Dolphins. Hell, they might be superior.

There is no concerted effort to practice Genocide on Dolphins, specifically. Unfortunately, that is a sad byproduct of the fishing industry. And there are many groups/regulatory agencies that continue to fight the industry on this matter. Even the Fishing industry does not have that Right... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And Yes, Dolphins may indeed be. Sadly, we may never know.

Ask Ric O'Barry about that. Watch the movie "The Cove". It's disturbing as hell, and a prime example of a modern-day Shadowrun. A Horizon-Based 'Run no less! (Industrial Light and Magic helps!).

ILM Always helps... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Will have to check that out... Thanks CanRay.

Null sheen.

Okay. I'm going to have to seriously interject here and this is as a person that was seriously involved with PETA for a good number of years and is still big on animal rights.

The Cove is a joke and a sensationalized piece of media created for a targeted audience. Why do you think Hayden Pennatawhateverthefudge was in it? It sure made a whole bunch of young girls concerned about these adorable dolphins in Japan.

It was seriously a gross piece of contrived media that showed one viewpoint and a poorly construed one at best. There are much larger issues at hand when it comes to animal rights than dolphin hunters in Japan. One can condemn them because of the fact that dolphins are intelligent and lets be honest, oh so cute, but how many of those that are opposed to dolphin hunting eat any animal based product. I'm sorry, I don't understand how people can choose between one species and another to eat for food. Fudge, the same week Hayden got arrested during filming The Cove she was seen wearing Uggs, which do require the death of the sheep to acquire the hide for the shearing. Tell me just why it's okay to kill a sheep and not a dolphin?

Want to really feel bad about humanity? Take a look at the beef and pork industry in America. Sorry for the tangent, but as an animal rights activist I find The Cove one of the most deplorable bits of media that falls under the "Animal Rights" umbrella.

Thanks for the Information Tehana it is appreciated. Always good to have all the information...

Again - for all of the plaintive cries of "but they eat us!!!" we eat animals. Daily. We've wiped out species for it. If they suddenly gained the ability to talk and fashion weapons and saw the kind of shit we've gotten up to in the millenniums of time since we started cultivating and domesticated animals, I wouldn't be surprised if they put us down just as quickly as some are crying out here for justice.

It's been shown in canon that Infected and humanity can get along. Once again, look at the ghouls taking in survivors during Bug City, or the fact that Asamando isn't just inviting people over the borders for a snack. Look at the fact that Hannibelle posts on Jackpoint and can hold a conversation with people that doesn't come down to, "so seriously, just how tasty are you guys?"

A lot of people here are talking like Humanis talks, or Alamos 20000, or any of the other hate groups in existence in the Sixth World. And it's kind of scary. "It's fine, they're just monsters anyway."

Does the Godwin really need to come out here?

I've already invoked Godwin when I mentioned Genocide.

And Hanabelle has already mentioned that she can tell the difference between Type-O organs and other types, and other squick-worthy things. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Asamando are poster children for exterminating the Infected – they do “invite” lots of people over the border for a snack, as per Feral Cities. Seriously, every time I read something about Asamando in SR, my inner Dalek comes out to play – “Exterminate! Exterminate!” That place really needs some nuclear firepower applied to it. Alternately, it needs a very brave investigative reporter team to go in and expose them for the monsters they really are, despite their public spun image.


If you can’t handle a discussion as to the proper disposition of fictional beings in a fantasy world, well then, perhaps such threads are not your cup of tea. I remain unapologetic about my position regarding them, “scary” as that may be. If anything, this thread is influencing my next character creation choices – I’m thinking along the lines of more “monster hunter” and less “classic shadowrunner” – keeping firmly in mind that the Infected are monsters just like the Invae, Wraiths, and the Horrors.

I suspect the real problem is one of association. You believe the Infected are an accurate metaphor for [insert X minority/oppressed group in RL], while I (and perhaps 1 or 2 others here) regard such comparisons as invalid, believing that fictional creatures absolutely compelled by their magical nature to feed upon humanity cannot be accurately compared to any RL group of people. You thus equate our prejudice of these creatures with prejudice of whatever RL counterparts you believe they stand for, but we don’t, and therefore don’t see a problem with it.

