Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 3 2008, 04:28 PM

Well, assuming the rules for Dragon PCs aren't one big late April's Fool prank, I have to conclude that by comparison, vampires, wendigoes, nosferatu and banshee PCs ought not to be a taboo any longer. Fair is fair.

I have long craved for rules to play HMHVV-ridden characters (no, ghouls are far too pathetic, they don't matter ). Might this be the right time ?

Posted by: Platinum Apr 3 2008, 04:56 PM

Shadowrun 4 - the cyber emo game, now with EPIC archtypes.

Don't forget playing invae, free spirits, or a minor horror.


So glad I don't play SR4.

Posted by: quentra Apr 3 2008, 04:59 PM

I once played a minor horror in SR3. Just so you know. XD

Good times, good times.

Posted by: nathanross Apr 3 2008, 05:05 PM

Vampires are not a problem at all. Nor are their metacounterparts. The only issue I can imagine is when they are awakened. My first SR3 character was bitten by a banshee when we were doing a vampire campaign. All his ware was forcefully removed and he just wasn't as good anymore. Sure he could turn into a cloud, but shine a UV light on him and he was done.

Essence Drain in SR4 makes them quite a bit more attractive, but still not as good as ware. Awakened chars on the other hand...

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 3 2008, 06:32 PM

Let's be frank, the Awakened Quality is an almost-essential part of the various HMHVV-beasties concepts, if it's not freely available, one can even spare the effort of doing them. It is mandatory for some subtypes (wendigo, nosferatu), and very strongly indicated for vampires (not all vampires should be awakened, but most of them ought to, spells are necessary to replicate many of the traditional legendary powers of vampires, it is strongly suggested that HMHVV activates latent magical potential in mundanes). Anyway, I don't see what the big game balance concerns would be with Awakened vampires, both in comparison to Dragon PCs and taking it into account that Magic potential is bought from scratch in SR4.

Posted by: Casazil Apr 3 2008, 07:07 PM

I just say this read the dev chat logs guys PC Vampires were mentioned.

Posted by: Platinum Apr 3 2008, 08:35 PM

Just use a heavy spf sunscreen, and you will be fine. Extra init dice, essence added to your attributes ... just put in some extra drugs if you are on a tough run and you are laughing. Regen damage almost immediately ...

more than worth it.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 4 2008, 03:10 PM

It might come as a surprise, but your information concerning vamps is not up to date. SR4 in all it's stupid powergamer munchkinism (or whatever you don't seem to like about it) has actually nerfed the infected to such a degree where they don't break gamebalance with their very existence. Well, not more so then a troll does already

Posted by: vladski Apr 4 2008, 03:22 PM

Oh c'mon! The Dragon PC from the Runner Companion preview was an April Fool joke. I can absolutely not believe how many people fell for it, especially some of the same people that are mature and can get on here and min-max a character beyond the realms of anything sane and know 18 bajillion things about the military and gun-crafting and will explain them until your eyes begin to glaze over. The devs obviously did it a day after in order to catch people off their toes a bit (and to make fun of themselves always being behind on their deadlines), but seriously... every single thing points to it being a prank.

I can see people discussing it afterwards, for those that think it might be a cool kind of concept, but for people to go on and on and on and on about how it is a game destroyer and venting their spleen is jsut silly.

It's a joke people. It won't be RAW. For those that think it's a cool concept, now you have a basis to build on for your own home-grown rules.

Vlad

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 4 2008, 04:05 PM

I think we are talking about "Drakes" which are sort of technically Dragons and which unwisely were given playable rules in 3rd edition.

But yes, Vampire PCs are on the table.

-Frank

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 4 2008, 04:15 PM

if there are vampires, i want my obsidimen! . . let's see those suckers bite through that skin of mine <.< . .
they'll probably add dikote to their teeth

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 05:18 PM

Obsidimen could just have themselves dikote'd entirely! They're basically free spirits, after all.

Good times fou you and all the others who crave the oWoD: Yes, vampire characters WILL be in RC, be the dragons an april fool's or not.


Which at least the Wendigo and the Vampire are on default, yes. The Banshee, I'm not sure, and the Goblin and Dzoo/Mutaqua, no, though, but, as the above quoted poster wopuld put it, they propably wouldn't count because they're too pathetic.

And I see no way to include a Wendigo PC into a runner group without fucking up every other character - unless the wendigo is changed drastically fromt he NPC version.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 4 2008, 05:43 PM

Actually, they are not. They are part of some kind of earth spirit thingy, that would be described as wild, but not exactly free.

Now that I think about it, liferocks could be some kind of alchera. Hm, have to elaborate that thought a little.


Call me a nagger, but Vampires are not per default awakened. Wendigos and Nosferatu are, though.

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 06:01 PM

Which would fit the SR definition of free spirits. Actually, those that were hinted at in SR fluff were described as such. In SR, free spirits includes all not bound by a magican. That does include a number of things ED wouldn't consider spirits. Sprites and all other fae, for instance, fall under free spirits, too (the Wild Hunt arguably would be a bound spirit, though).


Nagger.

You're right though. Vampires just are "usually" or "often" awakened, not by default.

Posted by: ccelizic Apr 4 2008, 06:20 PM

You don't often see things that are irredeemably evil as a PC option. I mean there's options for mostly evil stuff, but vampires cross that line into the realm of insect shamans and Toxic Shamans. Ghouls do not drain essence, they do not feed on the living. Ghouls can scrape by a pathetic existance of feeding off the detritus of strife and medical waste in the sixth world. Vampires however need a live victim, and the victim permenantly loses a point of essence (unless you take into consideration a rather expensive and lenghty gene therapy). The drain takes a minute to pull off and the victim must be helpless or willing and even then the victim might become addicted and want more. In a way this feeding aspect can be like a spiritual rape. Even if the victim is willing to give blood to the vampire I suspect few are aware at what they are truly sacrificing to it and of course there's always the infection, if you fail to kill your victim they will become like you. A vampire can only exist by ruining lives.

It would make an interesting option none the less. Though in ways it may be harder then a dragon to deal with, how many players do you have to actually cover their meals in the game session? Not my cup of tea as a player, though it would be interesting to see how they field the mechanics.

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 06:35 PM

Even when handled perfectly, a vampire PC is nothing but a spotlight whoring Mary Sue by default. Then again, that's pretty much what oWoD was all about.

1) The easiest way for a vampire to build that emotional connection to a victim would be a physical rape, if you ask me.
2) That revitalisation therapy from aresenal does NOT cover essence loss from the essence drain power.
3) For all I know, Banshees and Vampires have to completely drain their victims; Dzoo and Goblins, I have no idea how they proliferate. Bite and drain, I guess, but for all I know there's nothing definite on them. With Nosferati it's complicated, and Lycantrophes are bite/scratch, much like Krieger.

Posted by: nathanross Apr 4 2008, 06:40 PM

Out of curiosity Frank, what are your issues with Drakes as PCs?


I remember how much of a bitch it was to find meals for my banshee. After I was bitten I was soooooo thirsty, and the first thing I ran across was a poor squatter huddles around a trashcan fire. After chasing him as a cloud until he was exhausted, I swoop down for the kill. GM has me roll unarmed combat (which I don't have) and my Str is 3, so yeah, 4+4 = not easy TN. Anyways, eventually I get fed up and shoot the fucker in the leg. Didn't get much of a meal due to blood loss, but at least it took the edge off.

We played a one-shot run later where he was able to be an twisted adept and we (myself and a twisted adept troll) had some jolly fun taking on blood spirits and cyberzombies (we had some serious potency).

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 4 2008, 07:40 PM

probably the fact that they are basically dragon shapeshifters but don't/didn't follow the shapeshifter rules for player characters in that they did not have to buy their attributes for each form separately, if i remember correctly . . and didn't they start off with an essence of 8 or something like that?

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 08:02 PM

I do have a problem with drakes too, but that's personal trauma, and propably also because a drake always dominates a group's storylines. If all Greats hunt you down, it's rather hard not to always stand in the sportlight.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 4 2008, 08:27 PM

yeah, that's why nobody in our group plays one of those, a ghould or a shapeshifter . . even meta-variants are hellishly seldom with us, because it screams:"HIM! HE DID IT!". .
GM:"i don't care if you got the blandness edge, if you're a 3m tall albino giant with obvious cyber-arms people WILL recognize you!"

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 08:30 PM

Well, I do know some really nice and playable Variants. A Night One skillmonkey for instance, who has a high masking skill and uses masks to conceal what she is when on a run where stealth is nescessary (otherwise, she uses more simple masks or visored helmets and gloves). #And Ogres, Hobgobbos and Formorians hardly look different from ordinary orks or trolls, really.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 4 2008, 08:30 PM

I don't want Obsidimen!
I don't want T'skrang!

That's about all I have to say on the matter.

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 08:35 PM

Honestly, I would prefer Obsidimen over vampires.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Apr 4 2008, 08:48 PM

+1 me too

WMS

Posted by: Malicant Apr 4 2008, 09:06 PM

Same can be said about Elfs, Trolls, Dwarfs, Orks and basically everything that is not a mundane human. You overuse of the term May Sue makes me wonder if you actually understand the term.

Slapping someone in the face is easier. There is not even real pain involved in that method.

Does not really matter, since Cellular Repair does cover Essence Drain and is both cheaper and faster.


Vampires don't have to kill. Banshees must kill their victims. Dzoo and Goblins and most likely too stupid to care, so they will rather drain their victim completly.

Posted by: hermit Apr 4 2008, 09:50 PM

I do, and no, because neither elves nor other metahumans have either special dietrary requirements that make them "special", nor do they have a "hunted" sign on their forehead as soon as they out themselves, and thus, cocnealing their infection and their ... eating habits ... will take up undue amounts of time for thatc haracter only, with the vamp character always having the campaign revolve around him and his vampire-y-ness. Spotlight whore.

Also, there's alwya<ys this "am I yet human" factor with vamps, this emo "oh, I did ghastly things, but I have to, I am still feeling!" factor that is centtral to many Mary Sues.


Would hardly be 'intense and personal'. Also, it hardly incapacitates a victim.


It does? Mind to quote that?


Sure, they do have to to replicate, unless that has been retconned and they have become ghouls deluxe.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 4 2008, 10:49 PM

The spotlight whore is not the character per se, but the player portraying it. Also, every Runner is special per definition. He has more Cyberware then any normal person even thinks possible, or wields magic most people hope does not exist. Every one of them is per definition "hunted" and they have to conceal their... illigal habits... like killing people without even blinking or thinking twice. The need for essence or flesh is sure not nice, but not really that much worse then what the average Runner does for a living. Also, what do you think notoriorety is for.

Oukay. First, pussy Anne Rice wannabee vampires have feelings. Stupid WoD gamers portray their chars having feelings. But seriously? Vampires are predators. Immortal beeings are assholes. Boiled down to it, it's the players, not the vampires that are wusses. Second, do you mind to name a few Mary Sue characters that have the "oh, I did ghastly things, but I have to, I am still feeling!" factor? I really can't imagine how that works for anything but a few Mary Sue variants.

Also, accusing vampires of beeing emo no matter the setting or indivuum is like saying every jew is a baby blood drinking, greedy, hooknosed rat.

If you think so, I don't feel like changing your mind on that topic. You stick to rape, I stick to psychological abuse.

Actually, no. Read it yourself. I'm way to lazy.


Replicate? Did I miss something?

Posted by: nathanross Apr 4 2008, 11:19 PM

No they started with Essence 6, though I didn't realize you were supposed to purchase a shapeshifters atts seperate for each form, we never did.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 5 2008, 12:09 AM

in SR3, you buy the shifter attributes separately . . they got nerfed as player characters as did ghouls . . so instead of running around with a mediocre human and a beastly beast you ran around with . . a madeiocre human and a mediocre animal or one weakling and one strong . . at least on char-gen . . the regeneration was sorely needed, because wearing armor is kinda hard if your body tends to not stay human once the fighting starts and you don't have much body in either form and no natural armor . .

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 5 2008, 12:42 AM

Well, in other games and settings I might accept moral qualms about the feeding needs of the Infected as a valid issue, but in Shadowrun, where the average runner doesn't bat an eye at being commissioned the planned murder or life-ruin of strangers as a routine job, it frankly reeks me of hypocrisy. When assassination (or advancing corporate plots that might mean the ruin of countless innocents) is your job routine, you have no higher moral ground to claim that being a vampire/wendigo (or a twisted magician/adept, for that matter) is any way more *evil* than your average runner. Of course, unless your runners are all nice heroic Robin Hoods that only do runs to protect the innocent or ameliorate the lot of the downtrodden, in which a case you might indeed claim your soapbox.

Insect Shamans and Poisoner Toxics are a wholly different level of evil, since they may easily cause mass murder and widespread destruction if allowed to run unchecked, as opposed to victimize occasional individuals. OTOH, an Avenger ecoterrorist shaman is IMO a fine and wholly confortable character option, but as far as I understand it, in SR4 Avenger ecoterrorist shamans are supposed to be twisted magicians rather than true Toxics.

And anyway, yes, vampires and wendigoes need Essence to survive, but who says that it has to come from the bodies of innocents ? In your average sprawl, there is no shortage of irredeamable scum that can service as donors. I'm sure that the corporate executive that has just ordered to dump toxic waste in the middle of the slum and eliminate anyone that objects will be a fine source to provide my Infected character with the lifeforce he needs to survive another half a year, and the world will be a brighter place for the exchange.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 07:03 AM

You mix up things here good. Vampires (and other infected) are hunted because of what they are and will be shot on sight justr because. They also, in addition to law enforcement, always have dedicated organisations out to kill them (for something they aren't faulty of, a Mary Sue trait). This comes per default. Ordinary runners, on the other hand, neither absolutly have to kill people, nor do have to have some horrific cyberweapons (or whatever you are talking about with cyberwre people would hope doesn't exist). Alsokilling people without thinking it through on a regular basis is more a trait of an idit and less of a shadowrunner ... and notoriety is fairly useless, save as a tool for GM fiat.


Yeah, boil it down like that and it's the players, not the Mary Sue characters, who are at fault. That vampires lend themselves like no other race too mary sue-ism (revenge and angsty sues mostly, though a newborn vampure works as a help-me-sue too, I think) still remains an issue. And that I don't really see how, except for an insane or vampire themed campaign, such a character could be integrated into the group without being the constant sucker for attention just because of it's affliction and the needs and troubles that come with it.

As for the characters: I doupt you know Steele, Sue (!) or Moonchild (who since has stopped being a vampire, I heared), as they're all privatly played (rules-breaking) SR characters by two certain players ... as for characters from vampy fiction? Sorry, I don't read fan fiction.


So you're saying most jews are? Because, thanks to Anne Rice, movies like Blade, Underworld and UV, and of course oWoD V:TM, yes, most vampires ARE emo by default.


Like slapping. Eh, right.


The obvious answer would be "yes". I was talking about creating other infected. Spreading the disease. Make people become vampires. It requires them to completly drain victims, unlike lycantrophes and ghouls, who just need to bite someone to infect them.


Wendigo, for instance, prefer the flesh of cannibals (for whatever reason), and thus will try to corrupt those surrounding them (the other PC), in order to eventually eat them. The other PC would, if I am not mistaken, also become psychologically dependent on their cannibalistic diet. So yes, tthis WOULD fuck up all other PC just because someone really wants to play a Wendigo.

Vampires and Banshees are a little less hard to integrate into a normal runner group without ruining any character they come in contact with, though the dietrary requirement really will drain GM attention and possibly dominate the campaign's plot no matter what, giving the character pretty much the core attribute of a RP Mary Sue.


Oh, so your infected will be "all nice heroic Robin Hoods that only do runs to protect the innocent or ameliorate the lot of the downtrodden"?

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 5 2008, 09:19 AM

why did you have to include blade in the emo category?
blade is a bastard with a sick sense of humor <.< . . and i like that!

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Apr 5 2008, 09:30 AM

I am not even going to bother replying Hermit, except to say you clearly have absolutely no idea what so ever about how vampirism is portrayed outside of Ann Rice, common view of World of Darkness, and a few main-stream ripoffs, and likely have no idea what gothic culture is like, or many others confused with it do to physical appearance, as you are implying it is all emo.

Perhaps in a few weeks, if I have the patience (unlikely), I may enlighten you. Otherwise, do not expect any more replies.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 10:11 AM

Not Blade as a character, but the opposing vampires. Sorry, should have clarified that.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 10:52 AM

Vampires don't need kill people by default. Runners are usually shot on sight, just because. There are dedicated organisation to stop runners from doing what they do (it's called security, btw). And the usual law enforcement is still present of course. So, every runner is a Mary Sue [hermit variant]?

Dude.

And yes, slapping someone in the face can have a very interesting effect, if the victim is unable to retaliate. It works on children and grownups alike. Of course you don't understand that, because you see only the physical effect, while I'm talking about psychology.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 5 2008, 11:10 AM

ok, you are forgiven . . the one vampire not to actually be in that emo corner and you have to pick on him as an example . . shame on you! *g*

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 11:42 AM

1) Never said that.
2) Because you can interrogate corpses really well. And because you're only after foot soldiers and never, ever want to know who actually sent them. That's not called security, that's stupid.
3) You conveniently ignore other points I brought up, Malicant.


Uhm, yeah, if you have the time to knock them out, drag them to your cellar and work them over for about half an hour on top of tht, that might work. I didn't say rape was the only way to create that nescessary "intense" bond. I just said it was the fastest. And physically superior as vampy chars tend to be, it's quite a dependable way too.

The vampires from 30 days of night and J.C.'s Vampires were different from the emo stereotype too, but in popular mainstream fiction, that's what Vampires are.

Spike (of Buffy) would be an exception to that rule too.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 12:01 PM

True, but you implied it.

No, it's not. Security wants to prevent a) being shot and b) intrusion. They rarely care who send the runners. High Security Super Secret Facilities might be diffrent, but that's just proving the point. The interogation, capturing part is done by black ops or company men AFTER the intrusion could not have been prevented.


As do you, so we are quite in good company to continue this for some time.


Vamps are not quite superior to anyone anymore, that times are past. And rape is not fast. Also, it is not easy. If you jump a guy/gal in an ally and rape them just to feed on them afterwards chances of failure are high since you are not in control of the situation. Also, raping a troll might be interesting, but knocking him out with drugs/taser and humiliating him afterwards is quite easy. The bigger they are and all that.

Damn boy, were you never at any public school that you have no idea of the power of psychological abuse? It's simple and effective and traumatises people for life. So does rape, granted, but fast and furious alley rape will get you killed real fast.
Infected need to act like serial killers, not like gangbangers. It's all about leaving (or rather not leaving) a trail of bodies.


