That's what I thought. I thought I read something to that effect somewhere. Yeah so totally not seeing this "MONSTER!!!!!!one!!!!11eleventy!!!" thing.

And no one's asking anyone to *like* them, play a character as them, etc. You just have to recognize that it's insane to take certain positions about sapient, metahuman-derived populations (mostly) based on squick; especially if those positions are ethically incoherent. It's the laziest kind of thinking to have a switch you flick from 'person' to 'monster', which is a theme our crime literature has explored for centuries.

@snowRaven

Well, actually a pedophile who is diagnosed to be still a threat does not get out that easy. And since you can't cure "beeing a ghoul"....
(I totally agree with you that morally you would need to release them if they "paied" for their crime. Cured or not.)



So, what? One year for assault and they die in prison.
The problem is, that moral (I take we are talking about the moral going back to Kant) is a doubled edge sword in this instance.
To stick with the rapist comperism:
It is like having a person who needs to rape another person every year or die.
Thats hard to provide following the same moral. That is the major issue here.

Yes, ghouls are again a bit easier if killing clones for parts is allowed.
But with vampires it is much more severe.
Most moral codes which wouldn't allow a genocide to "solve the problem" would also prevent you from feeding them.
(You would need a code which declares them "the same as humans" and puts life before dignity...)


Shadowrunner have nothing to do with the problem. So please leave them out of the picture. Yes, some of them might do "evil" things and yes even in today it is regarded as "OK" to kill someone to prevent him from doing "evil things", it is called self defance/defending others.




Those guys did not even commit a crime nor are they a danger to the general population.



Oh, you are so wrong here. If you apply a moral system, all things go from grey to BLACK AND WHITE.
A system of values in grey would be worthless.
It would be like a compass pointing anywhere between north and south.


Again, thats not the problem with ghouls. The problem with ghouls is, that you have probably no way to provide food for them, so they would starve. Espacially in "more moral" regions, because harvesting stuff from clones might be outlawed there. So you would need human flesh from "donors", aka dead people. And we no from the organ donor thing, that there is not much around.
(Example: Organ donars. It is not even ok for the state to say: Alright, if you have not decleared that you want to keep your organs after death, we are free to take them. And that would really not be such a big thing, would it? If you would not want it, you would just need to send a lettre)

And here we go with sanity... Well, if you apply a strictly natural point of view it is. The only goal is for your species and your genetics to survive.
So every threat you got rid of is just a threat you got rid of.
And if you look at how people dealt with the pest or other diseases back in the "old days"...
The point is, there is not any such disease today.
But even today, whenever a similar question is posed, it goes more in the direction of "not beeing sane" after your definition.
An example:
Some time back after 9.11 we had the discussion of what to do if one airplane was hijacked and would probably used to crash into an building.
The moral answer (again using Kant) would be, that you are not allowed to shoot it down, because you can not kill INNOCENT persons to save others.
This was uphold by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. (Most people did not think of this to be "sane"...)

The best example for that is still:
If you could smuther Hitler in his manger, would you do it?
Moraly it would be wrong, because you would kill an, up to this point, innocent person. (Kant, not in every system of morals...)
It would not be insane however...
@hobgoblin
Well, so? They probably just know that vampires need to kill to stay alive. (Probably one per month) That makes is so much better for the vampire...


@tehana
Vampires need essence so no.

*leans back in his chair and watches with great enjoyment*

Irion:

I reject your rejection of the analogy to 'non-monster' criminals, including shadowrunners. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I can't even understand your point about morals and grey. Shadowrun is by definition a grey world.

It *is* okay for the state to claim corpses, if the former people didn't opt-out. It's just not a law we have in the present day. We should.

It's probably even legal (whatever that word still means) in SR to buy people as food, whether before or after death. If someone knew their family would be paid, they'd sell themselves to a vampire, sure. Rich Infected (not impossible) could probably coexist fine with more traditional demons (powerful criminal bosses, corp bigwigs, etc.). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Whether it's any of our business to interfere with that transaction is a separate moral debate.

