a Hacker to a TM who threaded one obscenely powerful complex form were doing, is that what works in a single combat means crap all when you're on a 'dungeon run'. Because TMs were glass cannons, and were weaker than hackers in the meat (more attributes and skills to buy, buying their initial complex forms, not having augmentations, etc.), their weaknesses were more obvious once you were on the second or third encounter of a run, they took a hit in the meat which is hampering their Matrix stuff, and so on. When you're actually in play, TMs had better burst capabilities, and could adapt to new things better, but they were less resilient if you didn't give them time to sleep off their stun between encounters.
As for the 'need' for TMs? They were the spiritual successors to the Otaku of older years. And because a lot of people dig the technomystic, transhumanist streaks in the game, introduced in no small part by the otaku, and expanded upon by the growing forms and abilities of augmentations over the years, moving a cyberarm, for example, from 'necessary to replace a lost limb, and into 'voluntary upgrade' territory. Transhumanism, as in a desire to make oneself more than human, has been present throughout the game, to greater or lesser degrees, but as runners began shifting away from rabid neo-anarchists out to stick it to the man, and towards 'professional criminals that may or may not have agendas', that transhumanist element grew.
-
The 100.
-
Have they ever explained why Clockwork hates TMs?
He survived the end of 4th edition. Go read Emergence, it's not that he hates them more then he hates any other specific group, Clockworks is just villainous rat bastard.
-
That he is, but he does have a particular mad-on for technomancers.
-
That he is, but he does have a particular mad-on for technomancers.
Because he thinks he's in control when he's got his drones, but TMs and AIs are so much beyond his control that he is scared of them. Fear turns to anger. Anger turns to hate. Hate turns to being a bigoted shithead.
-
Can we all agree that Clockwork is a villain we love to hate? I feel like he is a great character BECAUSE we hate him so much.
-
I like a good villain as much as the next guy. I'm a huge Marcone fan, from Dresden files. But there's nothing about Clockwork i respect. I recognize his value as a what not to do example. He makes custom drones and screws over his party. I believe in the importance of that role, as an object lesson. Many runners do bad things, and many of them i'd give a pass to. But clockwork just rubs me the wrong way every time.
-
There’s nothing to like about him and he is nothing but hate and insults.
-
The Humanis Policlub is nothing but hate and insults. Do you think they make terrible villains?
-
That he is, but he does have a particular mad-on for technomancers.
Because he thinks he's in control when he's got his drones, but TMs and AIs are so much beyond his control that he is scared of them. Fear turns to anger. Anger turns to hate. Hate turns to being a bigoted shithead.
Running Wild page 193
“Seagerson!” His boss’s voice blared over his audio, “Get your ass in here!”
The hobgoblin nearly vaulted over his workbench as he sprinted down the hallway and through the door
marked “Executive Vice President Shaunda Modzeleski, CTO.”
“Here boss,” he said, panting and wringing his hands. He gaped at his boss, who appeared to be sleeping
in her finely appointed leather chair.
“Not my office, you idiot,” came the voice again. “In here!”
“Oh,” he said as he sheepishly sat in a nearby chair and flipped into virtual reality. He saw his boss’s icon,
exquisitely sculpted to mirror her mind-burning rage.
“What is that?!” He looked where she was pointing and saw a small orange ball. It had large feline eyes,
a tail, and a tiny mouth with spiky teeth. It appeared to be chewing on a lump of garbage code. When it saw
him, it bounced a few times and made a high-pitched giggle, as though it were happy to see him. Then it turned
back to its task of munching on the code with focused intent.
“Er … a feral AI?” he ventured.
“Try again.”
“Um,” he cringed and checked his analysis software. “It looks like it used to be a Stealth program of
some sort …”
“No, idiot, that!” She pointed again, this time clearly at a toy made of gears and springs. He recognized
it immediately; it was an agent program monitoring all of the CTO’s traffic. Closing on his icon, she said, “Did
you know what I found when I traced that agent’s datastream back to its source?”
He sighed, resigned. “Tell me.”
“It led back to you. You who came so highly recommended, who proved so trustworthy. How could you
betray my trust this way?”