Those were not Vampires. Those were screaming. They were more like rabid ghouls.


I have no clue who J.C. might be, but popular culture and Anne Rice wannabee are not the same. By default even WoD vampires are immortal assholes, not emo bitches (Toreador excluded).


Spike is kewl, but not because he is a vampire. He is just cool. Which prooves kind of my point that being Mary Sue/spotligh hogger/emo bitch is not linked to being a vampire. Thanks for bringing him up.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 5 2008, 12:25 PM

Spike was an emo prior to his transformation as a vampire, and when he became a vampire and started to love Buffy, he returned being an emo again.

Oh dear...

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 12:50 PM

Okay, yeah, I was thinking of 2nd season early Spike, not "Gosh I just got my soul back" spike. Before, he actually was a rather brilliant parody of vampire (and vampire enthusiast) cliches.

No, that's what you read into my badly phrased sentence. Can we put this to rest now?


1) I was, but I wasn't quite someone whom people liked to abuse.
2) Yes, it works, and I never said it didn't. Breaking someone purely by violance does take more time than raping soemone, though. In bothcases, the vamp better pick someone inferior to him, so the troll would be off in either of our examples.


Wow, and here I thought Vamps didn't HAVE to kill their victims, so they could just slip sime Laele into some ghirl's drink, take her to the back room, make her wake up, rape/essence-drain her, and give her another dose of Laele, leaving her to winder why she wakes up with bite marks and an essence rating of 1.


Two words: Terminus Project.


He's the exception to the rule. Any othjer Buffyverse vamp pretty much is a sue, Angel included (Glad for the actor he got a decent role in Bones, by the way).

Posted by: Zak Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM

The Mary Sue term shouldn't be overused. The phenomenon partially applies to alot of characters in fiction, vampire or not. If you apply it every time someone said 'WoD', 'Gandalf', 'Superman' or 'Jedi' it won't help the discussion. It just makes me think of the stoning scene in Life of Brian.

/snip

The depictations of vampires draw heavily on the emotions of them. Especially movieplots are lacking a basic interest in actually trying to portray the implications of near imortality. But love stories sell better than ruthless scheming. For that same reason you don't see alot of good espionage or political movies. There are exceptions to my last examples, but you can bet that you won't find vampires in them.
Because even if some of them actually were vampires they(the vampires and ofc the producers) would have never shown it.
You have to admit, that inserting vampires (or any other supernatural beings for that matter) into a story makes it less credible. And out of this arises the lack of interest in 'realistic' behavior. Usually all you get is some trash. If you are lucky the effects are good.

/snap

The inhumanity of vampires is of course an important part of WoD. For me humanity rating was one of the few annoying things in the setting. It took me some time to adapt (and switch path, so my GM was happy ) But going deeper into the books, I found that some of the WoD sourcebooks(in the older editions) actually deal with that in a mature way, which sets them apart quite nicely from what you describe Hermit (- and it seems you made some really bad experience with the game, or where does your bitterness originate?)

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 5 2008, 02:37 PM

In order to feed, they can do that regularly (the "kinky one-stand" method), AND/OR they can occasionally gorge on Essence by killing persons they deem do not deserve to live anyway (the "eat the child rapist" method), AND/OR persons they were going to kill anyway (the "I stop in combat to drink/eat the felled security guard" method), such as enemies in combat, or people they were hired to kill. The last two strategies are fine for Wendigoes (although I suppose the Laele strategy may work for them, too, with some adjustments) and for Twisted who use Sacrifice and Cannibalize. Feasting on life-force by no means requires to be done on babies and maidens. It only requires someone whom for whatever reason, you are going to harm anyway. For a runner, such occasions are plenty.

Moreover, the three methods are not mutually exclusive, and may be used in turn, or in combination. IMO few typical runners would find real qualms about a companion that makes regular use of at least the last two methods.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 5 2008, 02:48 PM

Wendigoes PC are not forced or driven to "convert" fellow runners anymore than they are forced or driven to convert them to their own policlub or magical tradition. Any long-lived Infected will be smart and wise enough to take it to heart the "don't shit where you eat" maxim all hunters must know, and not to mix the necessities of feeding and companionship, or business dealings, and keep fellow runners and contacts wholly safe from Essence-hunting. Unless, and this is a rather likely scenario IMO, some non-augmented PC start to envy the powers of the Infected character and beg him/her to be "converted" out of their own free will. Which I suppose is quite viable, as long as the appropriate RP and Xp expense (since it seems RC will come with the necessary rules to play the Infected, and it will require the appropriate Qualities) are done.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 02:54 PM

Let's just say vampire characters are something I might react a little bit harsh on. Also, yes, maybe it is possible to play oWoD maturely - as in the dozor novels (though that would be M:TA). I just never saw it played as such, and the oWoD players I know, for the most part, were as I described above (with some three exceptions). Lots of angsty characters slaughtering people left and right and playing up their immortal loves, immortal sadness about their oh-so-horrible curses, or play upon the "I am the vampire übermensch" notion that seems to have been en vogue with oWoD VTM players. My one vampire character - Big Kahuna, a slightly overweight surfer dude who got vampirised while stoned and just woke up to a different world - committed suicide by surfing one last time during sunrise because the other PCs showed him exactly how he never would want to be (and I left WoD behind me for good). I always liked that scene in that cheap SciFi flick ... darkstar, I think - the dude surfing to his death. Thats one stylish way to go.

Vampire characters in SR, I had less ... encouraging ... experiences with.


Yes. Most people playing vampires actually play very much on that autocannibalistic, pseudo-victorian bohemian, pseudoromantic "dark" angsty stereotype with violent tendencies towards whatever the player has issues with. Possibly tainted by bad experience on my part, so this is in my subjective experience only, but ... considering the available fiction, in whatever medium available, on vampires, I find that most portrayals of them actually are either like that or like ghouls.


Yes. Or good political novels, actually.

Though there are good political intrigue-driven shows around (E-Ring, 24, Prison break (okay, that's mediocre), GitS SAC, or old stuff like X-Files), some decent movies (Ronin, Spy Games) and a number of really good games, including the Metal Gear and Splinter Cell series', as well as some other Tom Clancy franchise games. Intriguemongering lends itself far better to games or shows than movies, because it needs time to branch out, and time is something movies are short on.


Yes, but not in a "Shit, I am cursed and have no chanc of redemption", but in a "ooh, despite my curse and rather disturbing feeding habits, I am a feeling person who feels terribly lost and shags a lot of gothy girls and drinks not to kill because, deep down, I remain good". And that's the kind of internal conflict that's considered central to a mary sue, which is why I brought this up in the first place.


Which is totally NOT how wendigos, who, on a side note, are by default toxic shamans, have been portrayed so far.


Or they and the augmented chars kill him and collect the bounty on his head and have that good feeling of having rid the world of a monster. Which is more viable, considering most runners do seem to have some morals left ... and which the wendigo could only prevent by subverting them and making them dependent on him and regular cannibalistic meals. Besides, that way, if he has to kill one of the team, that person still has it's use.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 03:42 PM

Maybe. Only time will tell.


Neither was I, but I still saw stuff (and did stuff), so I learned one thing or the other about non physical violence.

You don't actually need someone inferior, you just need him to convince him that he is.


How about reading and wording? I did say infected Anyhow, my point was not the killing, but the methods of a serial killer. Planning, perparation and all that stuff. You should try watching or better yet reading (Darkly Dreaming) Dexter to get the idea of what I'm talking about.

Also, I doubt someone on the influence of a mind wiping drug will have the emotional resonance neccessary for draining.


Let's pretend that abomination never happened, shall we?


Stop that Sue non sense. Angel is just some split personality emo kid. That does not qualify as Mary Sue, just as annoying.

Posted by: quentra Apr 5 2008, 03:46 PM

Why does everyone hate on Mary Sue's? Not all of them are emo whiny bitches. A Mary Sue, is, by definition, an idealized fictional version of oneself. I don't really see a problem with that.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 5 2008, 03:51 PM

So, any character that tries to make good and retain some moral compass or have a positive attitude to a questionable situation is a Mary Sue to you ? Dude, I guess you do so much not want to see any character of mine, they must look so horribly Gary-Stueish to you. My typical attitude to RP vampires and their ilk is some variant of "Cool, I get immortality, fancy powers, and a gothy-babe magnet at the price of sun allergy, morally questionable diet and an anger management problem ? Where do I sign ?".



In SR4, they are Twisted magicians or mystic adepts at worst, followers of predatory Traditions and Mentor Spirits at best. Necessary adjustments and reinterpretations to fluff descriptions are an integral part of making a previously NPC-only character template open to PC use. Veteran gamers are very cognizant of the process, esp. if they are familiar with D20 or WoD games. Anyway, that fluff tells wendigoes may like cannibal flesh best (food preferences are not an irresistible drive, by any means), and therefore may attempt to corrupt someone before feasting. It does not mean they are irresistibly driven to do so with companions, allies, contacts, loved ones, etc. As a matter of fact, since such dupes are meant to be eventually consumed, it would be highly unsual. Again, do not shit where you eat. Packmates and mates are not prey. Hunters know it by instinct.



Well, such vagaries are supposed to happen in the dog-eat-dog world of SR, from time to time. OTOH, since the whole lifestyle of shadowrunners is critically dependent on the reliability and trustworthiness of team-mates and contacts (notice the overwhelming importance of reputation), such occasions would be kept to a minimum, in the runner society. Once, for whatever reason, you make the choice to associate with a runner, whatever his foibles, you do not turn your back on him, unless he betrays you first. It is assumed, once an Infected character is introduced in a group, or as a contact, that issues about its nature have been cleared first.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 03:56 PM

- disturbed childhood
- vampire
- ... with soul
- special abilities and weapons galore

Okay, maybe he is borderline. And Joss Wheadon just is a brilliant scriptwright. But he has a number of sue-ish traits.


Most likely. I bet you also would hate me as a GM. And yes, I see that as primarily fishing for sympathy and trying to capture everyone's attention. Sue me or deal with it, I suppose.


My typical attitude would be more along the lines of "kill it dead".


1) You can convert loved ones, if you really love them. Somehow, Wendigos can do that.
2) Wendigo generally are as sociable as poisoner toxics (not very), so no pack there.


And it is assumed that noninfected reayt with "wee cool" on having a dangerous, psychotic predator among them as the new team member that will consider them food once they have to be holed up together for more than a few days. Well yeah. Sure.


The problem lies more in the attention-seeking, world-breaking, overpowered and flat application of that. If you only want to play your slightly idealised self in sR, that's weird, but perfectly non-sue on it's own.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 04:06 PM

Disturbed Childhood is something a lot of people have in common without even realizing it.
Being a vampire in a vampire story does not qualify as Sue. Yet.
Having a soul is a trademark of the character that makes him annoynig, but without he is more Sue-ish, since he starts rampaging and killing just because he can, for no other reason.
Special abilities (like being punched in the face) and weapons galore (like some sword replica and tiny stakes) do not make you a Sue. At least not in a story with supernatural stuff.

Yes, he might borderline, but he misses the prime criteria of Sue: overglorification. To me he is and always will be a wussie with low self esteem.
Joss Whedons take on vamps sucks (no pun!) anyway.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 04:14 PM

Point taken. Wheadon never truly glorifies characters anyway. tnhat's what I like about him, I guess.

And his take on vampires is more bearable that WWs, if you ask me.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 04:22 PM

I don't like the rabble masses vampire feel Wheadon created. Also, they burst into flame if you even think about pointing a stake in their general direction. That's kind of lame. I like vampires having fewer numbers, being selctive about procreation and maybe having some weird powers. Or at least real strenght and durability.
And they should not bleed. Corpses without pulse should not get bruises and should not bleed. Unfortunatly the only game that adresses this, even if only a little, is WoD.

I think I need to play Blodlines again for some neet vampire action. Jack rules!

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 04:36 PM

Since when are Infected animated corpses? If that were so, Vampires' lower parts would swell significantl and turn red as allt he blood sips down, while the upper part should be dried ... some sort of circulation would be needed for them to maintain a somewhat human appearance.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 04:38 PM

I was just talking about general vamps, not SR Infected, who are kind of in the twilight zone of the whole undead thingy.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 04:42 PM

I am talking about general vamps too, like the WoD ones, who also abide by the laws of gravity.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 05:06 PM

WoD vampires are animated corpses. No blood in their veins, no heartbeat, no bruises, no bleeding.
Anytime I see a vamp flick where the vamps claim to have no heartbeat, but start bleeding like any other sucker after a brawl, I lose interest in said flick in an instant.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 05:21 PM

Uh-Hunh. I like the infected version (Underworld, UV, Blade, et al) better anyway. Animated corpses have to be reduced to rotting while walking, uttering the occasional 'bleweh' and 'bwaaaaar' and eating brains, if you ask me.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 05:30 PM

Which I don't.
And WoD vamps start to rot if they don't feed on blood.
Infections are for half-scientific wussies, IMO. If I want supernatural, I don't try to explain it with idiotic half-assed theories about blood diseases. I like the SR Infected though, since there is no real science involved. Magic and metagenes saved the day for me.
Until SR4 made blood a dietry requirement. But hell, that's what houserules are for.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 05:44 PM

Yeah, I liked that too. Besides, why can't there be magic viruses? Blade overdid it, very much, yes. I still like an unexplained magical virus thing better than zombies deluxe (with feelings! that are all emo and goth-gorl-shag-machines!).

As for the dietrary requirement ... well duh ... you don't mind that in oWoD either, don't you? I certainly do, but I mind a lot of things SR4 changed.

Posted by: Adarael Apr 5 2008, 05:58 PM

Point 1: WoD vamps most certainly do not begin to rot when they don't feed. There are specific flaws to that effect, but in general vampires who don't feed just become progressively more pissy. You could also argue that Samedi rot more if they don't feed, but they rot to begin with.

Point 2: Blood has always been a dietary requirement, just not worded in the way it is in SR4. It's always been essence drain based, but vampires have never been able to use their essence drain ability in any form other than via blood drinking.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 5 2008, 06:44 PM

The Shadowrun Vampire is an animated corpse. The living entity is a virus which can revert into a cloud of gas and turn itself into the shape of the original victim at a later date. They can't have sexual children with humans or with anything else. To reproduce, they kill and infect other metahumans.

Technically the scientific name of a vampire should be "Human Metahuman Vampiric Virus."

-Frank

Posted by: BiffKun Apr 5 2008, 07:01 PM

What you should be asking is can you make a normal shadowrun character at 325 points that is at the same power level as a dragon. If the answer is no, then dragons are overpowered, simple as that But then again, trolls are overpowered compared to everything else: 40bp extra for 80bp worth of stats, dermal plating, reach, and thermographic vision? Ya.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 5 2008, 07:07 PM

More simple amicably to refuse and have you as a GM, I suppose. However, I have to state that at least as much as I'm concerned, your vision is way off the mark. I do fancy a lot playing powerful, passionate characters that you would most likely deem Mary-Sueish, but fishing for attention is not the goal. It is all about being larger-than-life, having flashy, on the edge concepts, and interesting, colorful personalities, and, above all, the intoxicating feeling of vicarious fantasy empowerment that comes from playing uberpowerful badasses that can take any crap short of epic their world throws at them, and throw it back sevenfold. It has nothing to do with hogging the spotlight.



Hehehe, did I tell you that the zealot witchhunter is my preferred brand of cannon-fodder NPC in any game and setting ?

I never tire of killing Inquisitor NPC, they are my Orks and Nazis.



Sure, Infected can always choose to convert close friends and loved ones. If they are any smart, they only do it if the subject consents, is likely to adapt well to the violent lifestyle (Jane Runner is rather more likely to do than Jane Wageslave) and is of the metatype that is known to retain sentience after HMHVV infection. OTOH, if they do, it is a wonderful opportunity for companionship. Sharing the lifestyle may be one of the best way to ensure a successful relationship.

Vampires and wendigoes are rare, but there is nothing in their makeup to make them asocial any more than the need to adapt to a predatory lifestyle. And as nature shows us, predators can perfectly adapt to live in small groups and social circles. So a vampire or wendigo can surely come to see his runner mates as her "pack", even if they are not Infected.



First of all, please don't misuse the word "psychotic". It pains the eyes of professionals. The word means "having delusions, hallucinations, or gross disruption of ability to think coherently". As a rule, vampires and wendigoes have not any of them as a side-effect of their nature (individuals may, of course, but that's another matter). If anything, the word you are seeking is "sociopathic", and even that is terribly abused in popular culture.

Second, the vast majority of runners is perfectly able to kill their teammates if they were to turn on them unexpectedly. The Infected are nothing new on this. It all balances on mutual need to have trustworthy allies and contacts, the undesirableness of mutual assured destruction, the vital importance of relaibility in runner society, and well even predators may have some need for companionship. So if an Infected enters a runner team, he is not going to turn on them at the last opportunity, and so are his pals.

Third, and most important, it takes many months, up to a year, before a vampire or wendigo is starved for Essence and becomes dangerously hungry with an overwhelming craving. The likelihood that an Infected runner is going to be holed for months together with his team, with no access to other subjects, and no possibility to gorge on Essence before going in, is abysmally low.



As I said, attention-seeking is not the goal of my gameplay and is diligently avoided. Overpowered and world-breaking, as you put it, playstyle is indeed a goal, but I prefer to think of it as "epic", "cinematic", and "larger than life", in the purest Hollywood/Hong-Kong action-movie blockbuster tradition.

Posted by: BiffKun Apr 5 2008, 07:12 PM

Malicant obviously you have never played WoD if you say vampires in WoD have no blood in their veins and no heartbeat. Blood is the very essence of what makes the vampire, and in fact the lower the amount of blood the vampire has the more likely they are to go on a feral killing rampage. Blood is everything to the vampire

Added to that, WoD vampires don't rot if they fail to feed on blood, they just get really really crazy.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 07:21 PM

In WoD it's not a dietry requirement. It's the fuel they use to keep themselfs going. That role is filled by Essence Drain in SR, making the blood part kind of... meh. It serves no purpose.



Yes they do. The bashing damage they suffer when out-of-blood is them turning into the rotting corpses they should be.


No, blood was only neccessary as a transmitter for Essence Drain. It said in SR3 that vamps don't need blood for anything but the draining process. Which you did say, of course. but you are wrong to assume that is the same as a dietry requirement.


You, sir, are very wrong. You will not find a drop of blood in a WoD vampire. What you will find is Vitae, which is NOT blood. Also, Vitae is not stored in his veins, but rather in the region where the vampires organs used to be. And as I said before, they rot without blood/Vitae.

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 07:48 PM

Unless that's the specific focus of the campaign, that's what you do, though (and you also piss everyone off).