*insert popcorn gif*

@Yerameyahu


Well, it is very easy. If you apply a vaible moral code, there should not be any grey left. Thats what those things are for.
Yes, there are several moral codes and therefor the world gets "grey" but if you judge one action by one code, it has to be "right" or "wrong". Or your code is worthless,
because it is offering a leaver which can bring it down completly.
If it is ok to do X because of Y, is it ok to do X+1? X+2? X+3?
Why is X+99 ok but X+100 isn't?



I am not aware about the situation in the US. But in germany this runs down to the constitution.
The problem is, that you are probably even violating basic human rights handling it that way.

Bagged prepopped? Blech. Go big.

Then your table's world is not dystopian enough. I have had a character or two that are Cannibalistic. Does not make them a Monster. Just makes them a bit twisted. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

EDIT: Most of the posts above speak better to this than I can. Well said, for those who have tried to explain. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bagged and prepopped is the only way to go! Popcorn is one of those foods that I thoroughly believe is better the grosser you get. The popcorn tins you get around Christmas are my kryptonite. True fact.

Those are interesting questions, Irion, but they're not *answered* questions. There's scads of grey in RL right now, and laws everywhere are morally incoherent (i.e., grey). I didn't realize you were talking about a single (and 'complete') moral code… because that doesn't exist anywhere, especially not in SR. Any given *single* person has more than one moral code, and none of them are complete.

As I said, it's not about whether any country in RL does that. It's about whether it's possible (and again, IMO, should be the case), and then *in SR*.

*snerk* My mom does some work at the Cleveland Food Bank and gets paid in food. Last March, I visited home and end up coming back with a popcorn popper and a 50 lb. bag of popcorn kernels... Me and my gaming groups, we're still working our way through that thing...

I think I've heard similar statements before, and they worried me then, even when they were in history class...Magicians used to "Steal people's souls". So did the Tir Paladins before people found out they were just using a drug. That's a bit worse than eating people.

And I'm sure Trolls were accused of eating babies at least once in awhile. After all, that's what, one-two bites for them?*Blinks* Someone's glad I I asked a question?

Jeeze, I'm usually getting beaten with a stick over doing such things.There, see, Trolls Eat Babies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Time for them to be on the Quebec Bounty List (Unless they're Quebecois Trolls, then they're OK.).

But being a ghoul doesn't automatically constitute being a threat to society any more than being a murderer constitutes you being an automatic forever-more threat to society.



Prisons are filled with potential 'victims' for vampires, so unless you apply solitary confinement I'm sure they'll survive. They may get their sentence increased however, and eventually you'd be forced to 'starve' them...

But yes, ethicalo reasons will likely prevent the feeding of vampires. See my above mentions of this problem.



This was more aimed at Janessa's claims that Infected are inherently evil monsters that must be killed, just because they may or may not have commited a crime. Shadowrunners commit similar crimes, and pose a threat to regular law-abiding citizens (minus the infection risk, for the most part). If you convict and exterminate one threat indiscriminately without any evidence, why not another?




This was mainly in response to Janessas claim that anyone who has to eat humans to survive is a monster. A ghoul who feeds exclusively on the bodies of those already dead is on equal terms with the survivors of that plane crash. And yes, they did commit a crime according to the laws of many countries (not sure about the country they were in at the time) - desecrating a dead human body is a crime in many places.

Likewise, a vampire can survive solely on willing victims - at least for awhile. With good seduction skills and the inherent addiction that Essence drain can cause, he or she could probably stay alive and well for years without ever committing a single crime or creating another vampire.



In Shadowrun, there is preciously little that falls into the categories of black and white - if anything. That's part of the whole 'dystopian setting' thing.



It is problematic, sure - but not impossible. Cloned parts; donated bodies; 'medical waste' in the form of aborted fetuses, amputated limbs, non-functioning organs etc. It could be possible to add the bodies of convicted, executed criminals to the list. It may be objectionable and ethically dubious, but there are ways.