I think that’s ultimately the crux of the matter here, or at least one of the major ones.

As for my other post responses, I’m about a third of the way through them…

They take care of their own. That's all that needs to be said. They've had to make sacrifices like any other country in the world - they're most comparable to Stalinist Russia, honestly. In order to continue to exist in a manner that makes them safe, comfortable, and able to get on with their lives, they have to do some things which may be considered "icky".

Nowhere have I said that I agree with said stance; just that they've shown they're just as capable as being complete bastards like anyone else in the Sixth World. I wouldn't want to live in Yakut, for example.



Well that's more than a little dismissive, don't you think?


Right, so they're "fictional fantasy beings" but you're already plotting out of character to continue a long-standing grudge, for no reason other than "they're icky".


Shadowrun has always been a game about social justice - pick your favorite minority group, and you'll find a representation somewhere. From the Night of Rage to the scares over Changelings to the events of Emergence, ultimately, one group (in power) declares another group (in minority) some sort of vermin and set themselves up to put them down permanently.

Ghouls and the Infected are no different, and their struggle even started all the way back to Paranormal Animals of North America, which had discussion of the sapience of Infected - specifically, a loup-garou (or dzoo-noo-qo, but I neither have time nor patience to do more than a cursory scan of the book) that begged the character that interacted with it "to put it out of its misery". Which sort of supports your theory, but also horrifies all of the runners discussing that particular entry.

It has always been a theme, and one that supports both the "essence sucking monsters" theory and the "hey, that's still your mom - y'know, just with a sorta hunger for human flesh" points of theory. So I have no problem with folks taking one tack or the either.

The problem that I have, however, is when people declare unilateral war on all of them for such high thought reasons as, "well, they eat people! Flesh! THEY COULD COME FOR YOU NEXT!!!!. It's the same reason that Tehana posted the rebuttal to the Cove; people who want to make declarations like that are way too willing to overlook their own hypocrisy.

But instead of making a judgment on your reasons for posting what you've posted Janessa, I ask you this - was it your mother, father, sibling, family member, that was infected with HMHVV, would you be so willing to pull the trigger? Especially if they were still them, and regretted what it was they had to do in order to survive?

I again bring up the example of the Ghould community in Chicago - where the ghouls could have tricked the stupid humans into letting themselves get eaten, but didn't. Where were the horrors you're so afraid of then?

Think before you judge.

I didn't even notice anyone but Janessa (repeatedly) mention anything about 'Infected are metaphor for X', so I dunno why that's relevant to rebut (repeatedly). Some people have provided analogies to help explain a general position, but the point is not that 'black-racism is bad, so ghoul-racism is bad', nor did I notice anyone (else) say 'it's just like AIDS/Ebola/whatever'.

I too think it's weird when people post here in character, but oh well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The point is that we're players discussing SR4, and the canon of SR4 is that Infected are people. There are various ways of dealing with their various problems (and yes, some are currently irredeemable), but it is a fact of the *game* that they're not just 'monsters to be killed'. Some characters feel that way, of course, but we're talking about the game.

Um, yes, they did. See Post 86 for one, just from a quick look back at the thread.

Ah, I do see that. I think the fact that your response is so much bigger and sustained 200 posts later means something, and it's interesting that he only said it in response to your pre-rebuttal, but I do see that one now.

Personally, I still don't see why it's relevant either way. If the writers came and told us 'they're supposed to symbolize AIDS', it wouldn't alter the situation laid out in the books: some Infected are mindless, some must kill people, some aren't, and some needn't. A nice, wide range of SR-style dystopian messiness, which is exactly what we want from SR. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's still totally fine to have characters demonstrating the full gamut of social positions, from (literally?) bleeding heart to psychopathic crusader, but the player has to be aware what the OOC facts are.

It's 200 posts later as I'm working 12 hour days, unfortunately. If I could have, I would have gotten back to it sooner. I'm currently working on longer responses to 15 posts in my copious free time...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Don't work too hard, it's bad for you! I guess the lack of a quote-context on that specific point threw me; the rest of the post was nicely quoted, so I got lost. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I have tons of free time to pay attention, and it did seem to me all along that you were really hammering on that point, and (given I think it's irrelevant) that did seem confusing to me. Your style in this thread has been very… preemptive, in that way, so I can understand why someone might be "scared'.