Hunh. That's actually the only cocnept in VTM I find vaguely appealing. But that's very vague.


Uhm, which part of "TOXIC SHAMAN" is so hard to understand? Vampires less so, but Wendigos? Besides, Vampires usually end up twisted mages, too.


Well, yes? According to fluff, many vampires and Wendigos end up like that, especially when hungry. Okay, or sociopathic. Now satisfied?


What predator lives in a pack with their prey? Humans don't count, as farmers don't trewat cattle as pets, and we very rarely eat our pets if we keep them.


Oh yes, they are. If need be, they'd turn on them because their hunger makes them. Or just because they finally snap completely.


Yeah, everyone infected will thank their maker for that great gift ... uh, sure.


Exactly. And Vampires and moreso Wendiigos are hardly reliable, being all twisted and toxic and, as you put it, predatory. Or would you easily trust your life to something that considers you food (or a plague to earth)? I know I certainly wouldn't.


Oh sure. They live off people but need being wubbed too. Jeez. Totally. Especially wendigo, being toxic shamans and all.


No offense to you personally, but that sounds a lot like using 30-megaton h-bombs for precision, no-collateral damage strikes. In special campaigns where going wild is the theme? Sure, that'll work. In a more default SR campaign? No.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 08:30 PM

Wendigos are not toxic. They might become so, sure, but are not by default. Most would be twisted most likely, but even that is not neccessary.

Posted by: Starmage21 Apr 5 2008, 08:37 PM

Only because cattle are too large to keep as household pets. its actually quite common for hogs(pigs) to become household pets in rural farm areas, even to hog farmers(mmm bacon).

Posted by: Adarael Apr 5 2008, 08:37 PM

I think part of the confusion here is that while you have the basics correct, you're assuming things are going on when there's no support for that. Kinda like assuming wired reflexes cause time to dilate - it's not an incorrect idea as far as awesome or fluff goes, it's just not actually what's happening.
Also, I never claimed blood was a dietary requirement for WoD vamps. I meant it has always been a requirement for SR vamps. They have always had to use essence drain by drinking blood - the blood they drink 'carries' the essence. You might say that there's no reason for that since it's just the essence drain power, but if it doesn't drink blood, there's no reason to even call it a vampire at all. Or have any vampiric weaknesses. Those exist. They're master Shedim. Vampires, by definition, drink blood to drain essence. Functionally if you must drink blood to drain essence OR drink blood when you drain essence and you also have to have the stuff itself, then really you're just splitting TINY hairs.
Or to put it another way: if in one edition I have to be a magician to cast spells and in the next I have to have bought the magician merit AND a spell to cast spells.. we're really talking about the same thing here.

WoD Vampires: I challenge you to find me any place where it states vampires store vitae only in their organ-places. You won't find it. What's more, the descriptions of vampiric damage and combat in both old and new World of Darkness suggest that you're wrong. Their entire body stores said vitae, and consequently when punctured, it will leak out. They won't bleed per se, but blood will fall out of their bodies and get it smeared all over the place. (Vampire: The Requiem, p. 156).

In NWoD:
-Blood and vitae are identical unless they are within a vampire's body. See page 156 - vitae becomes regular old blood upon leaving the vamp's body. Vitae is just the fancy word for it while a vampire is able to use it to do magic stuff. QED since there's no mystical congealing of energy to blood when a vampire opens a vein and feeds some to their ghoul, we can assume that blood and vitae look and function identically once they leave the vampire's body, and are indistinguishable by scientific means.
(If you're gonna go, "Well, I said there was no BLOOD", then I should point out that this is semantic hair splitting and is retarded. So don't try that argument. It's like whining about clips vs magazines when discussing Die Hard: we don't care. We just care that John is gonna kill some people.)
-Spending blood causes the vampire to look more dead, not to rot. A corpselike appearance is common, vampirically speaking. Rotting as you spend blood is not. Page 156 again. Given that no social penalty is accrued, we can assume that this progression from full pool to empty is very slight, physically speaking.
-Vampires empty of blood do not take damage simply because they are empty. They simply cannot spend blood - this includes spending the blood required to awaken in the evening. THAT is where the damage comes from. It's because they might be 'burning up stored energy of their consciousness' or something. Not simply by being empty. What's more, there's no evidence that this is 'rot'. There's as much evidence of rot as there is that it's rigor mortis. None. (Page 176). Evidence in support of the fact that it's weakness and not rot is as follows: the vampire is never penalized on social rolls for having rotted if they're awoken after several nights of this, despite the fact that they will not have healed the damage. And if rotting isn't gonna give you a social penalty, I don't know what is. Furthermore, that damage isn't bashing, it's lethal. Just by way of clarification.

In OWoD:
-The rules are almost identical for the most part, only the wording changes. Vampires empty of blood lose health levels when REQUIRED to spend blood, which generally only means while waking for the night or hit with a Thaumaturgy effect. Again, no penalty for social rolls if the vampire is awoken with blood. (Vampire: The Masquerade 3rd Edition, page 216).
-Unfortunately, vampire blood in OWoD is described alternately as totally mundane (3rd edition books, mostly) and as being inherently supernatural and detectable by science (Strike Force Zero, The Valkenberg Foundation, others).

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 5 2008, 09:53 PM

Only if the campaign is specifically focused to be utterly incompatible with high-powered characters and gameplay, and I wouldn't ever play in one such.



To anyone their own fancies, with my blessing.

My utter loathing for the witchhunter concept is rooted in my radical hate for RL violent religious zealots.



In SR4, the magic traditions that condone or exalt predatory behavior are Twisted most likely at worst, but may be mainstream at best. They have little to do with the apocalyptic worldview SR4 toxic uphold. Wendigos and vampires are not toxic by default.

As Malicant aptly said, they might become so, sure, but are no more likely than other runners. Most Infected would be twisted most likely, but even that is not neccesary.



I would better describe the state the Infected enter at Essence 0 as a severe withdrawal syndrome akin to the one addict to hard drugs and alcoholics experience. I won't deny that in such circumstances Infected, like addicts, may experience a temporary psychotic breakdown, but I made issues with your previous use of the word, since it implied they were psychotic all the time. Yes, sociopathic is a much more appropriate description.



See Starmage21's comment.



Infected only turn dangerously Essence-craving when they are completely starved, which takes many months to develop. And they are no more likely to "snap" than any other individuals living a high-stress lifestyle of constant violence, like say, the vats majority of shadowrunners. Third, the runner community is no stranger to to subpopulations of individuals with questionable psyches, like cyberzombies, addicts to augmenting drugs, followers of Berserk Mentors, etc.



Of course, not everyone, maybe not even most. It all depends on the circumstances of the infection. It is the vast majority of those subjects who willingly consented, or even requested, the transformation, that are likely to have a positive attitude on it.



Please, repeat with me, in SR4, the Infected are not toxics by default. HMHVV does not bestow any special mystical sympathy with purposeful destruction of nature. The Infected are to humans what wolves and lions are to deers. They are as much natural as predator animals are, quite a lot. They have no metaphysical affinity to apocalyptic spread of radiation, pollution, pestilence, and such. Please.



Differently from what Hollywood may show, even many sociopaths may like company. That's part of what gangs are all about.



That's what high-powered, cinematic rule variants and gameplay is all about.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 5 2008, 10:17 PM

I may be wrong, but ...

hermit: Didn't you at one point state that your typical game involved PCs with Karma in the high triple digits, if not the thousands? How could the addition of these things you protest so strongly against possibly be that detrimental to a game of that scale?

Posted by: hermit Apr 5 2008, 10:31 PM

You don't need to be a religious fanatcic to hunt vampires, do you? I was more thinking of something like Buffy anyway.


Source?


That might work for your infected-friendly style of gaming. That doesn't mean it's anywhere near canonic. That's more along the lines of obsessive/compulsive when not hafing sucked soul for some time (and not just when they're completely drained, the craving just totally gets out of control then and the nearest essence-carrying creature is attacked then.


Cyberzombies? As Runners? Uhm ... no. In your games maybe. In games that actually consider the maintainance, both mundane and magical, a CZ needs, no, they make no runners. They might work in a corp campaign, but definitly not in a freelancer game.


SR =/= WoD. Accept that. And yes, unless it has been reconned, Wendigo ARE by default toxic shamans. Even Janice Verner was.


What it isn't, though, is the default style SR is designed and balanced for.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 5 2008, 10:44 PM

I just re-read the section detailing Vampires and Wendigo in the SR4 rulebook, and the section in Street Magic that discusses Twisted and Toxic Magic, and could find no mention at all of either of them being Toxic (or Twisted) by default, or even as a common occurrence. Can you please provide me with a location in one of the SR4 books (I have them all) that even implies wendigo and/or vampires are by default toxic magicians?

Posted by: Malicant Apr 5 2008, 10:51 PM

Retcon does not exist . In SR4 Wendigos were never toxic. The description of toxic mages is not in line with "killing people to feed on them". That would be twisted, like Blood Magic and Cannibalize Metamagics.
Also, I don't remember Janice Verner being Toxic. It's quite some time since I read the books, but I recall she died before going into predator mode. Might be wrong on this one, though.


The confusion is solely on your part here.
SR vamp needed always blood. A token amount, just like noted in Essence Drain. But in SR4 in addition to that they need blood as food. That is a Dietry Requirement. And that's what I think is kind of... not neccessary.

And I know that I won't find anything to solidify my claims on WoD vamps, since I am way to lazy to reread those books for a single passage. But I think the Pro/Epilogue of V:tR mentions exactly what I said about them beeing bloodless corpses. Pale and cold to the touch unless they want to appear normal, because no blood runs through their veins. But hell, who cares? This is not the WoD forums.
Just one final thing. Vitae is not blood. Feed a guy blood and he will get sick at best. Feed the same guy vitae and he will become quite strong and resilient. WoD Vampires drink blood and turn it to vitae in the process. It does not course through their veins, unless they force it to (losing it for any other use in the process) to fake a lifelike appearence.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 5 2008, 11:07 PM

Elves, 1st ed had special dietary requirements (no meat)
Elves, Orks, Dwarves and Trolls, Hunted sign. for something that is not their fault and they never chose.
Hunting groups include, but are not limited to:
Humanis Policlub
Human Nation
Alamos 20000

Humans hae a hunted sign too: Sons of Sauron

Street Samurai have anywhere up to 1,000,000 in SR3 or :nuyen:250,000 in valuable tech IN THEIR FREKING BODIES. Now THAT is wish fulfillment if anything is.

Or magicians, 1% or less of people can do what i do, I can do anything that normal people can do, in addition I can alter the world with my wishes.In addition I can summon powerful magical beings to be my friends... Also I can search my self in a big spotlight hogging 'initiation' of self discovery. After that I can explore magical new worlds on my own and gain awesome secrets and powers there to bring back to help my friends.

Or Otaku/Technomancers "Call me NEO!"


You mean the "I have less than 1 essence and am more machine than man, but I am still a person!" and the "I am a killer for hire, but deep down I love my friends and contects and try to hold some moral ground." which is shadowrunner default persona

Or "I am 8-10 feet tall and look like something out of your nightmares, but I am still a person. May I have a cup of tea?"


Please, for the sake of all gods, above and below, please tell me that pun was unintended.

That is Psychotic as in Psychosis, where Psychoticism (where the person is also called Psychotic), in Academic Criminology, refers to what WWs Exalted calls 'High Conviction' the ability to do stuff that is necessary despite the emotional hardness of it.

AMEN!!!
Okay as someone who is diagnosed as 'mildly sociopathic', I can confrim this. We like being around people, even if we do not give a flying frag what happens to them the next day. People make life less boring. Not just gang types either. I personally prefer the University academic crowd. It is nice to have people that can hold up their end of a decent arguement.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 5 2008, 11:26 PM

I am gonna go and see if I can dig up my copy od Paranormal Animals of North Aerica after i get some sleep

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 5 2008, 11:45 PM

Yes, regardless of what, if any magical powers the original Ork had or did not have, once it has been Essence Drained to death and then had a Wendigo created in its place the ensuing creature is now a Shamanic (and toxic) magician. That is because it is a new creature, and the magically capable organism is the virus, not the Ork.

-Frank

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 6 2008, 04:23 AM

Um frank, note the quote DOES NOT say toxic

Posted by: swirler Apr 6 2008, 05:01 AM

just skimming some of the posts and thought it was relevant to point this out
some people are under the impression that vampires and people playing them didn't exist before Whitewolf

also playing a vamp doesn't mean you have to be an "Anne Rice wetboy"
a guy in our SR1 game played a troll vamp (not a dszoonoqua(sp) and it kicked ass
and that was before any of us had heard of WOD, anne rice or vampire hunter D

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 6 2008, 06:57 AM

Yes, that quote does not say "toxic." What's your point? I note that Toxic traditions also don't have rules in the book that quote is from.

Wendigo are not nice people. They aren't even metahumans. They are a virus that absorbs the memories of creatures whose soul it devours through the medium of first eating their flesh. An act it generally performs after it uses its mind control powers to get its prospective victim to assist in killing and eating other metahumans. The totems which guide wendigo are totally crazy evil fucks by any metahuman standard. Every single one of them qualifies as a twisted path.

-Frank

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 6 2008, 07:17 AM

Give me a rules or fluff quote, in ANY book which lists them as toxic

Posted by: Fortune Apr 6 2008, 07:34 AM

Twisted is quite different than Toxic.

Can you please point me toward the text in any SR4 book that states, or even just implies that any, let alone all Wendigo are Twisted or Toxic?

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 6 2008, 07:57 AM

for example, why would a wolf-shaman wendigo be twistedt?
the wolf aspect of the hunter would be fitting for one of them.
As you said yourself, they ain't even metahuman anymore . .
so it would not even be their own "pack" they are hunting O.o

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 6 2008, 08:11 AM

Oh sure it's natural and normal for them, but from the Metahuman standpoint it's wicked and twisted. They aren't summoning spirits of man, they summon Carnage spirits instead. They aren't metahumans, they aren't summoning metahuman spirits. That's natural for them, but it qualifies as sociopathic by metahuman standards.

-Frank

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 6 2008, 08:14 AM

so, by that reasoning, all immoral elves and dragons and drakes, shapeshifters and the such are twisted/toxic?

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 6 2008, 08:25 AM

Those are non-standard, non-human traditions. However, the definition of a twisted path is entirely subjective from the standpoint of metahuman morality and law. Immortal Elves and Dragons could be considered twisted yes, but it would be a hard sell because of the very large amount of time those people spend not killing and eating metahumans.

Wendigo fucking eat people. The actions they perform are "considered evil" by metahuman shamans. That alone makes them qualified as a Twisted Path. Go ahead and read the definition of Twisted Paths on page 137 of Street Magic (not sure if it's too long a section to paste up here). Would you say that cannibal cult leading mass murderer qualifies as someone who is "fettered by the ethics and morals of society as a whole?" Would you say that qualifies as "asocial tendencies and/or sociopathic behavior?"

Remember, moral relativism is relative to something. In the case of Shamanism it is relative to metahuman cultural norms. Wendigo fall outside those norms in shocking and horrific fashion. That makes them twisted by definition.

-Frank

Posted by: Fortune Apr 6 2008, 08:36 AM

Which one is it?

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 6 2008, 08:48 AM

some Shapeshifters eat people, Dragons eat people sometimes,ghouls eat DEAD people . .
so those are all twisted then?
and one particular paragraph i like about the twisted from Street Magic:

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 6 2008, 08:52 AM

so all shark shamans are twisted then?

Posted by: Malicant Apr 6 2008, 08:57 AM

That does not make much sense. Magic is described as a personal art. You don't turn twisted just because someone thinks you're evil. There are some traditions that would be exclusivly twisted otherwise.

Also, let's take the first sentance out of the Toxic Magic part in Street Magic

Now, how does that fit with Wendigos?

Well, let's take a look and Twisted just for fun.

Well, that might work for a Wendigo, but I just cannot see how all of them could fit into this just for being Wendigo.

And I also cannot see how they are the Virus. I stick with the less far-fetched explenation that the virus just changes them.

Posted by: hermit Apr 6 2008, 09:08 AM

'Twisted' Surely applies to Aina's path of magic (after all, a good portion is horrors magic she learned from her ex-bf, the horror whose name starts with Y), and Alachia's and possibly Harley's, too. All IE are into blood magic to some degree, a form of magic which IS considered twisted. So, for IE, this would be a definite yes.

As for dragons, drakes, and shifters, I guess no - dragons practice nonhuman magic, but don't delve into the sacrifice/cannibalistic path a lot (they know what that will eventually bring up), drakes do what dragons do, just not as effective, and shifters follow animal totems. The last two pretty much do what ordinary humans do, magic-wise.

And malicant ...



Like that:

Selective quoting FTW, eh?

Also, next paragraph:
Sounds like the infected fit in there just fine to me. Also, please read the paragraph on Reaper shamans. Or, hell, I'll just quote it:


Goes well with the predatory role the vampy fanboys attribute to the infected, doesn't it? Now ganted, not every wendigo will run about trying to exterminate humanity as a whole, but that's where the wobbliness of SR4's mentor/path system comes in. They don't have to, they just have to vaguely behave like that to be classified as reapers.

Also, Hyde-White would work well as a Havoc, too.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 6 2008, 09:20 AM

Drakes actually don't do what dragons do. They use Metahuman magic, since they are not Dragons.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 6 2008, 09:26 AM

In 3rd edition and before there wasn't a line drawn between those two options as they were the same. SR4 has not mentioned Wendigo magic since publishing rules dividing the two, so there's no way to know. If I were writing the rules in Runner's Companion, I'd let them choose. But of course I'm not, so they may end up being restricted to one or the other.

Considering that a newly created Wendigo is given a magical tradition and a mentor, it would be entirely reasonable to actually write up the "Wendigo Tradition" in Runner' Companion, although it easily could get cut for space reasons.

-Frank

Posted by: Fortune Apr 6 2008, 09:51 AM

Fair enough.

Posted by: swirler Apr 6 2008, 03:03 PM

Actually remember, they don't just eat people. They get a group of people to eat other people over a long period of time and then eat those corrupted people. It's beyond twisted. It's "Twisted Plus"!

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 6 2008, 03:12 PM

That is a flavor preference, if they fight it, they can live doing much less harm than that. Think of how vegans live

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 6 2008, 03:16 PM

even if i look down on vegetarians/vegans, you can simply not compare it like that . . vegetarians and vegans can live (and no, in my eyes not JUST FINE) without anything from an animal . . a wendigo that does not eat metahuman flesh dies, just as a ghoul will and just as a vampire will, if they don't get their regular fix of essence . .