“Let me explain,” he said quietly. In virtual reality, he hung his head, then reached into his pants and
pulled out a cream pie. With a sudden and fluid motion, he violently slammed the pie into her face. She screamed
a digital scream as tendrils of virtual milk, eggs, and vanilla writhed into her icon’s head and into her brain,
causing very non-virtual cerebral scarring. Her icon froze in the macabre pose of a persona connected to a
brain-dead user.
He mentally called up a commcode. “Run’s scrubbed,” he said. “I need evac.”
“Acknowledged,” came the response. “So things didn’t run like clockwork, huh?”
“Shut the fuck up,” he snapped. “Just get me out of this skyraker and back to Montenegro.”
He crouched next to the orange ball, which bounced into his lap and cooed, nestling against him contentedly.
“Oh, Wuzzie,” he muttered, petting the tiny AI. “I can’t take you anywhere, can I?”
I think Clockwork is a little more complex then people give him credit...
-
The Humanis Policlub is nothing but hate and insults. Do you think they make terrible villains?
Yes, actually. They are one-dimensional. That's like trying to say that the tides are the villain when you have to deal with a leaking sea wall. Humanis is a 'problem' or a 'complication' to throw into a run. Brackhaven, however, is a good villain, because there's actually more substance there, with his political ambitions and the dance he makes with the press, and the actual intelligence to mastermind things, and so on. Alamos 30K and the Human Legion are good villains, because they are shadowy groups that could have sleepers or hidden plots anywhere, making them infinitely better as the secret masterminds of whatever a group is running against.
A group of angry racists isn't a villain. The guy who can turn a group of angry racists to a singular purpose and make them act according to the plan is a villain.
@Reaver - People who are into dog fighting say they still love their dogs. People who abuse their children say they still love them. That doesn't make them more complex, it just adds more to their hypocrisy.
-
Humanis you use as opposition when you want a simple situation, or when you put an emotional choice in. 'I don't want you to wipe out the entire compound at my sister's request, since that will stay with her forever. Can you bring us the guy responsible instead of killing them all?' You don't use them as villains.
Now that corporate-security-anti-SINless terrorist group manipulating Humanis in an attempt to lure out Shadowrunners to kill? That's better. (Been there, done that, by the way. Was a nice Season Finale. And then they became the stealth opposition for an entire Season, with several affiliated Johnsons seemingly assassinated. Incidentally, the season finale after that was also nice, as the players were hired to clear out any evidence belonging to the cell, while during the run the cell was wiped out one by one. Still got the news-flashes I showed them during the run.)
-
The Humanis Policlub is nothing but hate and insults. Do you think they make terrible villains?
Yes, actually. They are one-dimensional. That's like trying to say that the tides are the villain when you have to deal with a leaking sea wall. Humanis is a 'problem' or a 'complication' to throw into a run. .
Sometimes Captain America fights the Red Skull. Sometimes, he fights his own government. Simple one-dimensional villains have their place and a good story writer knows how to use them.
For example, you can use characters like Clockwork, the members of Humanis Policlub, insect shamans etc. to "force" the PCs to team up with people they don't want to (e.g. . "I know we've been enemies for the entire campaign, but we both hate the Humanis Policlub and I'm the only one who can get you into and out of their fortress").
-
Jack, i'm going to have to disagree. One-dimensional types like Humanis are good for temporary challenges, and the same goes for the government, or the mafia, or whatever. As Mel Gibson's character says in Payback, you go up high enough, it always comes back to one man. Like I said, Brackhaven is a villain, but Humanis is a problem, complication, or (depending on your group) an asset. (Witting or unwitting is besides the point.) You have to have depth to them before they can become villains. Random Gangster #23 is nothing but a speed bump for Daredevil, but the Kingpin, now HE is a villain. Same with the bugs. Crazy insect shaman isn't a villain, until they start preying on people and building a hive, and trying to bring over a Queen.
