[imperialus]

i have been following the game since late sr2, but i know nothing about the urbal brawl rules. As such, any such rules in a upcoming book could be made from writer farts and i  would not know. I have already been turned away from the cp20xx community thanks to its insitence on the holiness of 2020 style, please do not make me do so with sr as well.

I have no problem with things changing, as long as there is a reason for it.  Tons of things have changed in Shadowrun over the past 20 years (both in game and IRL) and 99% of them I have welcomed.  It's when something changes with no regard for what happened before that it concerns me.  Right now I'm sitting by myself on ENworld trying to explain to them that  "No, the Auschwitz entry in War is not suggesting that the PC's go and re-kill a bunch of holocaust survivors.  That's not how spirits in Shadowrun work."  It isn't easy when they can point to the text and say "Sure looks like spirits of the dead to me!" all because the author of that section couldn't be bothered to develop an understanding of how a fundamental aspect of the Shadowrun setting works.

[Critias]

Right now I'm sitting by myself on ENworld trying to explain to them that  "No, the Auschwitz entry in War is not suggesting that the PC's go and re-kill a bunch of holocaust survivors.  That's not how spirits in Shadowrun work."  It isn't easy when they can point to the text and say "Sure looks like spirits of the dead to me!" all because the author of that section couldn't be bothered to develop an understanding of how a fundamental aspect of the Shadowrun setting works.

You'll want to point the finger for that at the writers of Shadows of Europe, not War!, in this instance.  While the section in War! added the potential for profit (via minor artifacts) into the equation, hordes of undead taking out their frustration on the living, all in the shadow of Auschwitz, came from page 229 in Shadows of Europe.

I've got no issue with anyone who finds the whole thing distasteful -- I do, and I like my Shadowrun plenty gritty -- but to complain about whether or not that section of War! clashes with established canon, you need to look at the established canon about Auschwitz and Oswiecim, going back six years to SoE. 

[wraith]

At the same time, I think the more panicked folks do have a point that it might have been more tastefully left out.

[Dread Moores]

Tying into the past is okay. Being irrevocably hog-tied to it without the ability to change a single thing is very not so cool, for my two cents. What's most important for me is internal consistency. Realism in a game is an odd concept. Do the changes fit within the general guidelines that the previous material has established? Does it push the envelope without making it unrecognizable from the previous material? Is it internally sound material, without contradicting itself? If it contradicts previous source material, is it done with an eye to explaining the differences and keeping those changes from being confusing?

So long as those sorts of questions are asked, I don't see any real problem with change. It's necessary for the game to move forward, and the direction it will move forward is going to change under different folks. I didn't like some of the initial changes made under Rob Boyle, but came to appreciate where things were headed with SR4. I'm fine with change, so long as it hangs together and remains internally consistent. Changing something "just for the rule of Cool!" isn't always the best idea, if the consequences of said change aren't at least glanced at. The rule of cool has always just seemed like an excuse to me. I'll really be looking forward to Attitude, providing the editing/proofing issues of WAR! have been addressed. (I seemed to recall reading in one of the multi-page threads here on Dumpshock, those issues had been looked at.) It was a little disconcerting to see recent BT material not suffer from the same editing drop-off that recent SR material seemed to have. So if those things are addressed, I'll be glad to look at more material to see if I like the direction SR is headed in now.

WAR! wasn't something that really rang my bell, but to be fair, neither was fields of fire. Or the military gear in Arsenal. I don't really have much interest in the military side of things in SR. I'm here for the criminal/media aspect of the game, and get my military fix in other games. I still purchased it and read it, as I like reading new SR material (just a bit more difficult reading for me, because editing problems is a personal pet peeve). Attitude is definitely subject matter that interests me in SR, though. Here's hoping it's a good read!

Edit: Please don't have Attitude start off lacking an introduction. That was an unwelcome surprise in WAR.

[Kot]

Critas is right. Oświęcim in SoE was described as a hell-on-earth for ghosts of both victims and tormentors alike. They were awakened in 2011, forcing everyone out of the city. Sylvestrines raised the 'spirit barrier'.