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 6 2008, 03:51 PM

Ghouls are a bad example. Since they have to eat metahuman flesh but don't have to get it from a living and conscious source, a Ghoul actually can achieve limited impact. Ghouls can eat the corpses of people who die of natural causes or the refuse from clones. And while many religious groups consider that no better than the Hannibal crap that Wendigo have to pull, personally I don't have a problem with it.

Once you're dead, your body will be devoured. It does not strike me as ethically superior for your body to be eaten by worms than for it to be eaten by Ghouls. So I'm willing to entertain the notion of "good ghouls" whose civil rights have to be defended. But Wendigo are always going to be Kill on Sight no matter how they "feel" about being a top predator who can only achieve sexual release by torturing a metahuman to death.

-Frank

Posted by: Da9iel Apr 6 2008, 04:10 PM

Of course vegans can live out normal lifespans without eating meat. Wendigos can live out normal lifespans without eating people that they've corrupted into cannibalism. They still eat people, but they don't need to corrupt them into cannibals. That was the comparison. Kremlin KOA wasn't saying they don't eat people.

Why do I have a sudden urge to go get some Soylent Green? Is Tuesday Soylent Green day? I need to check my calendar....

Posted by: nathanross Apr 6 2008, 04:50 PM

Even if you aren't writing for Runner's Companion, I sure hope you got some sections in Gone Wild (or whatever the critter book is going to be).


Corrupted meat tastes better! Seriously though, I am totally looking forward to a nice breakfast salad.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 6 2008, 04:50 PM

ah, okay, i was barking up the wrong tree so to say . . and over here, it's still sunday O.o

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 6 2008, 05:49 PM

Precisely

Over here, soylent green day is two days after an American tourist comes to our part of http://youtube.com/watch?v=KeMarRzd28w and goes bush without proper supplies.



No Problemo
My thought was I can choose to live off a couple of cannibals a year who I did not create (places like redmond can be a breeding ground for some serious sickos). In addition, although less flavorful, many different food choices like rapists, toxic shamans, and pedophiles can be an acceptable food suppliment.

Posted by: swirler Apr 6 2008, 06:01 PM

Annoying and sickly?

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 6 2008, 07:14 PM

Dammit you made me hunt around my storage boxes
Ok SR1 p189 references most Wendigo as following a predatory totem such as wolf, but apparently SOME (not most, or all) follow as yet unidentified totems. This is one of the first hints of toxic totems, or of horror totems.



Shadowrunners are not nice people. They aren't even citizens. They are a virus that absorbs the wealth of society whose soul it devours through the medium of enabling corporations to do secret harm. An act it generally performs after it uses its illegally acquired skills and webs of influence to acquire agreements from rogue elements in corporations to fund these diabolical schemes. The 'fixers' which guide shadowrunners are totally crazy evil fucks by any decent citizen's standard. Every single one of them qualifies as a twisted monster.

Do you understand yet?

Let me make it simple. I, as a human being, have no real life qualms with the idea of a being who gets a disease. Furthermore, I have no problems if this disease requires him to consume human flesh and souls. The above two sentances are contingent on the person choosing to satisfy his new necessity by feeding on the sickest fuckers he can find.

The fact that I have no problems sharing a house with such a guy in real life means that, by at least some human standards, his way of life can be acceptable.




That too, but i meant living on less than ideal food

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 6 2008, 08:12 PM

The thing is that it's not some guy who gets a disease and is tragically forced to wander the lands eating the bodies and souls of people and then trying to figure out how to make the best of a bad lot. The ork in question is dead. The new creature is no more the ork in question than a fleshform ant spirit would be. It's a new creature with powerful magic and knowledge that the template ork never had. And this new creature likes corrupting innocent people into murder and cannibalism and it likes betraying its minions and then torturing them to death once they have fallen. By any human standard, a wendigo is an evil fucker. It's not misunderstood, it's not tragic, it's not sick, it's fucking evil. And it likes being evil.

If you meet a wendigo who is trying to better society and right wrongs while still being forced by its nature to do depraved acts and so on and so forth in all its emo glory, that is a creature which is sick. That's a creature which like Alan Moore's Swamp Thing is confused by the memories it has absorbed and is temporarily trying to be something it is not - a metahuman with a conscience and a sense of community with other metahumans. When you see that, you are seeing a delusional Wendigo - one which believes itself to actually be some dead ork rather than what it actually is: a soul stealing virus which had already gleefully murdered the ork it transiently believes itself to be.

---

Wendigo are often quite intelligent and they are brutally powerful. You can work with them on those grounds despite the fact that they evil and naturally treacherous. You can work with ant mages too. Hell, you'd be better off working with ant mages because ant mages are purely motivated by power and growth, rather than gaining sexual gratification from betraying their allies and then torturing them to death by eating them alive. Last I checked, Lofwyr keeps a wendigo (used to be defined as a toxic shaman, now could go either way: toxic or twisted) on staff because the guy is such a badass that Lofwyr is willing to accept the guy eating the occasional employee. Damien Knight keeps Ant Magicians on staff as well, and to the best of my knowledge those guys actually don't eat any of Damien's other employees.

And from the stand point of a completely amoral shadowrunner, working with a wendigo is on the short list of extremely bad ideas. The guy literally betrays and murders team mates as part of his fucking mating dance. Working with one is worse for your health than anything else.

---

Now the other infected, those guys are horrible abominations too. But they are naturally inclined to prey upon strangers rather than allies. That makes working with them a much more attractive proposition. A Banshee is totally hard core and it periodically kills and eats its enemies. If you're a soldier or a gangster or something, it's basically just like having a Gurkha or an Angama on your team - yeah what he does is considered a crime against humanity, but he's doing it to the other guys so you can probably rationalize that away.

If I was running a mercenary company in Congo, I'd take on a Banshee in a New York Minute. The fact that he feasts on the souls of the fallen is of way less concern to me than the fact that he can take a full burst from a machine gun to the stomach and be back up in seconds without even needing to be looked at by a medic and that damnit he kills a lot of enemies. It's morally problematic, but it's the kind of thing that makes sense in a Machiavellian fashion. But Wendigo will in fact cause my troops to eat each other and then eat my troops. Bringing a wendigo on team would be a very very hard sell.

-Frank

Posted by: Grinder Apr 6 2008, 08:39 PM

Not at all.

Posted by: Adarael Apr 6 2008, 08:48 PM

If it pisses you off that much that they have a 'dietary requirement' for exactly the same amount of blood they'd always needed to facilitate essence drain - that is to say 'a token amount' - then I think you're perfectly within your rights to simply ignore the line. The fact of the matter is that they drink just as much blood now as then, but it's been clarified rules-wise that they do, in fact, have to drink blood. Without the dietary requirement line, the amount they have to drink (re: 'token') was somewhat confusing. I had a player tell me that as long as a vampire just licked a spot of blood they could drain all the essence they wanted.




If you're not gonna bother to try and support your arguments, you shouldn't make outlandish claims. Dead and cold to the touch =/= rotting. I'm also not gonna argue this any further because you obviously don't feel like checking for facts to support your POV. So we can agree to think different things.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 01:10 AM

Are you purposefully dense? The dietry requirement forces them to consume blood not only while draining essence, but to survive. They actually need blood. To survive. On top of the need of blood to transfer essence. Is anyone reading the BBB nowadays before spouting opinions?


Would you please stop with this theory of yours? It's fine if you use it to comfort yourself, but it is not supportet by anything I have read about vampires or other Infected in SR. And I have read anything I could get my greasy hands on. A virus is not an organism that takes over it's host like a puppeteer. HMHVV is a virus that fucks with the metagenes, not some alien invader from outer space. This is SR, not Body Snatchers. Also, this is not D&D, where vamps eat people because they are evil. In SR vamps are evil because they eat people. Huge difference.

Posted by: b1ffov3rfl0w Apr 7 2008, 01:19 AM

I bet Tony Gonzalez (NFL player and vegan) or one of those vegan triathletes would agree. Although triathletes are a bit annoying sometimes in the way they seem to always talk about nothing but triathlons. Yes, I get it, you ran, you swam, you biked.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 7 2008, 01:23 AM

Is that true, or is FrankTrollman just going overboard?

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 7 2008, 01:25 AM

I believe he is using the theories put forth by Martin De Vries. The famous SR vampire hunter.

That is the only book support for his interpretation. The Irony is that Martin De Vries is a fragging Vampire himself. As such, if he was right, he would not be hunting Vampires.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Apr 7 2008, 01:33 AM

Be aware that Frank has "insights" into SR4 things that the rest of us do not.

But he like the rest of us is free to express his opinions/ideas/concepts here too.

WMS

Posted by: Jaid Apr 7 2008, 01:33 AM

no idea about the wendigo, but ares does have a bunch of insect spirits/shaman. i don't know that damien knight *personally* has any of them reporting to him, but it's a pretty sure thing he knows and approves of the fact that Ares has a number of insect shaman (and naturally insect spirits to go with them), and that he could have one on his personal staff if he wanted to quite easily.

Posted by: WearzManySkins Apr 7 2008, 02:13 AM

You may wish to look at NAGEE #9 has some interesting views on Vampires, yes it is SR3 but still interesting ideas.

WMS

Posted by: Adarael Apr 7 2008, 05:17 AM

It is no longer productive to try and discuss this with you. I am going to accept that I cannot understand why you are upset that in 4th edition they have to drink blood to survive or they will sicken and die from a dietary requirement ALONG with sickening and dying from essence loss, as opposed to in 3rd edition where they would sicken and die without drinking blood because they couldn't drain essence without doing so.

I know the rules quite well, thank you.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 7 2008, 05:39 AM

No. It's what the rules actually say. The basic book says that a character "cannot survive" being Essence Drained to zero. It says that a creature taken by the Infection power is a "newly created critter." If you are an Ork and you are Essence Drained to zero by a critter with Infection, then by the rules you die and then a new critter is created out of your body. That's the actual fucking rules on pages 62, 288, and 289. Do not pass go, do not collect 200¥.

This is also known in character. Martin DeVries is a vampire and realized that he personally was no longer "Martin DeVries" but rather an entirely new and somewhat evil monster instead. As a sapient creature he subsequently decided to take on the other vampires in open conflict. But that doesn't make him a nice person, nor does it make him the human whose memories he has. He has published his findings and the Vampire =/= You rubric is as well known to the public as the Flesh Form Mantis =/= You paradigm is.

You are welcome to play a Vampire. It's a sapient creature with hands that can pass for a metahuman with no direct sunlight around. But you can't keep playing a human character who gets infected with vampirism - because the character you were playing is dead and now there is a new sapient creature running off with his body.

-Frank

Posted by: nathanross Apr 7 2008, 06:09 AM

Unless the GM allows you to play the new creature (that has access to your memories, and may internalize them).

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 06:20 AM

Yeah thats fine, but in SR metaphysics character A died when his essence hit zero and it was not part of a cybermantic ritual.

Having your essence score -> 0 means you are dead (unless you are now a cyberzombie, which is a very specific way not to become dead). When your corpse gets up and walks around again, it is now a new entity that has certain elements in common with you, like all your memories.

But *you* died.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 7 2008, 07:06 AM

The Wendigo (a female, if I recall correctly) in S-K's employ shows up posing as an albino Sasquatch in a novel I believe, and passes her ability to talk off as having an implanted voice modulator. I don't recall which novel though.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 7 2008, 08:00 AM

it is one of the three in the power trilogy, but i ain't sure which one at the moment . .
other question, cybermancy being mentioned . . does one HAVE to have cyber in his body? and if so, does one have to die from essence-loss of CYBER-ware to become a cyber-zombie? else: what would happen, if a cybermancer-magician-vampire sucked somebody dry and then cast cybermancy upon him? would the now empty human become a new vampire or get changed into a cyberzombie?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 08:11 AM

It seems that the surgery and the ritual have to be performed concurrently, and essence drain would seem to screw the pooch.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 7 2008, 09:33 AM

The huge glaring problem with this theory, which frankly is laughable IMO, is that runs in the face of some basic facts about biology and identity. Fact one, virii aren't sentient. Metahumans are. Fact two, to all purposes that matter, (meta)humans are the sum of their memories and personality. If something has my memories and my personality, and thinks it's me, then it's me. That is why there can never be a brain transplant, only a body transplant. The person moves with the consciousness. Even radical changes to the body cannot change this. In SR4, this is exemplified by cyberzombies and cyborgs. As things go, HMHVV only brings moderate changes in comparison, some innate magical powers and activation of the magus factor, which are essentially analogous to becoming a changeling and Awakening to be a mystic adept. The fact this change comes with some new instincts and cravings does not make one a different individual, not any more than developing an addiction makes one an alien. That's all HMHVV does. It works a process quite analogous to the cyberzombie ritual, (as a matter of fact, my long-standing pet theory about the origin of HMHVV is that it is a partially successful magical-genetic experiment to replicate the effects of the cyberzombie ritual and make it automatic at infection, back then in the Fourth World, eg. from the Therans or the Blood Elves. It almost worked, giving the host immortality, resiliency, various magical powers, but it is flawed as it makes the patteren instable, it leaks Essence, and it requires periodic infusions from donors. Luckily for the host, it also provides the abilities to arrange for the Essence transfer). When the subject hits Essence 0, the virus puts the body in animated suspension, a death-like coma, keeps the spirit linked, and reworks the genome of the subject, until it awakens in a new form. But it's still the same person, with the same memories and basic personality. The virus only adds a craving for the new food, Essence, and the related hunting instinct, but to assume this makes one a monster from outer space is ludicrous. One might as well declare that heroin addicts are body snatchers.

Sincerely, in order to explain to explain the biology of the Infected, there is no need to take as fact the ridiculous self-loathing delusions of Martin DeVries, who could not reconcile himself with his new cravings, and concocted this obvious delusion about him not being him, but an alien double, to appease the inner conflict. They are "new critters" just the same way that newly Goblinized orks, trolls, and changelings, are: i.e. not at all. They are the same persons, with a somewhat changed body, from the expression of a pack of Awakened genes. The wording of the BBB is simply to mean that (until RC is published, when it will become just the matter of paying the appropriate Xp, likely to buy a Quality) PCs were forbidden to mess with game balance from getting a bunch of new nifty powers from getting Infected with HMHVV. Just that.

Flesh Forms are wholly different, they are pre-existing consciousness and sentient entity which subsumes the memories of the host. HMHVV is a string of RNA which resonates with the Astral plane, gets transcribed and inserted in the host's DNA, and gives it some new perks and weaknesses, and a couple new cravings and instincts. There is no pre-existing consciousness or subsumption. A couple new addictions and phobias, that's all HMHVV creates at the psychic level, and it's ridicolous to assume that such makes a Body Snatcher.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 09:43 AM

The problem with saying 'virii arn;t sentient' should be obvious on first principles. We don't have magical viruses running around either. Also, I'd dispute people have a soul if you want to discuss metaphysics, but in 2070 there is undeniable proof that they have one. Its health is both measurable and quantifiable too. With discreet units. When your essence is sucked out your actual soul is consumed.

While I agree today that if you take me, add some random powers and keep the same memory and personality, that is me. However, in 2070 it is not me, as my soul (measured by essence) has gone, and something else has replaced it. I am dead.

Also, the game clearly states that when you die when your essence reaches zero. Several times.

Applying real world metaphysics like you are is not a good move when the metaphysical system under discussion actually has measurable and quantifiable 'facts' forming its foundation.

Posted by: Grinder Apr 7 2008, 10:30 AM

Every dedicated sportsman can get annoying at some point. But so can role players, musicians or car drivers too.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 11:00 AM

My problem is, what you still ignore, is the fact that vampires now have to consume blood outside of the Essence Drain procedure. They need to drain every few months, but the need blood as regular food. Like daily.

Bah, whatever.

Back to the virus stuff. Martin deVries is a nutjob. If he actually thinks he is not Martin deVries, that is most likely simple alienation. A mental disorder, not proof for his ridiculous theory.

Ok, a drained person dies (almost). HMHVV brings them back, but that does not mean the person is now the Virus. The creature has the same body, memories, which make it for all purposes the same person. Now just add the experience of near-death with, and I qoute, "physical, mental and siritual transformation" and any change of personality can be explained without going into nutjob-country. The Virus transforms, it does not take over the reigns.

So, the newly created critter is still controlled by the same person, not by the Virus.

Also, this is not D&D. The Infection Power description does not effect all Infected equally, the wording cannot be exactly used to describe every possible outcome of the infection. Like Vamps seem to retain their personality and can restrain themselfs, but Wendigos turn into canibalistic cult leaders (sometimes) and Dzoo-Noo-Whatever turn retarded.

This Virus theory sounds more like "I found a badly worded passage, now I will twist it a lot and make fun of it as much as I can".


Actually, there is no such proof. The debates are raging. Astral Projection is proof that the conciousness can be seperated from the body, but there is no actual proof of an afterlife or souls. Just hints like the ex-bloodspirit gal in the Dragonheart Trilogy.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 11:03 AM

Sure, but its not actually near death. The book leaves no wiggle room on this matter. You are dead.

And it's not a badly worded passage, it is multiple passages that repeatedly reference the fact you die. Your soul is completely smashed by the process of essence drain. What comes afterwards is something else, and while it has much in common with you, it is certainly not you.

Edit: SR metaphysics

You have a soul. It is your essence score. It can actually be scientifically measured and has units and everything. It is exactly as real as tables, chairs and coffee mugs.

When a vampire essence drains you, and your essence score hits zero, you are dead. Do not pass go, do not collect 200yens. You have passed over. The only known process that stops this is a very complicated magically ritual that binds your soul to your body. This does not happen in this case.

After a vampire has killed you a new creature with a new essence pool (and thus a new soul!) inhabits the emptied vessel. The resultant magically created creature *does not* have your soul, your essence of being, it has a new one. It has a new essence pool it is a new entity, like the product of a fleshform merge. It is another creature entirely. This is specifically reference by the books too.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 11:07 AM

Dammit, another one, sheesh, do I have to quote?


Yeah, no wiggle room. You are almost dead.


Care to prove that? Essence is most of the time a Metagame mechanic and the rest of the time the abstract integrity of your being, which some will surely call the soul. But that does not make it so, like some claim spirits are the souls of the dead. There is just no proof. And Essence can be measured magically, which is not exactly science, since even astral space is not even proven to exist (scientifically). Science only knows when Essence drops to 0, but they don't measure it in-world on a scale from 0-6, or something. More like "OK", "not OK", "almost gone", "gone" and "beyond gone".

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 11:13 AM

Hell that is the essence drain description which explicitly kills you

And of course you can measure it. Science can record the astral perceptions of a magician, and magicians have the power to exactly and precisely quantify the amount of essence an entity has. This allows you to do repeatable experiments, allow others to examine the results, and run double blind tests with multiple instruments of observation. Just think of the magician as an electron microscope.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 11:15 AM

No, Infection is scissors, and your quotes are mushroom.