Large, one-dimensional threats only work as more than a speed bump if they eventually refine down to one person that the team can take on, or they are massive things that are way beyond the group's pay grade, and the focus of the run becomes running away and getting out from under. To continue with the bug analogy, a hive refines down to the Shaman or the Queen. Take them out, and the threat is either neutralized, or made a great deal less. The Universal Brotherhood, on the other hand, is far too massive for any runner team to hope to take on, and so your only hope is to get out from under, and hope you cover your tracks enough that they don't come after you and yours.
-
For example, you can use characters like Clockwork, the members of Humanis Policlub, insect shamans etc. to "force" the PCs to team up with people they don't want to (e.g. . "I know we've been enemies for the entire campaign, but we both hate the Humanis Policlub and I'm the only one who can get you into and out of their fortress").
The problem with playing that game is the old Black Chip problem from 7th sea 1st. If you do this with any regularity, some players will sooner or later just hate the other guy more then they want to win.
-
Sorry guys, I keep coming back to Red Skull. I think he's a great villain for Captain America and he's not substantially different from any of the other characters mentioned.
Hell, the BBEG to beat all BBEGs is Satan. There's lots of great stories that involve him.
It is all about how you contextualize the one dimensional bad guy, what characters you put around that bad guy. Batman v. Joker, van Helsing v Dracula, the Emperor v Luke Skywalker, Thanos v the Marvel Superheroes (comic book, not movie), Dormamu v. Dr. Strange, etc. You can find one-dimensional villains _everywhere_ because they work IF you use them right.
-
The problem, Jack, is that the characters you're listing AREN'T one-dimensional, unless you take only the most superficial looks at them.
Red Skull is an evil genius and a master strategist, capable of creating intricate, long-running plots and influencing and subverting those around him to serve his own ends. None of that except 'evil' could be used to describe Clockwork. Further more, the Red Skull has, throughout his run, been the puppetmaster and man behind the curtain, often manipulating heroes to fight their friends and using a wide array of poisons, drugs, and devices.
The only one of those villains you mentioned that comes close to being one-dimensional is the Joker, and that is because the Joker is, in a word, insane. He is a force of chaos that you never know what he'll be up to next, always coming up with some new joke to play as he obsesses over Batman. And the most powerful Joker story ever? The Killing Joke, where they go into depth with Joker and his backstory, fleshing him out and making him less one-dimensional.
-
"Red Skull is an evil genius and a master strategist, capable of creating intricate, long-running plots and influencing and subverting those around him to serve his own ends."
And Clockwork is an elite shadowrunner and hacker. If he weren't, he wouldn't be on Jackpoint. He is able to and wants to stay on that forum despite the fact that everybody, including the admins, would love an opportunity to put a bullet in him.
But on a larger point, I completely disagree with your definition of "one-dimensional." It has nothing to do with skill sets. The fact that Red Skull has these skills doesn't mean he isn't one-dimensional. One-dimensional has to do with motivations. Joker is the least one-dimensional of the characters I listed because, though he just wants to see the world burn, in his own twisted way, he cares for Harlequin and, especially, Batman. You get none of that complexity with the Red Skull or Clockwork.
-
Uh, no. Joker does not care about Harley Quinn. She is a tool and a toy to him, nothing more. In fact, they say this many times throughout the comics and shows. If you only watched Suicide Squad, then you could be forgiven for thinking that, but otherwise, no. Joker and Batman is more complex, but not by much. Joker's obsession with Batman is like the dog chasing a car. They do it because it is there. What would they do if they caught it? They don't know.
Red Skull's motivation is world domination. He seeks to recreate the world in his image, making it better, by his view. And unlike Clockwork, he's had some interesting interactions with Captain America and others that didn't involve (immediate) betrayal and violence over the years, and he even changed parts of his core MO over time to reflect the changing times, reinventing himself to get rid of the Nazi mystique at one point.
-
" Joker does not care about Harley Quinn"
Oh, I _totally_ disagree with you. His love for her is twisted and sick and dysfunctional and not at all as it was portrayed in that movie, it is still, nevertheless, the kind of love people write songs about.
Of course, those songs are songs like
Tainted Love
He Had It Coming
I Miss the Misery
Never Again
Fistful of Love
etc.