Again, this was in repsonse to Janessa, who's character refuses wetwork and kidnappings on moral grounds, yet have no qualms about exterminating those the character views as monsters without any evidence that they really are individual threats. A person who holds high morals about sanctity of life cannot claim to be sane if they will turn around and go out of their way to kill just because they believe that a certain individual may pose a threat to mankind based on nothing but that person belonging to a group that has been proven to feed off of humans.




If you are in a position of such prescience, you are most likely in a position to change him and affect the future in that way as well. That scenario is useless for discussions on both morality and sanity since it presents a scenario that is inherently impossible.

A better scenario:
The spokesperson for a group of 1000 people states 'we will murder and eat one person a month for the rest of our lives', and over the course of the next year, twelve of these people are found guilty of murder and cannibalism. Do you go out and kill the rest of these people on sight even though you cannot be sure if they have ever committed a crime, or if they ever will?
Next year passes, and 7 of that group is found guilty of killing and eating 12 people.
Year after that, only one person performs all murders.
Year after that, 30 people have been proven to take part. 10 of them say that they only eat, and would never kill.
Year after that, you come upon one of the group who is eating from a fresh corpse. You have a gun, he does not. Do you kill, or call the police? Which is the 'sane' thing to do?

No moral code is that absolute, though. There is always room to question why 'x' and not 'y', and why 'x' when 'z' equals 53 and not when it equals 54.

Heh... Heh heh heh... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ... ... ... He.

That implies we are living in a sane world. *Slasher Smile* People try to put order to things, but in reality, all is but chaos. So who is the insane? The ones trying to make order of chaos, or those that embrace the chaos? Which is the deluded fool, and which is the person seeing the world for what it truly is?

*Gazes down at you all* Who is the insane, indeed? When the world is just a tinderbox connected to a fuse... Waiting for the right time to set off the explosion that will rock the world and make it burn!

Mostly not really. There is debate about those points, but they are not "grey". Grey would mean it is neither right nor wrong.
Some people say it is right and some people say it is wrong.

It is true that most people and therefore also out laws are inconsistant.


True. Does not mean there is none.
Actually you can go a long way with just a hand full of premissis.

@snowRaven

The point is, if there is room for that it is flawed to begin with.
It is less moral and more self-righteousness.

To quote Nietzsche: He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

If during a mission I stumble across a ghoul, goblin whatever Infected by surprise I'll surely shoot first and ask question laters. Sorry if the comparison offends someone, but I see the same way as stumbling across a mama bear and its cubs. You either shoot before it kills you or you run fast and long enough it gives up killing you.
Now, I don't see a problem working with a contact that is an Infected, as long as they are not an street doc.

Do any of the source books definitively state what percentage of the infected ghouls revert to a feral state or keep their intellect (degraded or not)? That could alter one's view of "kill on sight" vs. "can't we all just get along." I'd swear I've seen something printed, but I can't seem to find anything beyond vague statements of "most" or "many."

I might be wrong, but I'd say more than half of the ghouls are feral.
I'd have to check my books when I get home though.

Sixt World Almanac p.100 states only :
" Through AR and VR, we can
teach all our people to read; our literacy rate is well over ninety percent—among our
citizens who have the intellectual facility to learn, that is."

I've been (understandably, from an editor/developer POV) encouraged to stay away from hard numbers when I work with this sort of thing. And honestly, I try to do just that. Hard numbers could make my life as a writer a harder thing than it already is.

I don't recall ever seeing a figure on that (feral vs socialized ghouls). That said, during most of our discussions, I think we're assuming 1 in 10 ghouls are feral. I don't know where that 10% figure came from, though; if I find a canon source, I'll post it.

I would be very interested in a source for this. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (No irony or condescension intended; I'm genuinely interested.)

Yeah, the last game of vampire the masqueade was a 1 one shot where I ended up with a 2 or 3 humanity, having killed 4 people already and sucked the soul of another vamp. I can't play that game, all my PC's will end up in the same place quickly..

I edited my post, i didnt remember correctly.

Crunchwise i would argument that it cant be too much. Ghouls get -1 Logic i assume that people with logic 1 or not fully 2 (its just numbers) would turn more or less feral when getting infected.
Since Logic 1 is the exception i dont think that there are too much of em.