Er, no? Astral Perception is a psychic sense. Science does not cover physic senses. Also, it is not science if you need to be one out of hundred to be able to prove it. If every person on the planet can prove it with training, not with inborn ability, it is science.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 7 2008, 11:22 AM

How many people house ruled vampires in their campaigns? Not as PCs, but also as NPCs?

In my game, Vampires are NPCs, but they are not dependent on essence, but blood. Essence drain is what they do to create new Vampires, blood is what they need to survive. It makes them a bit more like some of the modern vampire novels (Anita Blake, "Dead Witch Walking", and similar series).

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 11:23 AM

*laughs*

Sure its a psychic sense, but I can dump all the sensory information received by a person out a datajack, chop it up, and then feed it back to other people, so everyone has access to that data. I can actually measure the psychic stimuluses the guy is receiving. It is measurable and quantifiable. Hypothesis' are also falsifiable. Not a problem. We can do controlled experiments, double blind tests, all that good stuff.

That aside, you are thinking about the magician the wrong way. He's not the scientist, he's the electron microscope or the supercollider. You use him as a lens to see the world via sensory uplinks.

However, if you want to get really picky there are semi permanent astral shallows in many areas so you the 99 out of 100 can go learn assensing if you want to push the boat out, in the same way we can all work at CERN.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 11:25 AM

Psychic sense are not recorded by SimSense. Remeber how nobody beside mages can understand astral space? That is because no one else can see it. Not even with SimSense.

A psychic sense is a sense that does not exist, in a way.

To shoot down shallows too, yes, other people see astral space, but it cannot be proven, since there is no corresponding brainfunction. Science is about hard proof, not eyewitness reports.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 11:31 AM

You still need to beat the astral shallows point to invalidate my theory, because it says in runner havens that mundanes in astral shallows can do exactly that.

Edit: I can see that we are not going to agree about science. Eyewitness reports ARE hard data. Just you need enough of them, you need to be able to quantify them (often hard, but can do with enough successes on an assensing test!) and you need to be able to reproduce them, both things you can do with an astral shallow no problem. Then you can statistically analyze them and frankly that is a process we apply to pretty much everything.

Got a page reference for that simsense doesn't record astral perception? I was under the impression that they could dump everything out of their brainz.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 7 2008, 01:29 PM

A few other notes...

Yes, it is theoretically possible that sentient magical virii might exist in the SR universe. However, there is no direct or indirect evidence which that be the case, apart from abritrarily making it so on the spot for HMHVV, so good reasoning must lead to refute the hypothesis. The most simple explanation (and therefore the preferable one) is that HMHVV works just like RL virii, only being an Awakened one (ie its DNA/RNA structure being resonant with Astral space) is able to induce chamges in the person's makeup akin to metagenes, whose working it closely mimics. Differently from the Body Snatcher hypothesis, there is ample evidence that in SR setting certain genes may induce magical changes.

Available evidence indicates that in the SR setting Essence is the holistic integration of body, mind, and consciousness. It is a finite quantiy, and when it's exausted, the person cannot survive for long, barring extreme magical and technological remedies. There is also convincing evidence that the consciousness may temporarily separate from the body in a non-material (or better astral-stuff) state. Whether, after death, consciousness may continue to exist, self-aware, independent from the body, well it's uncertain. However, there is no decent evidence that such "spirit" being separate in nature from the mind, as opposed to be an "emerging product", the spiritual record or engraving on the astral stuff of the mind.

The problem that at Essence 0 the body/mind dies, and the "spirit" departs, is easily solved by reminding that some magical foces, as proven by the cybermantic ritual, can block permanently the lethal effects of Essence exaustion, and force body, mind, and "spirit" to say together.

Available evidence

indicates that HMHVV works just like the cybermantic ritual, being able to prevent total loss of Essence. It causes a little repair of Essence integrity, during the transformation, so the subject never truly dies but enters a death-like state, it causes the Essence loss to "rebound" to a little degree. HMHVV is able to change the way Essence works to a large degree, as proven by the existence of Essence Drain. During this death-like coma, the virus reworks the biological and magical makeup of the subject to a large degree, and makes some mental changes as well (the instinctual craving for Essence). But it is always the same person that undergoes a metamorphosis.

Again, the more I look at it, the more I get convinced that HMHVV was a partially successful attempt to engineer the cybermantic ritual into something that could work automatically on an infected subject without the need for the cumbersome magical and technological procedure. The anologies are too striking.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 02:18 PM

That is a very easy request, let's start with my latest favorite hobby, quoting BBB, since a lot of people don't bother reading it before spouting nonsense. But don't feel sad, you're not alone.


Psychic is not physical nor emotive, but let's continue.


Yes, that is five senses, like not six, the sixth being psychic.

If you wish I can go on how Astral Perception is not a physical sense, or how it is not even a signle sense at all, but let's just stop here, since I made my point.

Oh, and eyewitness reports are bogus. A lot of people saw nessie, alien spaceships, apples falling from trees etc. Proving and disproving those reports is science. You cannot prove or disprove the existance of astral space. Just a bunch of people claim it exists, and a lot of stuff points in that direction, but science is at a loss to interact with it, so it cannot prove or disprove it. Welcome to the Sixth World.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 7 2008, 02:23 PM

while we're at it . . what happens if a vampire manages to find enough flesh to sink it's teeth into a cyber-zombie? does he get any essence out of them? probably not, but i still find it funny if i think of it *g*
Vampire:*goes chomp*
Zombie: *droools*
Vampire:*ptuey* "ick, yuck, dried up and foul"

Posted by: swirler Apr 7 2008, 02:35 PM

It was the first I believe.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 7 2008, 02:47 PM

God damn it Wanderer. The basic rules say that there is no way to not die from having an Essence of zero in the basic rules. Infection is a basic rule, Cybermancy is not a basic rule. The rule that says a character cannot not die with an Essence of 0 does not apply to Cybermancy but it does apply to Vampiric Infection.

Do try to keep up. Actually read the whole section. The fact that he enters a state of near death for some period of time in no way obviates the fact that he actually dies.

The fuck it does.




You aren't a little bit alive. You are dead. In fact, the Infection power isn't even usable until the target is already dead.

-Frank

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 03:08 PM

Are you ignoring the near-death exception thingy in the Infection powers description on purpose? Sounds like raving geek syndrome to me.

Posted by: quentra Apr 7 2008, 03:37 PM

Got a quote for that?

Posted by: nathanross Apr 7 2008, 03:47 PM

Aside from what the book says, what makes you (meta)human? Is it your brain? your body? your past? your motivations for the future? your genes? In a sense, what you are is a result of all of these things. Your genes are influenced in the womb and ends up with a certain base brain and body structure. It is then influenced by the social environment it develops within. Our desires/dreams/goals are also a result of all these things.

When a being is infected with HMHVV, this balance changes. Assuming the resulting being has the intellectual capacity to choose their way of life, you now require a different method of living, and your lifestyle and culture must change to fit this. Whether this change is like a new spirit possessing a body it is completely new to, or whether it is the same body/mind but with such a radically different outlook as to be considered different from the original is still up in the air.

The magical-virus HMHVV is now an integral part of this new being, this cannot be denied. For Wendigos, and others who did not retain their higher thought processing, they are now very much a new being. The virus has completely changed their mind, and their memories of the past are all but forgotten; they are truly no longer what they once were. Whether you can say that that being's "soul" no longer inhabits that body is completely dependent on your religious view of the relation between body/mind/soul.

PS - Watch/read Ghost in the Shell

EDIT - I feel there is a gap in the rules when it comes to death and it's relation to magic and the soul. This issue recently came up when we were wondering if you could still Mind Probe a recently dead body. You can technically die (heart stopping) and yet still be revived. As far as I know, SR has never taken a stance on the soul and it's relation to the body (with the exception of astral forms). Can you assense a dead body? For how long after it has died (psychometry metamagic not included)?

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 7 2008, 04:15 PM

AFAIK, the medical definition of death death is not your heart stopping, but your mind stopping.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 7 2008, 05:30 PM

There is no exception. Nor can there be. Infection is a basic rule.



So no, I'm not ignoring anything. The rules are quite explicit on this point.

You.
Are
DEAD.

Get over it.

-Frank

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 7 2008, 05:49 PM

Different, it is surely a different outlook, as per any radically different experience. The point is, it is not a new self-awareness, a new person. It certainly a life-changing experience, and it may change the personality in some ways. But it is not an alien parasite subsuming the mind of the host.



BZZTT!!! Basic masitake. Wendigoes, like vampires, very much retain their sentience and their memories (they are magicians by default, remember ?). So this point is wholly invalid. You're mistaking wendigoes and dzoo-no-qua.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 7 2008, 06:00 PM

Sure, and it says explicitly: "The victim enters into a state of near-death, as the infection initiates physical, mental, and spiritual transformation. Within 24 hours the newly created critter revives at 1 Essence and must immediately drain Essence from another being."

It indicates that the subject never dies, it enters a "near-death" state, and it remains in suspended animation as the virus works its transformation. After a day, the process is complete, the character awakens at Essence 1. It never dies, because the Infection power does not allow the character to do.



Indeed, and it looks like someone in his dogged crusade to make HMHVV the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, is willfully ignoring the rule above, which is a basic rule, and since it is specifically about the Infected, it trumps the general rule about Essence 0. Specific rules always trump general ones.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 07:36 PM

Really though. I hate to break it to you, but Infection makes that exception. I know, you will need a moment to find back your composure, but don't worry, games will go on.

[edit]And you know why this excpetion does not even break the rules? Because those Infected are NPCs, so you still can't play a character that went 0 Essence with basic rules.


I actually have. Earlier in this very thread even, I think. If I wasn't a lazy jerk I would repeat it. Look it up, under the Infection power in the BBB.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 7 2008, 08:33 PM

Wanderer, what partof NEWLY CREATED CRITTER do you not understand?

You are dead. It is alive. End of discussion.

----

Malicant: While the rules do say that you spend a period "near death" the rules say that you "don't die" a grand total of zero fucking times. They say that you do die unambiguously three times. Furthermore, the basic rulebook also says specifically and exhaustively that there is no rule in the basic rulebook that would allow you to not die. It's extremely open and shut.

I honestly don't know how the rules could possibly have been written more clearly. You. Die.

-Frank

Posted by: Adarael Apr 7 2008, 09:18 PM

Frank, I think the big sticking point here is that people don't agree with your view that the virus is somehow the sum total of what this new HMHVV infected critter is, rather than simply a force animating their corpses and giving them powers.

Part of that probably stems from the fact that people are 'infected' with HMHVV and not 'taken over by' HMHVV.

(I don't have a stock in it either way, so I don't care.)

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 09:45 PM

Also, they don't die in the process. Just in case anyone missed that

And just to add something a little more serious, if Frank was remotly right, Energy Loss would be another mistake, not an exception, since it gives a critter a few hours time bevore dying when it hit's 0 Essence. Weird that. Gee, I wonder if someone interprets something in a way out of context here. Might be me, but somehow I feel safe on this one.

Posted by: nathanross Apr 7 2008, 09:57 PM

Okay, I'm trying to pave a middle ground here, but so be it. Anyways, maybe not all wendigos, but most and some ghouls/vampires/banshee loose their minds. I know the trolls (dzoo-no-qua) and whatever dwarves become also loose their mind. At that point I just say that whatever was the thinking metahuman is now just an animal. Whether some Wendigos avoid this, I don't know. If they do retain their memories, then you must wonder how much of what they were is still their after their transformation.

And Frank, please quit shouting, you are better than that.

I don't think this is a rules issue, as whether or not PCs can play the resultant critter is completely up to the GM. This is a fluff argument. And would someone please address what you define as dead, and what you define as "entirely new critter" outside of the narrow scope of the rules?

This seems to be a nature vs nurture argument, and I don't think either side is necessarily wrong. Sure a wendigo is very fucked up and would not be so if it weren't for the virus. However, its behavior is not entirely a result of the virus, as it is piggybacking off many learned experiences/reflexes. It does not get reborn as a baby, it is a changed adult with aspects of it's being coming from both the adult that was infected and the virus which changed said adult.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 10:08 PM

I just can't resist to take another punch at the "It's the rules" angle.

Ok, the rules say a character dies if reduced to 0 Essence. I don't even argue that. But what do those rules don't say? Right. Does the character die instantly, or does it take minutes, hours, days until his system, soul or whatever finally kicks the bucket? No one knows. Which leaves room for Infection to work without being an exception. And the character still leaves the game, so nothing really changed.

Once again, SR is not D&D. Rules, especially something written outside the actual rules sections, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, Martin "I don't feel like myself, which proves my theory" deVries is still a nutjob. Just in case anyone missed that. Anything that supports that loon is to be disregarded.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 7 2008, 11:21 PM

Malicant, actually it doesn't, because you are arguing the guy is still alive - thus he didn't die, which contradicts the rules on page on 62, and thus is against the rules.

QED.

It could probably do with being errataed.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 7 2008, 11:49 PM

*sigh* have you been actually reading what I've been posting here?

To put it simply for you: No, he did not die, since Infection says he is put into near-death and page 62 fails to address how fast someone with Essence 0 dies. And even if page 62 did say that you died instantly, Infection still ignores that by being an exception to that rule. It's ingenious, really.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 12:03 AM

But if you only go into a near death state, and then run around fit and health, you didn't actually die, which thus violates the rule on page 62 which says you die.

I'm not sure how you can read the condition 'go to zero essence -> dead' as being satisfied by 'go to zero essence -> actually be okay'

To put it as simply as possible to you, you are saying

(A implies B) AND (A implies not B)

Which is quite a conundrum.

And if you want to invoke the specific overrides the general, which I'm not even sure is a rule in SR but is in D&D and is probably logical in this case, the essence drain power specifically kills you, and is a specific precondition of using infection. And the general rule on page 62 actually precludes the possibility of any exception, which would seem to override the specific passage under infection.

Can I suggest a possible conclusion

essence drain kills your consciousness, which allows you to meet both the general, no exception and specific preconditions, but the infection prevents the cellular death of your body.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 12:14 AM

There are quite a few cases of a general rule being overruled by one that is more specific to the case at hand. Sure there is a general rule, but I don't understand why there can't possibly be an exception in this case (especially when the text goes on to describe that very exception). Normally, when someone is reduced to 0 Essence, they die. When infected with HMHVV, they are reduced to 0 Essence, but the virus itself keeps the person alive (in a near-death state, just as the text illustrates) while it transforms the character (much like goblinization) into the 'new' creature.

Edit: You edited!

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 12:16 AM

One of the problem in this particular case is that the general rule specifically rules out the possibility of any exceptions.

Edit: I'm a bastard like that.

I'm not even sure there is a logical resolution to this case. I mean a straight up reading of both sections does imply that B = NOT B which is just madness.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 8 2008, 02:43 AM

actually a full logical reading gives A = B in all cases except where C is true, in which case A = !B

A = eSSENCE GONE TO 0
B = Death
C = Infection

Reading Augmentation adds contition D (cybermancy) which works just like C

For references to Essence and soul. The canonical reference here is back in SR2. Cybertechnology. It is not listed as your soul, but as the glue that holds your soul and body together. With a high essence your soul and body are well linked and strong. As essence decreases, so does that link. This is why astral projection time was essence linked, rather than magic linked in SR 1-3 (in 4 this has changed, which is a very interesting move, although san unavoidable consequence of the move to a buyable magic stat)

SR4 Lists essence as 'Holistic integrity', not 'soul'

In addition essence loss provides an exception to the 'essence 0 = death' it takes DAYS for a vampire who is reduced to 0 essence to die
so Infection with HMHVV means you can live for DAYS with 0 essence
Guess what, the infection does not need days to revive you

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 03:04 AM

You're forgetting that the page 62 rule specifically precludes the exception, and then I'm back to (A = NOT B) AND (A =B)

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 03:11 AM

In what way does it explicitly exclude the (or any) exception?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 03:15 AM

Never explicitly excludes the possibility of an exception, if it was omitted, that would work for example,



or



or best yet



That last one is the shortest, and judging by the way AH goes on about wordcount, if the intention was not to preclude exceptions, why would they bother with the torturous language that doubles the word count.

It does permit the possibility of examples in other books.

Edit: we are in legalistic territory here, for example another possibility is that they meant that an essence score can never go below zero, and then tacked on to that startment that if you do you die, but that seems like a weird way to write it that was the intention.

To look at it the other way around, why would you use 'never' when you actually already have an exception. If its just sloppy editing (a possibility) It is very difficult to determine which way it is supposed to be.

Personally I think it is a fantastic question as to if a vampire is a the person but changed, or a completely new person, so i'd like to see it officially defined. Maybe I should write to the FAQ people, or just PM synner.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 03:40 AM

Hmmm ...

... and ...



Seems to me to be anything but explicitly excluding an exception. In fact, it rather looks, with that wording, like they are actually paving the way for any exceptions that may be forthcoming ... such as the Cybermancy or Infection exceptions.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 03:47 AM

They are definitely paving the way for future exceptions such as Cybermancy in other books, hence, I imagine the 'basic rules' exception clause. We all agree cybermancy is an exception, and the rules specifically allow for exceptions in books other than the basic one.

What caps infection right in the face under the terms of that clause is that it is definitely covered on the 'basic rules' provision, being in that it is in the basic rule book. If anything, that adds weight to the fact that infection isn't suppose to be included because why spend all that word count excluding any mechanisms under the basic rules except the mechanisms that are in the basic rules.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 8 2008, 05:18 AM

When my grandfather was dying of cancer he spent about 48 hours in state of near death. Then he died.

Infection says that you spend a period near death. So does energy drain. Neither one of them at any time say that you don't die.

Malicant: Find one passage anywhere in the book that says that you survive dropping to Essence 0 when people hit you with Essence Drain and have the Infection power. Just one. I've already shown the passage that says that characters can never (their emphasis, not mine) survive being Essence Drained to 0 using any of the rules in the basic book. I've found the rules that say people who Infection applies to all die. Now go find even one passage that actually contradicts either passage.

Being near death death does not preclude dying at some point during the process. In fact, most forms of death that I have dealt with have involved fairly extensive periods spent near death.

-Frank

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 08:58 AM

Why should I? I'm not argueing that you can survive 0 Essence. You know, Infection contradicts your idea just fine, I don't think I need to find more proof than that.

Also, near death is not always near death. The way Infection works near death in that case is more akin to clinically dead, coma like state.

What interest me right now is why are you so adamant to prove that Infection does not work like it works? I mean, if it works the way you say, it just breaks another rule. The one that says magic cannot bring back the dead.