Either vampires are only monsters, or they're not. That seems to be the division here; one group thinks that vampires are soulless monstrosities who exist only to cull what they will from humanity, and the other that thinks not all vampires are soulless monstrosities who exist only to cull blah blah...

The latter is well supported in canon, going back as far as you want in the game. There have been monstrous vamps and vamps who seem okay in every edition. Saying that there are some bad vamps and so all the infected should be burned from the earth is offensive to me. It's not hugely offensive because they're imaginary creatures, but I do find the reasoning distasteful because of it's real world connotations.

One could do a rewrite to make HMHVVer's in SR more like Underworld (a film series I have only seen parts of and am not terribly curious about) or Blade maybe, where it ends up with humanity being held in big meat lockers and vamps rule the world. It wouldn't be SR exactly, but as an Elseworlds or What If? alternate reality game it might be pretty interesting. If I were going to play a vampire hunter in Shadowrun, I think his signature quote would be "I don't hunt vampires. I hunt murderers."

I guess my disconnect is, since they're imaginary creatures, vampires work the way we say they work. Even the dietary issues and infection rates vary from edition to edition. Why is having the one type of infected (the Monster) better than having the wide range (monsters are people and people are monsters)?

Totally: in SR, muddy is *the* point.

I agree with the earlier posts equating the infected to, as their name even implies, plague victims. They are literally a danger to the people around them, simply by existing.

In canon, infected are capable of being rational, even moral, metahumans. However, it is also canon that they are the exceptions to the rule. The process of infection can cause mental damage, often (and for some varieties of the infected, usually) turning the victim into a feral predator with limited reasoning ability. And some of the infections also can turn most of the victims into sociopaths. So in addition to the fact that they need to feed on metahumanity to survive, and can infect others, there is the fact that most infected live up (or down) to their stereotypes as feral killers or ruthlessly evil.

From a game point of view, I like that. You can play them up as ravening monsters, but still toss in some humanity or pathos if you feel like it. What will the runners do when they find out their fixer, who is otherwise a nice guy, is a vampire? What do they do when they are hunting ghouls, and run into a cowering ghoul woman clutching two ghoul kids protectively?

Depends on the runners, of course. For some runners, the "moral dilemma" is the choice of either indiscriminately shooting ghouls for the bounties, or using them as a quick, convenient way to get rid of dead bodies.

The Infected are just folk, just like everyone else.

There's Toxic Pixie Shamans, for example. Sasquatch mass murderers. Alamos 20K Terrorists. Sons of Sauron Extremists. Dwarven Castrators. Trolls with a taste for babies. Someone who would piss in a vat of beer. Tax collectors!

In real life, we have people with HIV and know it, but don't give a damn and just spread it about willy-nilly without a care at all who they hurt. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I agree, Glyph. It's not that all Infected are good, just that they're not *all* totally 'evil'. That little fraction is all that you need.

Haast's Eagle. The Thylacine. Gravy. Very small rocks. What do you mean, "equivalent?" That builds stuff? Why do we get to live, and they get to die, because we can build stuff?


So, is that where the rights come from? Humans? Which ones?

By the way, it's cool if you don't have an answer, but it'd be helpful if you'd say that, so I don't have to keep asking. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I have given you answers, just not ones that you like (or accept). That being said, others have provided reasons that I also agree with, so, take your pick. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
The discussion has been lively, though.
Oh, and Welcome to the 6th World. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I know those are even more rare and they aren't and never were humans, but what about shapeshifters?
They are literally animals who acquired sapience and have some of the tools to avenge their brethren if they so choose.
If a pack of werewolves kill and eat a human family who's spending some vacations in the wild, is that ok? What if they were simple wolves?
In the 6th World's Québec, there are bounties for shapeshifters, does anyone know why? If a pack of werewolves killed every human being in a single rural village as revenge for wolf hunting and then the Québec issued that law, is it ok? And what about the fact that we killed wolves and cubs by the thousands before?

With respect, I don't see any answers to any of the various ways I've asked the question, so let me try a more direct approach: where does the right to live come from in Shadowrun?


Okay, well, if you could point me at one of those, that'd be helpful, as well.