As I see it, yes, those are Ghosts - echoes, or shreds of human souls. And they're unique, as no other SR material mentioned them as directly, as SoE. So, it's canon.

But still wrong to kill them, for any reason.

[FastJack]

I look at it this way:

I agree it is wrong to kill ghosts and (most) of my PCs feel the same way, especially with ghosts such as those found in Auschwitz. Diplomacy and investigation with paranormal entities always are the first tools in my toolbox.

But, if I find myself in a situation where it comes down to killing them or joining them, I'm glad there's information on how to take them out.

[raggedhalo]

There are also ghosts in On The Run.  Like, actually-stated-to-be-the-spirits-of-the-dead ghosts.

Ignoring the concentration camp angle, why is it wrong to kill ghosts, in general?

[Chaemera]

At the same time, I think the more panicked folks do have a point that it might have been more tastefully left out.

While I personally never plan to use the material presented on Auschwitz, as has been pointed out elsewhere, when the publisher starts self-censoring what topics they do and don't address.

Speaking as someone who's great-grandmother was born and raised on a reservation, Shadowrun's treatment of American Indians walks the same line of "questionable content". Heck, it is a little uncomfortable of a read for me. But, it's a dark and gritty game, if it doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, something is sincerely wrong.

In terms of recreating dark events from our very real past, how about the Japanese occupation of the Koreas and the Philippines? Anyone at FASA consider how pissed these ethnic groups might be to be told their playing a game where that history repeats itself?

Do either of these rise to the same level as the Auschwitz article? Probably not, since your not using the "ghosts" of real people as campaign fodder. A particularly despicable GM could do a little research and give historically accurate names to the ghosts based on prison records. I'm glad I'll never meet that guy. But, the difference is in degree, not type. Censor one, you necessarily set the stage to censor the other.

It's worth noting that, while the author of this particular article didn't completely step away from the "ghosts of victims" bit, he did try to steer it towards ghosts of the villagers and other dark spirits attracted to the site.

[hobgoblin]

Ignoring the concentration camp angle, why is it wrong to kill ghosts, in general?

Probably a variant of the "soul" issue i have seen showing up related to brain backups in transhumanism circles.

Hell, if ghosts are a spirit of man variant, is it not equally bad to kill one of them? Or any spirit, summoned or free?

Iirc, the catholic church in SR have a proscription against catholic mages making use of spirits because of the troubling issues regarding souls. Not that far fetched given that the real life catholic church has a ban on all things contraceptive, as it interferes with the introduction of souls to earth (or something like that)...

Once one start to go beyond the "self" as a emergent phenomena of electrochemical processes in nervous system, all manner of topics become a big issue...

[Kot]

Ignoring the concentration camp angle, why is it wrong to kill ghosts, in general?

It's wrong to kill the ghosts from Auschwitz, for obvious reasons*. If you find a murderous, or malicious ghost, go for it, if you can't banish or cure him. Its just that ghosts should be treated like humans, since they were human once...

*I'm not delving into that matter.

[Cochise]

You'll want to point the finger for that at the writers of Shadows of Europe, not War!, in this instance.  While the section in War! added the potential for profit (via minor artifacts) into the equation, hordes of undead taking out their frustration on the living, all in the shadow of Auschwitz, came from page 229 in Shadows of Europe.

I've got no issue with anyone who finds the whole thing distasteful -- I do, and I like my Shadowrun plenty gritty -- but to complain about whether or not that section of War! clashes with established canon, you need to look at the established canon about Auschwitz and Oswiecim, going back six years to SoE.  

I have read that defense for the section in question for the second or maybe third time and I'm still not sure if you're serious or not.
You are of course correct that in SoE we can find the canonic source for these ghosts and already back then the problem was that their description didn't quite fit with the overall mechanics for spirits within the SR rules. At least we also got a solution in form of the Sylvestrines locking the place up once more with their spirit barrier.