Uh. Aha. You do know what near-death means, yes? Well, I guess not. Whatever. Google it.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 8 2008, 09:03 AM

I'd go with the WIMF-Rule (what is more fun). Vampires being merely humans infected by a virus with some dietary requirement and magic powers is, IMHO, not as fun as vampires being animated corpses, undead beings who die at dawn and rise at dusk. Vampires being sentient viruses that inhabit corpses and believe to be simply infected humans is closer to the later.

In actual play, this could be handled by "don't ask, don't tell" - you could play entire campaigns, struggling with the nature of your character ic, without your GM ever deciding what exactly your character was, infected human or undead monster, the line is that blurry between the two views in game.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 09:32 AM

Another way of reading this phrase is to put the emphasis on 'characters'. In the basic rules, there are no provisions for PCs to be Cyberzombies or Vampires, so the phrase is technically correct as written.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 09:38 AM

Vampires are not infected humans. "Physical, mental and spiritual transformation". They are Vampires, who happened to be humans some time ago.
But WIMF allows you to do whatever you want, as long as you don't try to sell it as The Truth That Everyone Else Missed, like a certain someone

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 09:49 AM

@Malicant:

Well, I did, and apparently it means

Is what happens when I google define near death. I am not entirely sure what relevance that has to the topic at hand. To give you the benift of the doubt, I consulted the first hit as well, and got



Again, I am not sure as to the relevance. It clearly outlines that you come close to death, but survive. This as previously outlines directly contradicts the no exceptions rule on page 62.

@ Fortune, On a more serious note, the 'not a character' escape clause does succeed in removing the infection power from the no exceptions rule for two reasons.

A) The essence drain the power still kills you while you are a character and is a precondition for the infection

B) Everyone in the game is a character, they are defined by shadowrun as NPCs, and for the google definition crew I'll state the meaning, - 'non player character' - thus they are clearly covered by the rule on page 62.

Intrestingly this poses a problem for how a vampire running out of essence doesn't die, but I think it is resolved if they are already dead.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 09:51 AM

Goddam double post.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 09:51 AM

Your google-fu sucks if you're definition of near death only applies to children

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 09:56 AM

Well YOU type "define:Near death" into google. Both google.com and google.com.au faithfully report that definition as the only definition. You are welcome to check! I suspect the problem is that the definition is not nearly as apparent as you implied before.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 10:00 AM

Yes, but "google-fu sucks" mean you just took the first thing, no matter if it makes sense. Which it does not here. Unless all Infected are terminally ill children. Than it's cool and I call you Google-Shifu.

Another definition that makes quite sense here would be "died and recussitated" and also "clinically dead". The last is the one that fits the Infection process best, I'd say.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 10:01 AM

We can also look at the Vampire text itself, which specifically uses the word 'revives', if I recall correctly. I don't believe that one can normally revive from death, but it is certainly possible, and even relatively common to do so from near-death, which is, coincidently enough, exactly the state that the text describes the victim as being in before reviving.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 10:03 AM

Well, apparently the defination was something obvious to all, and not the common sense 'apparent' definition that I was operating under (That a near death experince is an experince in which one came close, but did not actually, die). Which is, ironically, what the dictionary definition that shows up first that quote actually states.

So really, my google fu excellently supports my case that 'near death' does not satisfy the rules on page 62? I am not sure where you are going with this.

@Malicant

Wait, actually dying is the same as a near death experince?

Anyway, I'm actually perfectly happy to accept the 'died and resuscitated' definition (I proposed it several pages ago), because combined with the fact that your essence flatlines and is replaced by something else, it fits the exact bill that I am arguing seems more correct. You 'died' and are then replaced by something else - a magically created construct of the virus. IT shares your memories, but has a new essence, and if essence is your 'life force' as defined on page 61, having it snuffed out and a new one created fits the new entity bill perfectly.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 10:08 AM

Huh? How?


I think I told you were I was going like 5 times. I have some Google-Fu for you, so you a) have another shot at understanding what I'm talking about and b) see what Google-Fu should look like

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/exception

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 10:11 AM

I contend that it is not necessary to meet the criteria on page 62, as that text allows for exceptions, and HMHVV is one of those exceptions.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 10:14 AM

@Malicant: Argh. I am aware exceptions are possible. However, the rules in page 62 spend a considerable amount of time elimating the possibility of an exception in those pages. You haven't supplied a good reason as to why they would invest time in elimating exceptions and then publish an exception in the very space that they said can contain no exceptions. Unless they are lying to screw with us in which case you may as well make the rulebooks into paper planes and throw them around. It also explains the matrix rules and technomancers.

Secondly, I was being sarcastic as a result of your condescension towards me before - near death does not commonly mean what I could tell you obviously thought it meant except in a specific technical context, and that context actually runs contrary to the commonly accepted meaning. So I was having a shot at you lording it over me

Anyway, please note that I think clinically dying and having your life force snuffed out (What you are now saying happens) out probably means that you are a zombie or somefink (ie not you) when you get back up again.

@Fortune: Why do you think that the rule on page 62 provides emphasis on the never and mentions not in the basic rules if it is going to include an exception in the basic rules? I guess 'because the writers are retarded monkeys' and 'crappy editing' are valid answers that I cannot reasonably refute, but if we assume that they actually meant to write 'never' in italics and preclude exceptions in the basic book, I don;t have a good reason.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 10:18 AM

Text moved!

Posted by: Critias Apr 8 2008, 10:20 AM

There you go again!

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 10:21 AM

Pfft . Sorry, that line was directed at Malicant

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 10:24 AM

Rules cannot eliminate the possiblity of an exception, that the whole point of exceptions. Also, considerable time is more than one sentance.

Neat and clean, Infection works without killing the character, but under basic rules you still cannot play someone whos Essence has been reduced to 0 at some time.

Cthulhudreams, I have a little more Google-Fu for you, since you don't seem to understand the term clinically dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 10:27 AM

I have to say, that the 'essence drain kills you and a magical virus reanimates your body with eeeevvviillll magic' is neat, clean, and doesn't require going against any of the rules. And frankly eeevvvviiillll magic is cooler too

As for the substance, well, its not that you cannot play a character, its that they are all dead, and if AH bleats about word count 10 words of concious editing and type setting is more time than vital game concepts such as 'how do you default without a program' gets.

As for clinical death, yada yada I know. In this particular case however your life force is sucked out entirely by an evil being at the same time as your heart stops beating. This does put a different spin on events.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 10:31 AM

Essence Drain does not reanimate you. That's what Infection does, after it transformed you.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 10:31 AM

The text on page 62 is discussing the general concepts of the game itself as it relates to normal game play. The text on page 294 discusses HMHVV, which is an exception to the normal rules, but is not relevant to normal game play under the basic rules, as there are no rules for vampire PCs as of yet, and the other exception of cybermancy is not mentioned until Augmentation.

Posted by: Tobias Apr 8 2008, 10:33 AM

Not going to get into the virus/you argument however:

Can a vampire essence drain an astrally projecting mages body? If so what happens to his astral 'self'

Posted by: Critias Apr 8 2008, 10:36 AM

I imagine, using the official scientific term, the end result is "the mage gets boned."

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 10:37 AM

Nuh, Drain needs strong emotions towards the drainer, so this one would be just sucking blood.

But back on topic. Note that Infection does not work on dead people, or people whos Essence was zeroes by implants. It need someone drained to 0 to work.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 10:37 AM

(Un)fortunately I'm not sure that is a refutable argument. There is no 'this book' section or similar that I can see that would allow one to decide if the 'critter powers' are, or are not, part of the basic rules.

I do feel that the entire contents of Shadowrun - 4th edition 26000 are the basic rules though

@Malicant: I've edited to reflect that it is the virus that reanimates the vessel

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 10:46 AM

Okay, more hairsplitting then. Page 62 talks about characters, but vamps are critters. Also, Infection talks about creatures, victims and critters, not characters, until the moment where it mentiones that...

Squeaky clean exception. Even mentions 'death' not death.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 10:54 AM

creatures, victums and critters are all part of a subset of NPC, which is a subset of characters. Then we are back to the no exclusion rule.

To hairsplit the split hair, it might be using 'death' because the dead guy is now reanimated by eeeevvvviiiilllll magic and is walking around, talking and smoking cigars

Anyway, I've pmed synner because we have two valid supportable positions and are arguing in circles.

We'll see whats happened.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 11:04 AM

Now, now, if you go that way, I say the critter chapter is not basic rules.

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/creature

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/victim

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/critter

As you can see, none of them are defined as a subset of NPC.

Seriously, you just tried to switch to 'intent'. The intent of page 62 unfortunatly is, that PCs can't have an Essence of 0 or less and continue play without supplemental and/or optional rules.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 11:30 AM

Pfft, linking me to the webster defination is useless as almost all the SR4 skills are explicitly stated as determining interactions with 'NPCs' and attribute scores are defined for 'NPCs'

Unless you are seriously proposing that you cannot use any skills in the influence group in a social encounter with a vampire. Which, if they are not NPCs, you cannot.

Still going around in circles here

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 11:32 AM

They are only NPCs when you interact with them. As long as you don't they don't even exist.

Yes, we are going in circles. For quite some time now. And will go on, and on, and on.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 11:35 AM

It's like quantum. You only collapse the... characterform.. by observation

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 11:37 AM

Doesn't change the outcome, really.

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 8 2008, 11:51 AM

Actually, I'm honestly persuaded that infected humans fits better with the way science and magic work by themselves and together in SR, and it builds on the solid foundation metagenes and goblinization have built for similar person-changing effects. But I'm willing to work even with the "animated corpses raised by magic" (even if I've to state that even when this kind of explanation is used, undead are assumed to slip into a death-like sleep during day, die and resurrect every day is just too goofy), a la Crow, as long as it is understood that it is the original person's consciousness, mind, soul, spirit, ba, ka, call it as you like, that animates and self-directs the corpse.

It most emphatically must not be a shambling mass of virus, a possessing spirit, or whatever, that consciously dupes the world in mimicking the dead human, it's stupid, goofy, and totally destroys any interest such a character concept may have either as PC or NPC. Master shedim are already available as an explicit option to cover that angle.

I honestly think the sentient virus idea is too farfetched, where the virus is supposed to record and carry the massive amount of information it requires to have a consciousness, a virus is a material object, not a spirit, so it's subject to scientific constraints, and I do not believe the self-delusion angle is workable (besides the loathsome fact it obliges you to play a self-deluding pathetic loon, I do not want my Infected PCs or NPCs to be reverse DeVrieses, thank you), since as I said before, it's a self-contradiction, you are your memories and personality, so if there is a corpse magically-animated that has your memories and personality, and thinks it's you, then to all kinds and purposes, it's you, the conditions of the body matter not at all, and the existence of the soul/spirit matter not, except insofar it means there are two copies of the same individual, one talking and walking the earth as a vampire/wendigo, the other in some afterlife Metaplane doing soul business, much like two clones that have the same memories. They may eventually diverge into separate individuals from different experience, but practically it matters not, since the afterlife in SR, if it indeed exists, is cut off from from any proven and reliable contact, so to all purposes the only version of the individual that matters for play is the one walking the Earth.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 8 2008, 11:58 AM

Vampires being a sort of Shedim (based upon the original human being) or a sort of "natural" cyberzombies seem to me to fit SR's system much better than some "it's just a gene-altering illness" concept.

Posted by: quentra Apr 8 2008, 12:05 PM

Honestly, I'm really for the sentient virus theory. Because otherwise, I'd see most Infected committing suicide as soon as they realize they're vamps. Take Joe Average, for example. He's a general wageslave, turns down the wrong alleyway, and bam, gets drained by a vamp who uses infection on him. If Joe Wageslave is indeed still the same person, (and assuming he's not a morally bankrupt criminal for hire ), he might feel a bit...odd at being turned into a bloodsucking fiend of the night. Because he would still be the same person. His moral compass (such as it is in the Sixth World) would still remain. However, if he died and was reanimated by evil creepy sentient awakened virus powerz, then his total sudden disregard for metahuman life make sense.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 12:06 PM

Well, since orks, elves, etc are all explained by genetics, and the ability to be a mage is genetic, too, a gene altering virus might actually make more sense than a shedim virus, that does not provide any benefit to the cause of the shedim.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 8 2008, 12:10 PM

Your argument is sound, until we actually look into Infection, that transforms the victim "physically, mentally and spiritually". The more problems the original person would have had with draining people in dark alleys, the more the new critter will differ from him.

But he still will not be a virus. Just the same person, changed.

Posted by: quentra Apr 8 2008, 12:11 PM

Metatypes aren't explained by genetics, not are mages. At least, not fully. Those are all 'mana active genes', genes that only activate when a certain universal mana level is reached. Otherwise, we would have orks, trolls, elves etc walking around modern day life. SR isn't a scientific game. So sure, the gene altering virus works, but the virus isn't only gene-altering, its Awakened. Maybe it alters the genome of the host enough to be able to sustain itself after the original person's soul (his essense) is drained. However, there's a different soul in the host creature now, making a totally different being than the original.

Posted by: quentra Apr 8 2008, 12:14 PM

If you think about, he works exactly like a virus, ie has the ability to multiply yet not adhearing to the basic prinicples of life. And if a person is changed so dramatically in all those ways, is he the same person? He's not just changed. Its not a different paradigm on life. Joe Wageslave no longer exists. Joe Vampire, however, does.

EDIT: Eep, my first double post!

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 8 2008, 12:19 PM

Going from Wanderer's stance that if consciousness and memories are the same, it's the same being, then one could say that with such deep spiritual and mental changes, it's not the same being anymore.

Posted by: Critias Apr 8 2008, 12:47 PM

What about Ghouls, then?

Posted by: quentra Apr 8 2008, 12:49 PM

Its another strain of HMHVV, right? Still Infected, just a different flavor. I personally don't play ghouls in my games anything more than mindless monsters.

Posted by: Critias Apr 8 2008, 01:00 PM

Yes, it is still the HMVV. So why is it they're allowed to become mindless ravenous creatures who feast on the flesh of the deceased (or not quite deceased yet), when that strain is actually known for making you change less, making you into less of a wildly divergent supernatural beast than the versions that handle vampirism, etc?

I can see a good potion of the recently Infected offing themselves, sure, maybe. Even if you were to house rule it so that no mental/spiritual change takes place, a great many people couldn't live with themselves (even if finding Essence volunteers for themselves, the way many vampires do)... but I think you're overestimating Joe Wageslave and the strength of his moral compass a little bit.

A great many people in the world today would leap at the chance to be immortal in exchange for hurting strangers routinely (nevermind all the other benefits that come with the virus aside from the lack of aging) -- in The Sixth World, where there are even more teeming masses of worthless lives no one cares about, and so much else plagues humanity at every turn (making it even easier to rationalize to yourself that they were gonna die eventually, anyways), I imagine even more people would be just fine with it.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 8 2008, 01:19 PM

What the hell? Malicant, this is the last time I will respond to you on this or any topic, because talking with you is frustrating and pointless. I asked you to find a rule to support your rules based position, and not only did you refuse, you physically can't.



YES! I Know what near-death means. I'm an ambulance technician. I worked in hospice care. I'm in medical school. Near Death means literally that, that you are extremely close to being completely dead. It does not mean that you automagically recover. People who are near death actually die every day. In fact, most people who are near-death, die. We make such a big deal out of the people who come near to death and then pull through because they are unusual.

Seriously, all you have in this argument is a tragically optimistic personal definition of a word which has nothing whatever to do with the word's actual meaning. Well, that and the presuppositions that you bring to the table from how vampires work in other games or how you think the self and the soul work in the real world, which are both complete non sequiturs in this discussion.

The rules are that you spend 24 hours in "near-death," and that you die, and that a "new critter is created." You can go ahead and think that everyone in "near-death" survives, but this is offensively not the case and if you've ever treated the actual sick and dying you will come to the realization immediately of what a complete insensitive tool you are being.

You don't live when a vampire drains your Essence. A new critter may or may not come into existence, but "you" cannot survive this process. And if you (like me) have a more Lockeian view of the Self such that continuity of experience necessitates continuity of self, all that means is that vampires in your world have to have a discontinuous experience - the extra knowledge and opinions added by the virus must be that much more intrusive, the absorption of the host's old memories that much more incomplete. Because however the Self is defined in your world, the newly created vampire is defined as not having it left over from the human that just got brutally tortured to death over two days.

-Frank

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 8 2008, 01:27 PM

I would say that the sentence "newly created critter" (SR4 p. 289) indicates that the vampire is not the same being as the infected human.

However, the wording on the same page 'player characters transformed through the Infection power automatically become NPCs upon their "death" and are ontrolled by the gamemaster' might go both ways - it could mean they do niot really die, as in survive and are simply transformed, or that they die, but they revive as a new critter, and therefore it's not a final "death" from the POV of the new critter.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 8 2008, 02:29 PM

Natural cyberzombies would mean the original soul is in there and in charge

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 8 2008, 02:30 PM

Essence =/= soul
essence == the thing that keeps your soul there
if otherwise was true, cyberzombies would not exist

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 8 2008, 02:32 PM

try this rule, from the essence loss section

"If a creature is reduced to 0 Essence, it will die in (Body + Willpower) days if it does not replenish itself. A creature in this state is extremely dangerous—a starved predator that hunts for fresh Essence with mindless ferocity."

yes, these things can l;ive for DAYS at 0 essence.

ALso if the original does not survive, Jetblack never existed

Posted by: swirler Apr 8 2008, 03:50 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the rule apply to essence drainers like vamps? Idf so it doesn't apply to metahumans. Atleast not until they have died and came back as "a new critter"

as far as Jetblack, I think the argument is, the "new critter" has access to the metas feelings and abilities. They might even think they are the same person. Think of it like implanted memories and skillsofts.

Posted by: nathanross Apr 8 2008, 07:10 PM

Well, that doesn't really matter since the runners killed him anyways to get the encryption key. He is worth more money that way.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 8 2008, 11:17 PM

This is exactly my metaphysical point. When your essence reaches zero, you die (your soul has left, been consumed, whatever I don't care). Becoming a cyberzombie requires the crack team of mages to go somewhere and do a very tricky magical ritual to recover or bind the soul to the body to prevent it from leaving despite the fact that essence = 0 or less = dead.

Leaving all discussion of rules behind now, the vampire that comes after you've had your life force sucked out is a creation of an evvvvviiiillll magical virus, and can very well have parallels drawn to the shedim. The virus is a magical thing that swarms into empty hosts, triggered by the experience of fatal essence drain, and reanimates it with a new evil and malicious agenda.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 8 2008, 11:55 PM

And HMHVV leaves you in a near-death state while the virus does its very tricky magical transformation stuff to prevent you from dying, after which you revive.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 9 2008, 12:10 AM

Yeah, this is another valid reading if you accept the position you outlined previously. I'm not sure we'll ever agree.