It's the kind of love that promises never to hurt you again and then hits you over the head with a baseball bat. It's the kind of love that will punch you in the face, but will also protect you from anyone else who may try to hurt you (though probably after punching you in the face for making them get up out of their chair to protect you). It is toxic love. It isn't Hallmark love. But, it is still love.
"Red Skull's motivation is world domination. He seeks to recreate the world in his image, making it better, by his view. And unlike Clockwork, he's had some interesting interactions with Captain America and others that didn't involve (immediate) betrayal and violence over the years, and he even changed parts of his core MO over time to reflect the changing times, reinventing himself to get rid of the Nazi mystique at one point"
And he's one-dimensional.
-
That is not love. It is considering someone your property. It is not love, not even toxic love, and should not be treated as such in any way because it does harm to people in abusive relationships. That kind of attitude is why there's people saying there was no abusive behaviour from him in Suicide Squad, and even frying her brain was an act of love that she requested according to them. And don't tell me I'm exaggerating, I have literally had people say that stuff to me. Do not tell me that the Joker loves her. He loves owning her. That's all.
-
"because it does harm to people in abusive relationships"
failing to see it as love is doing harm to people in abusive relationships. It helps them think that they are exceptions, that they aren't really in a toxic relationship, because their relationship has love.
" That kind of attitude is why there's people saying there was no abusive behaviour from him in Suicide Squad"
I never said that the relationship in SS wasn't abusive. Of course it was abusive! People who say otherwise are idiots.
-
Comments like yours are what helps supports those idiots. I've had about enough of a Joker-glorifier.
-
I said, "His love for her is twisted and sick and dysfunctional"
I said, "It's the kind of love that promises never to hurt you again and then hits you over the head with a baseball bat. It's the kind of love that will punch you in the face, but will also protect you from anyone else who may try to hurt you (though probably after punching you in the face for making them get up out of their chair to protect you). It is toxic love."
I said, "Of course it was abusive! People who say otherwise are idiots."
You have a strange notion of what constitutes being a "Joker-glorifier."
I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are operating under the mistaken assumption that love is all puppies and rainbows. But, love can be destructive.
-
That still doesn't make it love FOR her, is the point. It makes it delight in doing nasty things.
-
"It makes it delight in doing nasty things"
One place where you can see his love for her is in his jealousy. She's _his_ little punching bag. He doesn't care if Catwoman or Poison Ivy gets hurt, but if you hurt Harley, then you should probably just kill yourself before he catches you.
And, of course, there's this
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/313211349063380576/
Also NONE of his other cronies would ever get away with slapping him around as Harley has done.
-
Mmmm, let's end this before the moderators do.
-
Well that went side ways with very odd vector.
Look Folks, we aren't English Majors. This isn't a writers workshop on multi-dimensional antagonists. We aren't trying to write multi-season anime plot lines here.
It's RPG forum, odds are the most your players are gonna remember about any specific opposition is some weird theme you put on them, or the lewt the received from beating it down. That is work as intended every time. Sure we would all love for a our cool villains to be memorable, but don't over think it. Keep it simple.
Modern RPG have taught us over and over again, the best thing a villain can be is durable. They can do all sorts of evil things for the players to find, but when actually fighting player being able to take a good pile of hits is best.
-
" odds are the most your players are gonna remember about any specific opposition is some weird theme you put on them, or the lewt the received from beating it down."
I don't agree with that, BUT I do agree that the Shadowrun forum isn't the place to get into the intricacies of the Joker's character and the psychology of toxic love. So, for my part, I'm dropping it. I'm blaming it on my head being in the "ramping up for NaNoWriMo" mode of late.
-
<.<
>.>
<puts away popcorn>.
::)
-
<.<
>.>
<puts away popcorn>.
::)
Somebody had to do it Reaver. No body wants a multi-page argument about the D@mn "killing joke", and a tragic, masochistic character invented in a 90's cartoon that gone on to some how inspire a whole generation of poor lost souls.
Now back on topic: Which of the new Streams will spawn the top new generation of Super power Technos? And where do you think PAX will go with it?