And now let's look (again) where this was taken with the new section in WAR!:

• The spirit barrier - the very thing that contained those ghosts within the area instead of letting them roam free - is forcefully destroyed although treasure hunters (see also next point) or other non-spirits were never unable to enter the region ... Bad research on game mechanics?
• Since the treasure hunt adventure hook (including the part about "ghost-busting") is about everything we get as to why (but not how) the barrier was destroyed, the author leaves us on the one hand with once again free roaming spirits and all the ramifications connected to that and on the other hand more or less forces us to make up an even larger story about what happened to the Sylvestrines and the true reasons for the barrier's destruction. The latter I personally find extremely unattractive for a gaming supplement ... even without the additional weight that the Holocaust-theme imposes.
• What you call "minor artifacts" are in terms of the SR rules not just ordinary foci but even unique enchantments. And in that they are not at the bottom of magical extravganza (where "minor" things could be expected) but at the top ... and they are given a prize tag that's laughable
• And while we're at it, these "minor artifacts" come with two very new properties that don't fit with the rest of the magic rules, not even with the very open rules on unique enchantments:
- They came into existance neither through the use of the enchanting skill, nor other distinct magical occurrances ... and even stem from a time where usable magic still hadn't returned to the world. While the tides of mana sure allow for (permanently) imprinting the region with a background count even in times of an ebb, there's just no precedence for items like that. I even tried the Alchera approach of magical constructs gaining a physical representation, but that would again call for dual nature and it sure as hell would come off as another (very tasteless) nazi-zombie-horror if I even remotely suggested that the events at Auschwitz are linked to rituals and magical happenings that resulted in such items being created ("possibly" even at the will of the nazi scientists? ~puke~)
- The mentioned scalpel has positive properties similar to a weapon focus (DV increase) without any negative ones (like the dual nature), which makes it (as a template for similar items) superior to even previously described unique enchantments like that sword in Digital Grimoire.


• Apart from all that it's very obvious that the background research on Auschwitz wasn't done too well either, since one would not expect to see such a magical scalpel from someone who is known for delegating all the cruelties. And no the "it's magic" approach just doesn't chime there.

So my honest questions to you: Are you really willing to blame all that on SoE's introduction of terrorizing ghosts in that area? Are you really saying that the new section only added a potential for profit (via minor artifacts)?

[Chaemera]

First, Let me admit my own culpability for continuing to engage discussions regarding War! that are in a thread that is about suggestions for Attitude.

Second, I don't speak for the moderators, obviously; however, let's get back on topic or let the thread die. Want to discuss the "Work Makes Freedom" article of War? start a thread dedicated to it.

I'm asking all sides here for a little reasonability, and I know all sides are guilty, can we stop hijacking threads to rant and rave about War?

EDIT
I know Critias has already posted while I was creating it, but here ya go, everyone, a place to continue arguments on Work Makes Freedom.

[Critias]

Chaemara, I'm going to ignore your absolutely reasonable plea for sanity, simply to clarify something (since time and again over the last week or so, I feel I've been misunderstood, purposefully or not).

I'm not defending the piece as a whole.  The post of mine you quoted, Cochise, was in response to a very specific complaint about the Auschwitz section "not being how spirits work" and a claim that the writer didn't "develop an understanding" of what ghosts are or aren't, in SR canon.  I was just pointing out that SoE had established that ghosts -- or, at the very least, those ghosts -- worked the way the War! writer had them.

Whether you like it or not (and I've repeatedly said that I don't, but people keep ignoring that for some reason) the ghosts there don't break canon.  If you don't like angry ghosts rampaging around the Polish countryside, take it up with whoever wrote SoE, is all I'm saying.

[thalandar]

So, I guess I need an update on the Shadowrun Ghost situtation.  My understanding of shadowrun ghosts comes from Running Wild, page 178:

"For rules purposes, ghosts are considered wild spirits," "that have become imprinted by the dead."  They are not lost souls, or spirits of the dead of any sort.

I get it, everyone (including me) finds the idea of destroying spirits near Auschwitz distasteful.  What I want to know, is there new information since Running Wild that states that ghosts really are spirits of dead meta-humans?

[Dread Moores]

My suggestion for Attitude? Don't put anything about ghosts in there.