Interestingly, if you do take that perspective, as critters have essence (don't they?), what I don't get is why doesn't everyone and their dog become a vampire in SR4? I'd be voluntarily infected. And you don't have to become an unreasonable asshole. You just need to farm some very fast breeding animals. I'd suggest rabbits.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 9 2008, 12:16 AM

Smart predators would work to prevent this type of thing from occuring for various reasons, not the least of which is that it would greatly diminish their 'preferred' food supply. Also keep in mind the need for 'intense emotion' during the Essence Drain process.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 9 2008, 12:21 AM

Okay so we switch to deers and call them all Bambi

But still, if I had the cash I'd hire a team of runners to abduct a vampire and coerce it into transforming me into a vampire via xtreme violence. Free super powers and immortality? Hell yeah. It doesn't make any sense not to do it, unless of course you die and are replaced by a shedim like creature, and plenty of 'players' in SR have more than enough money. Then you don't have to die in a plane crash.

And hell if people are willing to keep wendigos and banshees on staff, vampires are the least of the problem.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 9 2008, 02:12 AM

Cybermancy, remember? AN example of something other than your essence holding your soul in place
Infection suggests, due to the lack of death for 12 hours (in the essence integrity theory, the brain rots beyond repair in minutes), that the virus is holding the soul in place.



Then why do so many Vampires have NO EVIL AGENDA in SR canon? The bartender that only takes a single essence point off someone, and only from volunteers (popular enough to get one a month tho). Jetblack, who gave up fame, fortune, babes and adoring fans so that others would not repeat his 'mistake' of becoming a vampire to escape death. De Vries, who hunts other vampires. Janine Verner, who chose to die rather than eat ppl. If the virus was in charge and sentient, these characters would not exist.



I was using it to show that an infected can survive for a while at 0 essence. This would be precident that the virus can keep the host alive for 12 hours no problemo. Frank wanted a rule that showed an exception to 0 essence = insta dead.



Makes no sense. If the virus was in charge, the memories would be secondary. NO shedim has been as selfless as Jetblack.




It matters, edven if you kill him in On the Run. That means for 18+ years he resisted the urge to reveal himself and get a legion of adoring gothy fans who would give him a near limitless essence supply and all the money and nookie he could have. He would have been safe, protected, rich, powerful, famous. An amoral virus would have absolutely no reason to turn such down.


1: the emotional content suggests that the essence drain must be from people
2: Why doesn't everyone and his dog get wired reflexes? it makes you so much faster and more powerful. Similar logic
3: The real cyberpunky question here is "What makes you a person? What makes you a machine/monster?" Where is the line drawn. Some people draw it at 3 or less essence, others draw it at Cyberzombie or brain in a jar. Many will draw it before "Creature thast needs to drink human blood and bits of their lifespark to live"
4: oh wait, the book says they must drink from SENTIENT beings. SOrry babi is off the menu

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 9 2008, 02:22 AM

Maybe the newly created creature isn't under the influence of the virus beyond the compulsion to irrepairably drain people's life force - which is unquestionably evil no matter how you slice it.



cool, but I can shoot down all your arguments here really easy. If a 1 month old baby is a viable target, so is a dolphin.

Also, don't spirits have essence scores? Checking reveals that they do. They are obvious suckers for this job. I just accept 'spirit bane' earth spirits is something I have to live with and beat down force 1 spirits with essence drain. Tada. No cost unlimited essence on tap that is unquestionable sentient, and additionally, as it will have implacable hatred towards you and that you'll have to savagely beat it down every time, fills the strong emotion part.

And even better, you automagically become a mage! No cost vampirism! If I actually have to drink blood as well I can just buy cloned blood from doc wagon. That is so cheap as to be the same as free.

Seriously, why wouldn' you become a vampire when immortality is as low cost as this (you're out some cloned blood instead of food and probably want to buy some sort of assault rifle)? And you get to be mage AND you get super powers.

Posted by: swirler Apr 9 2008, 02:46 AM

Vamps aren't shedim, Unless something has changed to say they are.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 9 2008, 02:50 AM

never said they weren't evil. But your arguement here assumes killing=evil.




Not necessarily. Dolphins are quite likely, as SR canon suggests they might be sentient. But puppies will never work.



Ok, let's do a checklist
1: Target is sentient? Check
2: Target has strong emotion toward myself? Check
3: Target Target has blood? Ah crap The target needs blood to feed off at the same time

Posted by: Wanderer Apr 9 2008, 02:56 AM

Who says it is not happening, right now, in the setting ? I'm willing to bet that occasional runs are managed to do just that. Differently from leonization, vampiric immortality has no cap whatsoever, and whereas it is gives more hassles and drabacks than becoming a formula for a free spirit, it gives more power, too (HMHVV the only widely-accessible way that person utterly lacking the potential for Awakening can break through). Likewise, I do expect that somewhat of a black-market does exist between some wealthy seekers for immortality and the more business-minded of the vampires and wendigoes. Selling out Infection is but a pure gain for the latter, they only have to take care not to create an overpopulation (just keep the price very high, but not so high than going through the kidnapping run becomes the only viable option for the would-be wealthy immortals).

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 9 2008, 04:10 PM

Keep in mind that there is still a small chance that you won't rise up as a vampire (yeah, a small chance, but there is one for failure). Also, not being able to eat other food, nor alcohol, having a permanent allergy to wood and sunlight plus being bad at swimming, not having necessarily having magic (it's not described how they get it, as not every vampire can cast spells) no practical cyber- and bioware... Also, drinking blood will become very boring with the time, especially considering that you have enhanced senses.

In the late 21st century of the Shadowrun World, being a Vampire isn't all that snazzy anymore, if for some grands you can easily become young again, and still live the good life.

Posted by: Adarael Apr 9 2008, 04:21 PM

If you want real immortality, a copy of JackBNimble and a drone shell is the way to fly.
But that's just my take on it.

Posted by: nathanross Apr 9 2008, 04:30 PM

Immortality is overrated.

And as for JetBlack, I don't think his removal from the public is selfless in any way. He realized that he might be risking his precious immortality if he never aged in the public eye. It was not because he didn't want to be adored, seeing as he then gathered his own vampire possy. He is like most of the vampires/nosferatu in SR: intelligent and cunning.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Apr 9 2008, 04:34 PM

It's not small. The Vampire rolls Charisma + Magic, the victim rolls Body + Willpower. If the victim rolls more hits, or ties, the victim spends several hours wracked in agony, dies, and then stays dead.

Joe Vampire has a Magic + Charisma of 8, and thus has a better than 1 in 4 chance of failing to infect an average civilian that they murder with essence drain (and is basically a coin flip or worse on anyone who is considered competent). Becoming a vampire voluntarily is an incredibly risky proposition. Aside from the fact that it's not "you" on the other side according to the game metaphysics, your chances of actually creating a vampire rather than a cold lump of meat are pretty similar.

-Frank

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 9 2008, 04:37 PM

really? didn't someone mention blood now being dietary requirement so they have to drink blood but that has nothing to do with their need for drained essence?

as for the turning . . does the vampire throw down his dice every time he sends someone into 0 essence regions or does he get to decide wether or not he wants to try and create a newbie?

Posted by: Adarael Apr 9 2008, 04:44 PM

In order for the first part of this to hold up, logically speaking, you'd have to define what constitutes a self.
If a vampire isn't 'you' despite retaining all your memories, beliefs, habits, skills and whatnot, then neither is a successful adult cyborg or a teenage goblinization (rare as they are) the same person as it was in the meat body.

I'm not saying you're wrong, mostly because I refuse to get into that definition war. I'm just saying that one cannot concretely say that it's "not you" without first defining what is you and what isn't. It definitely isn't the same person in terms of abilities, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it's not fundamentally the same 'you' any more than I'd say it about someone who gets cyberlegs and the cyberpsychosis flaw after a car accident.

Posted by: Starmage21 Apr 9 2008, 04:47 PM

Meh, if the target was willing, I'd just drop the +willpower part.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 9 2008, 05:05 PM

You can't drop the part, as you have no influence over the transmogrification anymore, since you dropped to 0 essence, and this discussion non-withstanding, you're dead, or unconscious, or watching spirit tv, or doing it with yourself. Being willing only helps for the being sucked-part, but not being transformed into a sucker in the end.

SR 2070+++ is the age of the transhumanists (*sob*). Being a measly vampire in that ages has lost quite much of its appeal. 2070+++, nobody cares about longevity, but about entertainment, and how to pass the boring days of that moment you call life. And with simsense abundle and practicable non-expensive cyberware, nobody really needs to be a glorified mosquito with transilvanian accents who fears garlick anymore.

All that matters is if you're rich or not. If you're rich, you don't fear age. If you're poor, life sucks anyway more than a vampire could ever.

Posted by: Adarael Apr 9 2008, 05:11 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure if I would let people drop the +willpower thing, either. Mostly due to the fact that allowing something to kill you and change you into another creature type is a pretty freaking alien concept that the subconscious should probably recoil in horror from allowing to happen.
Especially since fundamentally, people generally have reservations about eating other people.

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Apr 9 2008, 05:13 PM

You're bringin' me down, Particle Beam.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 9 2008, 06:03 PM

It is both
they need it as a Dietary thing, AND they can only essence drain a target while drinking blood from them

Posted by: Starmage21 Apr 9 2008, 06:04 PM

I never said finding a willing target would be easy, just that IF you could find one who was really willing, +willpower on the resist roll doesnt make sense. There are always caveats you could throw in there if you dont wanna make it easy for those people.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 9 2008, 06:06 PM

warning SR1 spoilers ahead







sorry it was a selfless act

Posted by: Adarael Apr 9 2008, 06:09 PM

Well, that's both true and untrue.

If you're being nerve gassed, you're probably willing to jack yourself in the leg with atropine. Yet despite that willingness, a very large percentage of people who have had to inject themselves with a visible needle hesitate to do so. That's why autoinjector pens were created.

Just because the forebrain things it'd be a good idea doesn't mean the subconscious doesn't fight it.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 9 2008, 09:04 PM

It is explained by genetics. Meta genes are still genetics, no matter how little understood they are. And we wouldn't have orks etc running around today, since those genes activate if enough ambient mana is present. BTW, genetics 101: inactive genses are junk, but they are still present and still carry information.
Also, Essence is not soul, but that was pointed out like a gazillion times already. Kind of frustrating.

Look who's talking. I won't quote those rules again since I and others already did and you just ramble on how page 62 wins all.


Wow, so you are in medical school. Like I was a few years back. Does this really help here? I don't think so. Just to elaborate on death a little more. If someone dies, he cannot be revived. If he was revived, he did not die, was just clinically dead (I used that term like a gazillion times too). Also, people near-death pulling through is not as unusual as you make it sound. I know a few people who should be dead, most from cancer and similar terminal diseases, a few from ridiculous accidents. Big deal.


What optimistic personal definition? Now you make me wonder if I missed a few of my own thoughts. Also, I don't bring to the table the workings of other games vampires, since the only games I know about vamps are realy different then SR vamps are presented. Well, I guess D&D vamps have a few similarities, now that I think about it... but I define SR vamps by using the SR BBB only. And it does not speak about space virii host invaders from outer dimensions. Or awakend virii host creatures while we are at it.


Actually, the rules are the victim enters a near death state and revives within 24 hours. He dies only if we believe page 62 overrules every exception (which is by definition impossible). And then he would actually stay dead, since science cannot bring back dead people and magic can neither.


Actually, if the vampires has my body and all my memories, he is me. So I did actually survive the process and now am not a virus but a vampire. And I'm loving it. Because the transformation makes me love it.

So, while you accuse me of being optimistic (kind of, which I am not in any way the word is defined), I will acuse you of being stubborn to no end for no reason at all but to have other people follow your way of though. And since you actually propose HMHVV to be a virus possesing the Inhabitaion power, I have the strong need to oppose this, since NOTHING but your weird out-of-context interpretation of zero Essence and Infection support this. But don't be hatin'

Posted by: Jaid Apr 9 2008, 09:14 PM

*sorcery* (spellcasting in SR4) cannot bring back dead people. no such limit exists on magic in general.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 9 2008, 09:34 PM

Like there is really a difference. Between magic and spellcasting, that is. Like, spellcasting is a means to do magic, and stuff.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 9 2008, 09:39 PM

Well, there are metamagic rituals, and the conjuring-skill group, which varying by paradigma either bring back dead people, or shadowy astral clones of them, but as always, nobody really knows.

Posted by: Jaid Apr 9 2008, 09:42 PM

actually, it does make a difference. in earthdawn, you could restore life to people with magic; it therefore stands to reason that it's a theoretical possibility for shadowrun to have that same possibility... just not with sorcery.

(for example, cybermancy or, arguably, HMHVV)

Posted by: Malicant Apr 9 2008, 09:45 PM

Yeah, you could restore it in Earthdawn. With bad ass pattern magic. But then again, in Earthdawn spells sustained themself, you could summon spirits with spells, and so on, so I guess it is not really a valid arguement here.

Also, vamps in Earthdawn were just angry undead corpses

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 9 2008, 11:15 PM

welllll... it is pretty much.





Actually I went home and checked and it doesn't work on astral entities either which probably precludes spirits... UNLESS!

We use inhabitation and force the spirit into bambi, or a bag of blood, as described earlier. That beats 3 and the rules

Vampirism has a no cost to society outlet for essence draining, so there is no reason (unless you are actually killed) not to become a vampire.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 9 2008, 11:25 PM

My reason for not becoming a vamp would be you cannot eat stuff without getting sick. I love food. Hm... foooood.

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Apr 9 2008, 11:31 PM

You're wrong. Emo goths are a tremendous burden on those who have to put up with them

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 9 2008, 11:41 PM

You also can't drink alcoholic beverages anymore. In the year 2070+++, there aren't enough perks for becoming a vampire. It would surely have been wicked cool if it were 1670 A.D., or 570 A.D., or even 1970 A.D.

But 2070+++? Man, being a blood-sucking looser surely blows...

Posted by: Malicant Apr 9 2008, 11:45 PM

Worse even, you can't drink yourself into a storpor and try to forget the shitheap you've become. Or take any drugs.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 9 2008, 11:49 PM

How has a vampire become a shitheap? They are freaking awesome. Immortality hurrah.

Sure I mean it would be a bit of a downer if you where actually meaningfully restrained from doing anything, but i can get essence by slapping spirits around and doesn't street magic has a suppress allergy spell? That I can wack into a sustaining focus and stroll around and high noon?

On the upside, now I'm an awesome mage with super powers. And immortality. Sweet.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 9 2008, 11:50 PM

People always wish for immortality while they don't even know what to do on a rainy sunday.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 9 2008, 11:59 PM

Like there is really a difference. Between fruit and apples, that is. Like, apples are a kind of fruit, and stuff.



So... that girl who killed her father, to stop him from raping her little sister, while he was doing that very act, is evil?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 12:05 AM

Note I said 'pretty much' For example, soldiers killing other armed soldiers in the defense of the nation is not evil. But killing people who are surrendering is evil. We've agreed on this and have laws about it.

Killing to save yourself is evil, and has been defined as evil and people who have killed to save themselves have been convicted of crimes like murder. Thus vampires, who irreparably damage people to save themselves are evil.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 10 2008, 12:14 AM

Yes. You are correct. So, where were you going with that?

Posted by: Fortune Apr 10 2008, 12:15 AM

Magic isn't automatic with vampirism. Wendigos get it automatically, but that isn't the case with vampires.

And just because you (or some people in the Sixth World) think it is sweet, does not mean it would be a common desire. Even if it were clamored for, the vampire population at large would realize that they would be best served by keeping the number of 'infected' in check.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 10 2008, 12:16 AM

Not in the US of A, it ain't

Posted by: MarCazm Apr 10 2008, 12:19 AM

So every Soldier in war is evil...now to think of it...they have the choice...or do they really have one...

Posted by: Fortune Apr 10 2008, 12:20 AM

Not necessarily. There can, and have been cases throughout history where this very act has been seen as a Good Thing™, both at the time and in the long run.

Generalizations are very rarely always true, and 'Evil' is extremely subjective.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 12:22 AM

Yeah, yeah, relative morality blahblah, I am now proceeding with a strict legalistic defintion of morality and assuming that all posters come from NATO or ANZUS members.

But Malicant, yes, it is. If you are alone in the wildness with some guy and kill him and eat him to avoid starving to death, I'm pretty sure you share the same British common law precedent for that that we (Australia) do. Ie they got convicted of murder and thats the way it works.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 10 2008, 12:22 AM

Meh. Overrated, and if you really wanted to become immortal, just ask a Free Spirit to grant you Immortality. All he wants from you is "Karma", whatever that shit may mean ingame, and however that is quantifiable.

No, you need to drain it from non-astral critters with the sentience powers. No rats, dogs, hellhounds or earth spirits. Must be dragons, sasquatches, merrows, nagas and metahumans. It would even be better if you didn't have the allergies at all.
Only if you really did get the magician or any other awakened quality. There is a (notdefined) chance of failure that you might just be a mundane vampire, with mediocre powers. Oh, and perhaps the corps might want to get you to extract those essence-draining virii out from you to create new and better essence-regenerating gene-treatments.

No, really, with simsense and all that other stuff in the late 21st century, being a vampire is quite a downer.

Posted by: MarCazm Apr 10 2008, 12:24 AM

I think as long as you're not a manic sociopath who enjoys the killing or kills based on calculations, you must'nt be called evil.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 12:28 AM

Or earth spirits you inhabited into a bag of blood and didn't get a true form merge Plastic has a good OR! I'm not seeing how immortality, superhuman qualities across the board and near complete immunity to accidently dying (you can survive getting hit by a semi) isn't highly desirable.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 12:30 AM

So a guy who gets drunk and hits a kid while driving home isn't evil? We've decided they are, that is why we send them to jail. YMMV. It's really hard to come up with any other definition, so the legal one is the best hope in this debate

Posted by: Malicant Apr 10 2008, 12:35 AM

Grind the universe to it's finest parts and then show me even one part morality. So, yeah, like every lie, it is relative. Also, law never uses terms like Evil. It is not evil, but wrong to kill, steal, rape. Well, it is "evil", but that is not the point right now.


I don't care about british law much, but getting a lesson on it from the descendant of a convicted criminal feels weird

Actually no. He is wrong to do so and a moron most likely, but considering him evil is giving him way to much credit.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Apr 10 2008, 12:39 AM

If you already have the power to summon spirits and do your biddings, why would you even need a pathetic vampire? If you're already a mage, just create ally spirits all the time, set them free, till one gains the power of Hidden Life or can grant the Immortality Spirit Pact, and as their daddy (or mommy), they will always love you (if you were nice to them, but their formula already has them being imprinted to you, their creator), and do whatever you want (because their loyal to you, even if they're free), and now you're young (don't forget to get that leonization treatment right before), immortal (never-aging, and you're now even invulnerable to bullets and knives), and can walk day and night without having need for some shit like suppress allergy, while still being able to enjoy food, booze and matrix porn.
Pfff, vampires. If at least they granted you the power to shoot flames out of your ass and fight and seduce ultra-attractive green-skinned alien babes with huge gazoongas, then it might be worthwile. But with the lame-o-power of being sick whenever you eat a steak, they can go and sulk in their tombs and cry me a river.

Posted by: Malicant Apr 10 2008, 12:42 AM

Teh awesome!

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 12:51 AM

Free settlers all the way, bitch But I don;t care if you don;t care about it, if you live in NZ, USA, UK or Australia, that precedent is almost certainly binding, and is what the judge will use if you kill people for your own survival. It also gives me the only definition of 'evil' we all agree with. Unless you live in a polygamist cult in Texas. Or something.

Ps, the grind the universe up crap is stupid. I guess that means up, down, strange and charm are the only terms we can use in discussion?

I expect all future posts from you use only that words and still communicate meaning!

Posted by: Malicant Apr 10 2008, 01:03 AM

I'm not surprised you didn't understand the grind/morality part. Let's just say that morality is very relative and based on culture, religion and situational circumstances. It is never a truth.
Evil consequently depends totally on the point of view. Killing baby seals might be evil for some, but those who do so most likely think otherwise. Invading a country and bombing it back into stoneage to get it's oil might be considered evil, but others call it their holy mission from god. Etc, etc.

Also, you generalized that "killing for survival" part too much. You can't discuss this on such a childish level and expect to be taken seriously.

Posted by: MarCazm Apr 10 2008, 01:04 AM

To Cthulhudreams:

You like walking the pacifist way: no hurting, no killing and such?

Ever killed a fly because it annoyed you?

Or do you think humans are so much better and higher lifeforms than animals?

You must be a very strict vegetarian and you must abandon to modern healthcare which is based on animal experiments and watch your every step not to kill something else you're evil.

Life must be very hard for you.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 01:28 AM

No. I am, for this discussion, just using what is legal and what is not legal as my definition of morality.

So to address your points

Hurting and killing are illegal, and I refrain from doing them, except with my friends in a manner that has been defined as legal.

Yes, and killing flies is legal thus it is either a moral action or neither a moral or an immoral action.

Yes, because they have been legally defined as being so. For example, by choosing to live under australian's legal system I have chosen to accept double standards such as 'putting down dogs in pain' is okay but that is not okay for humans.

No, because eating meat and modern health care are both legal. So is testing on animals. I have no issues with any actions undertaken within the guidelines of the therapeutic goods administration, who is the body that regulates these issues. We do have animal cruelty provisions, and cruel behavior is illegal, and thus, immoral.

@Malicant

Yes, I am entirely aware that morality is a very difficult question that is virtually impossible to nail down.

However considering the broad body of commonality between the laws of the nations of the participants, a very handy definition of morality that is, also very usefully, black and white, is the legal system. Using the legal system as a defintion of morality is called 'Legalism' and is very useful for this sort of debate. It allows me to completely bypass any discussion of whether eating someone is wrong or not, as we have both individually agreed to a morality system (the law) that includes eating people in basically any circumstance (unless they die of natural causes and you need to to survive) is evil.

Intrestingly, my basic assumption here is that you do live in the US or the UK or new zealand. together we share the common burden of british common law and have many, many similarities in our legal system as a result (The Us to the least degree). Please correct me if you do indeed live in the congo and a congalese tribesmen, or saudi araba or china, because different principles do apply. Another assumption is that we are discussing an area where we have broad legal commonalities. This would not work if I wanted to discuss the morality of the implementation of sales taxes or gun control. Fortunately, that is not the case here.

Also, we are not examining the morality of an existing law. Instead we are examining the moral basis of an actor. Again, if we where to examine such a law, my approach is invalid.

This circumvents the entire argument and neatly provides a common base of previously agreed morality as a framework for a discussion about specific actions. However, crass quoting of retarded analogies isn't going to help. Obviously for this discussion we are assuming concepts about 'law' 'soul' 'essence' 'rights' 'human nature' that are not components of the universe.

I full understand what you where attempting to imply and dismissed it as irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Posted by: MarCazm Apr 10 2008, 01:39 AM

Now that we are on the point:

Morality is made by the ethnic of the society for which this moral counts.

We are now in 2008.

SR takes places in a fictional future in which the morality of the society defenitly has changed. Through things like Magic, Dragons, Metahumanity, new kind of Slums = Barrens or in Denver Warrens with a new way of Poverty etc.
Not to mention the corps.

So what do you think how morals would look those times under those circumstances??

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 01:44 AM

I don't particularly care. I imagine, it is still the case that offenses like 'assault with a deadly weapon' and 'grevious bodily harm' exist. I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is referenced by the rules. As it is the case that the legal system has been extended to include magical offenses, in 2070 a vampire using essence drain in any form on a human (even if they consent) is illegal (as it is impossible to consent to certain forms of violence being inflicted on you, and I'd posit that it is highly likely that essence drain is one of those forms of violence)

Thus it is immoral. It may not be immoral to use it on SINless, but the rules are fantastically unclear about whether it is technically legal to gun SINless down in the street or not. I think that it is, which would also make essence draining them illegal.

If you want to discuss other philosophical systems outside of legalism thats fine, I won't participate, I think you'll find that under most the vampire has to die. Both dentalogical and utalitarian ethical frameworks seem to preclude the predators existence for example.

Posted by: MarCazm Apr 10 2008, 01:57 AM

Why does the term "Survival of the Fittest" comes in my mind??

Is it because down on the Street, especially in the Squatter parts of town with all the SINless people and Organized Crime, Meat Markets, Ghouls and all the other threats, you need to have your own ethnics and morality to survive?

At last the first few runs. That does'nt mean you have to kill all the time but when it's necessary in part of self defense for example. There is nothing evil to it. Ever was in a life threatening situation in real life?
I was. I know how it is when bullets fly around you and your instincts come into play. There was'nt much thought of ethic or moral it's just me or him/them. So get some life experince and tell me about it.

And I think as long as the vampire has the desire or wish to live on he will do what is necessary. And that has nothing to do with evil. Against the law is not = evil

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 02:02 AM

?!?! Are you even reading what I'm saying

A) Self defense is a legal reason to kill someone. Depending on the circumstances. Say a 6 foot 8 NFL linebacker pulls and assault rifle and blows away a 12 year old that tried to mug him with a knife. Thats not self defense. But if the same linebacker tries to sexually assault a 90 year old granny, then she shoots him, thats okay. If someone is actively trying to murder you, fighting back is okay.

B) As for the ghouls, organized crime, etc. Shadowrunners have consciously chosen to *break the law* and *kill people for money* Are you actually telling me that that is 'ethical'? Are you bat shit crazy?

Same for organized crime. They actually run slave trading rings. Slave trading rings are ethical?

What the hell?

Posted by: MadPiper Apr 10 2008, 02:36 AM

I was just scimming the post and saw this, so I thought I would reply. If I was a 6 foot 8 NFL player and had a gun, I would definetly shoot the kid trying to mug me with a knife. True, I would probably try to shoot him in the leg or something, but if he bleed to death from it in the hospital and died, well, I would not feel a shred of guilt. The kid took the risk pulling a knife on a person and trying to stab them if they dont get the wallet. So yea, you reap what you sow.



Basically, my opinion is, fight back is okay, and killing someone who is trying to kill you is OK. At least in my book. Of course you try not too, but if it happens, its the other persons fault, not yours. You didn't initiate the situation, they did.


Now, as for all this Dragon Pc stuff and the people for it, and the people against it. All I have to say on the matter is some groups can handle it, some cant. Simple as that.

Posted by: MarCazm Apr 10 2008, 02:37 AM

You forgot that SINless does'nt exist for the law.

So if a Vamp desides to live on the life of SINless, it is not against the law you're babblin' about. So if he do it to survive it is no act of pure evil but of necessary evil.

And do'nt get me wrong but the people who make the laws are breakin' them by themself. That's how it is and ever will be. And to find the real evil you have to search on other perspectives than that killing is bad issue.

Moral is a thing that everybody has to determine for themselves. Blame the society and not the people who must live in it.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 03:33 AM

No, I didn't actually forget that. I specifically mentioned that as an issue in paragraph 2 of post 270 of this thread, and that could go either way. However, to me it does not seem like I can just, say, launch mortar attacks on the barrens for shits and giggles. If it your world rich young brats do by heavy military armour and assault rifles with daddies money and go shoot up poor people though, thats okay and being a vampire doesn't require actually being evil, because we are accepting in world in which people who don't have SINs are less protected in the social order than, say, dogs. Or sheep.

Posted by: Critias Apr 10 2008, 04:29 AM

Anyone that makes his moral choices based purely on legality, even only for argument's sake, has something very wrong with them.

Not all crimes are acts of "evil," not all jail terms exist to remove "evil" from our society, not all laws are "good." You are being very scary -- albeit perhaps completely on accident -- with the level of faith you're putting in the system right now.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 04:33 AM

haha. I don't. As I said, I think there are lots of things about the current system that is inequitable and unethical as a result, for example sales taxes and unequal treatment of capital gains vs income. both disproportionately disadvantage the poor.

But when we are looking at inflicting violence on our fellow man, we have a system that has been thrashed out over quite some time by very smart people and is actually pretty good. Maybe you disagree, but when discussing the evils or lack there off of an assault, or whether an action constitutes self defense, or what inflicting irreparable harm on someone means and if they can consent to that, I cannot think of a better common point of reference.

Maybe you'd care to enlighten me!

Posted by: Critias Apr 10 2008, 04:46 AM

Not really, because the amount of space, time, effort, and bandwidth it would take to get into such an argument would be something the rest of Dumpshock probably isn't too interested in -- and that I, personally, don't feel like actually arguing. You either implicitly trust authority figures to tell you what's right and wrong, or you don't. The fact you once said drunk drivers are locked up for being evil (not for being stupid and dangerous, but for being "evil") tells me a lot about you. The fact you also once said killing in defense of self is "evil" tells me something else. More than anything else, they tell me you're looking and thinking and coming from such a different direction than I am that there's just no point in wasting time trying to tell you just how very strongly I believe you to be wrong.

So instead I'll just say that I think you're incorrect, that I think having that level of belief in the system is scary, and -- like I tried to do already -- be on my merry way.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 10 2008, 04:59 AM

Fine
Go to one of the refugee detention centres
We aussies have no right to use our laws as a basis of anything resembling ethics or morality

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 05:07 AM

You're probably right. i will make two statements to clarify my position re: immoral actions.

If I said killing in self defense is evil, then I apologise for the misunderstanding as that was not my intent. It is clearly not immoral, and I can probably even condone it as a last resort.

As for what constitutes an evil action I defined it as an immoral action, because as was rightly pointed out by Malicant it is a societal thing.

I defined immoral actions as actions contrary to the laws of free societies that people in this discussion are members off, which society condemns and punishes people for. You may have a different definition, but under the definition I am using here, sexual assault, drink driving, tax evasion and fraud are all immoral actions, of different degrees yes, but they are all immoral.

I do not think it is possible to condone jail for drink drivers unless one also finds that the action of drink driving is immoral. Incidentally, immoral and evil are both synonyms for wicked.

Edit: Refugee centres, like sales taxes are not really the subject of discussion. Intrestingly, while I find the concept of the GST inequitable and disgusting, I also think that one should pay it and vote for people that may withdraw it.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 10 2008, 05:16 AM

So it is evil and immoral and wicked to steal a loaf of bread when you are starving?

It is evil to smoke a cigarette in a non-smoking section of a restaurant?

It is evil to go through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop?

It is evil to park in a loading zone?

Evil is all around us!

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 05:23 AM

haha, most of those things only carry civil penalties But more importantly of course it is, and if you caused a serious traffic accident by negligent driving, we'd send you to jail. If you don't you gt a small fine and loose a point off your license.

We've obviously decided that the outcome is important, and things can have degrees. Like speeding. 5kms over is illegal, but it's only a modest act so you get a small fine and thats the end of it. If i'm doing 5km'h over and cannot stop in time and rear end someone, no-one will mind, I just have to pay for his car. If you do 100km/h hour over the limit in a school zone and then hit a kid, you get smashed for vehicular manslaughter and go to jail for a fair while. And now you are the guy who killed a 10 year old and yes the national news media will call you 'evil'

Or are you seriously saying that shouldn't be illegal?

As for the lame bread thing. Do you think you should go to jail? I don't, and the fact is you won't! The courts don't (mostly) send people to jail when their is circumstances like that. You won;t even get a conviction, and you will get a referral to a homeless centre. Wow! the system has a series of checks and balances that examines the fine detail of edge cases in particular circumstances and isn't hugely absolutist? Society has decided that that isn't immoral? And the system that determines if that was or was not a moral action works like it is supposed to? Sheesh.

The exception is of course the retarded three strikes rule that they tried in darwin, but that got struck down as unconstitutional.

And we're not discussing loading zones or sales taxes, or stealing a loaf of bread to save your starving family. If you bring up roe vs wade you can argue both sides forever and the universe will explode. But we're not.

We are discussing whether it is okay for me to take you outside and suck your life force out resulting in you needing millions of dollars of reconstructive surgery. Are you saying thats not evil?!?! you heartless bastard!

Posted by: Fortune Apr 10 2008, 05:28 AM

No. I am saying none of those things are evil ... at least to me. But by your definition they all are, as they are all against the law.



I wouldn't bet on that. I have seen that very thing happen in Canada, USA, NZ, and Australia, and heard about it in other nations as well. Hell, Oz was partially populated with people who committed just such crimes.

Posted by: Critias Apr 10 2008, 05:42 AM

The Artful Dodger, for instance. I think.

Or did he die? I never can remember.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Apr 10 2008, 05:44 AM

Sure, the USA in particular is retarded. Do note that we have no such law now because the legal system said 'you want what?!?!' and had a cry. As for the rest, it clearly has degrees. So speeding a bit is not very evil and like stealing stationary off your employer no-one cares. Still a cardinal sin though if you are catholic, and sinful is another synonym for evil.

As a totally tangential note, one thing that has always puzzled me about our legal system is that it takes the same set of actions (the only thing you have control over) and punishes you differently in different circumstances. So if I get drunk and get picked up by an RBT, I'll loose my license for 6 months. If I plow into a group of school children I get front page media stories calling me evil and many years in jail. if I fail to stop and kill an old granny, I get punished differently than if I didn't hit anyone. But if outcome 1 is 'bad' how is the action any less bad if I got lucky and didn't kill someone.

As I said before though, if you speed at 100 over in a school zone we care a lot. if you are unwilling to recognise that 'degree' is part of a legal system, and thus the system of morality I am using as a benchmark, I not sure what to say.

Either way though, I don't care about that. We are discussing whether it is okay for me to take you outside and suck your life force out resulting in you needing millions of dollars of reconstructive surgery. Apparently some people think it is.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 10 2008, 06:54 AM

In my honest opinion, killing SINless is illegal, since the law does not care whether or not someone has a SIN to define what's human. Killing a SINless will often not result in any action taken since the system doesn't show the SINless, and LoneStar prefers to act on cases where the victim is in the system rather than waste manpower on crimes whose victims don't pay taxes, but if you gun down a SINless in front of a honest cop, you'll get arrested. A SINless is more like an illegal immigrant without any country of origin, not someone without any rights at all (at least according to the letter of the law).

As far as evil goes, evil is a question of morality. The distinction between legal and illegal is a question of the law. I'd say that there's something very wrong with someone who tries to take the law into their own hands, but that's me - I live in a country where we vote on most laws (we can force a vote on just about every law), so our laws usually are backed by the population. Coupled with the checks and balances inherent in the judicial system in my country, I'd say it's a good moral compass as well - much better than personal convictions about evil.
I can't speak for the judicial system of other countries though.

Posted by: Fuchs Apr 10 2008, 06:57 AM

That's because the law in this case is based upon an "result" POV. If put someone in danger it's less serious than if you hurt them. It's at odds with the POV that focuses on the intent of the accused, and there are crimes where the result does not matter, the crime is completed when the intent has been transformed into action. Over all, it works out decently though - the "gut feeling" check covers most cases well.

Posted by: Fortune Apr 10 2008, 08:13 AM

Yep. I agree with this.

Posted by: hermit Apr 15 2008, 11:20 AM

A SIN makes you a citizen of the UCAS and gives you access to all the privileges that come with that. Essentially, SINless are tolerated illegal immigrants. However, that doesn't mean killing them (or foreigners) isn't illegal, by far. Just that the executive service provider(s) in the UCAS propably won't put their murder on any high piority list. However, holders of a corp SIN or foreign SIN of a country with reasonable clout might also find the investigation into their murders on UCAS soil on a high priority list, if their respective embassy pressures executive service provider and/or their political backers. Shooting a Pakistani SIN holder propably would hold the same degree of danger of an actual investigation that shooting an ork SINles goganger would have, I imagine.

Please enlighten me how speeding is a cardinal sin in catholic belief. I'd be unaware the Pope has gone that far already, fundamentalist as he may be.

However, the against the law = evil in a moralistic sense doesn't balance out. For instanfce, abortion is legal in many US states (or was it the entirety o the US? I can never remember) up to the ninth month. Does that stop many people there from considering it Evil with capital E? No. Laws are guidelines (strict guidelines) for human behavior. Evil in a moral sense is based on religious or philosophical grounds. Those two don't mix too well.

Posted by: Apathy Apr 15 2008, 02:40 PM

Whether you buy it or not, in many cases it's easy to make rationalizations how unlawful often/usually equates to immorality. Laws are created ostensibly to benifit society as a whole, and choosing to ignore a law and detract from the benifit it provides to society for your own happiness or convenience could be easily argued to be immoral or relatively evil.

In the case of speeding, those restrictions are usually put in place in order to enhance public safety and conserve natural resources (gas mileage). While you might suggest that you can drive safely going 60 in a 55mph zone, safety is a relative thing, and it's hard to argue that going faster doesn't give you less reaction time, longer breaking distance, and greater potential kinetic energy and damage if a crash does occur. It also wastes more gas and produces more pollution per mile driven. It's not evil on the same scale as torturing babies with blowtorches, but it is putting your own desires and convenience ahead of that of the rest of the community.