No, it is not. Orks are COREBOOK. They are neither optional nor exotic. They make up a big part of SR background.

See, I would not go that route. I would take a Prejudice Against Orks, and then roleplay that out. Makes for some good in-character drama. Could it end in one or the other dying? Most likely. But I would never disallow the Ork because the character hated Orks.

Not the same thing with Infected, though. The Ork hater is not going to become an Ork because of the Orks presence. It is QUITE possible for a character to become infected through association with an INFECTED character type, on the other hand. ESPECIALLY if you do not change the Ghoul Virus to Injection.

So why couldnt you roleplay that out with an infected character? I fail to see the difference.

Which book they appear in has no bearing on this dicussion.

Well, I disagree.
There is some general ground, every player has access to. If one player wants to restrict the access on this ground, he needs to give a reason.
But if you are talking about an optional rule in a supplement book, well it is an other issue.

It does if you actually read the whole quoted statement: optional, exotic, and (extremely) uncommon all matter.

So the entire point to your post was to say all of my analogies are wrong, the analogies that you created are somehow closer to what I had envisioned in my own head, and that my conclusions are wrong as well?

Not only are you way-off base, you're also an asshole.

no its a big freaking fallacious argument. And if you have to throw fallacious about rather than tacking the issue directly, we're no longer having a discourse. Youre just flinging poo.

I would posit that it certainly does, especially when said book introduces the character types as "options," says that "groups should consider the impact and ramifications they might have" on the game, suggests that groups should "carefully consider and discuss these following material before introducing it into play," tells GMs point-blank that they are "cautioned not to allow certain options into play," because "some of the character types may very well unbalance the game," warns that players and GMs should "read the rules carefully," because "Infected characters are very powerful and can be disruptive and unbalancing," and on and on and on.

In that character's case, the psionic/nosferatu/beastmaster combo is definitively weird and I have a hard time figuring out how that particular mix came to be. It feels sort of like a ribs-mango pizza, a bizarre mix of ingredients that definitively feels like they don't belong together.

It supposes the character was already awakened before getting infected, as it would be very, very odd (as in quantum-mechanics level probability) for someone to turn to the definitively oddball psionic 'tradition' upon turning into a nosferatu.

Along with all the relational problems of a nosferatu, that character doesn't sound as a character but rather like an aphazard mix of rare occurences. Something that's been cobbled together to get cool powers and bonuses without nary a thought about what it's going to mean in term of character.

I funny statement, considering that the premise behind any kind of point system is that if you paid enough points for it, its balanced.

As I said, if one was at our table, and I found out, he would be a Dead Infected. Case Closed. That is how the game world rolls in that regard.
The problem is that such a reaction tends to have OOC consequences. We avoid that whole pitfall by simply not allowing Infected at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Really? I guess we're just completely ignoring the infected-friendly governments/corporations at this point, yes?

The world is in something of a cultural swing towards accepting the infected, especially ghouls. They've been around for 20? years at this point, and people have had time to get used to the idea of them being around. That doesnt mean there arent bigoted people in the world, or even only a few. It just means that on the worst day, segregation was just abolished, and you are black.

In a perfect world, sure.

But as it is, it's made very clear to players and GMs alike that about half the stuff in Runner's Companion is absolutely optional, and should very much be discussed and agreed upon by any given game table before introducing elements of it to their game.

You can pretend it doesn't say that if you want to, I guess, but your stubborn refusal to acknowledge it detracts from your argument, not the position of those who are agreeing with the rulebook.

I do not get what you want from me?
Dissagreeing with you makes me an asshole and way-off base?

Yes, I am saying that they are wrong. Vulcans are part of the Federation, the first Race humans made contact with. Odo is part of the "species" the federation will be at war with most of the time in Deep space nine. They are neither exotic nor out of place.

So yes, your analogies are wrong and as a result of that your conclusions are wrong too.

And since I did not want to close on only saying you are wrong, I made suggestions of possible analogies which would fit the issue we are discussion.

If we would be talking about a group of vampire hunters, a vampire would not be off. (Since the advanture will deal with vampires anyway) (If we were looking at this, the odo analogy would totally fit)

I'm not pretending it doesnt say that at all, but dont the other splats say that as well? I cant recall specifically right now, but if they do then why is Runner's Companion being regarded as an exception? Basically, if i'm being forced to now play out of the corebook, why arent you? "you cannot play infected" holds the same bearing as being barred from any options presented in the other splats; therefor to have any reasonable discourse, we must assume that our discussion takes place in a world where these options are not barred.

@Starmage21
But yes, it hold true for everybody. The optional rules out of Augmentation need also to be discussed with your group.

And options that espacially state, that they might "break" the game should be considered carefully and probably houseruled to fit the playstyle of the group.

Exactly why which book the option appears in holds no bearing on the discussion. The entire discussion is in fact predicated on the allowance of the infected at the game table.

Except for the part of the discussion where people say "infected aren't allowed at my game table," and you shout those people down and call them assholes and idiots if they have that stance, you mean? Oh, and the part where you keep equating orks (a core rulebook choice, in no way listed or mentioned by the rules as being optional and controversial) to Infected (who GMs and players are repeatedly warned about), that part of the discussion, too?

No, I've never done that if you go back and read what I've posted.

I think you've lost track of the situation. If you go back and reread the original situation, where Tymeaus Jalynsfein talks about the reaction of his player-character, you'll discover that the analogy stands.

TJ said, both in-game and meta-game ways, that Infected aren't welcome at his game table. Part of his reasoning for making this statement is directly in-line with the repeated warnings about allowing Infected in a game, right there in the rulebook that tells you about Infected, when it explains that they should be carefully discussed and considered before being allowed to disrupt a game.

You replied with "At this point you might as well get up and leave the game table. Being inflexible to the desires of your fellow players puts you* well into the area of the asshole or dickhead of the group."

If it was not your intent to insist that someone has to let you play your Nosferatu in any game you want to play your Nosferatu or they're an asshole or a dickhead, then perhaps you need to be a little more clear. Because as it is, you're certainly coming off as someone who is eager to play his Nosferatu, and who will ignore or belittle anyone -- including the rulebook -- that tells him he cannot, regardless of the attitudes of everyone else at the game table.

,

And? The Infected are part of society, some less then others. Your analogy, 'corrections' (laughable as they may be) and thus conclusion, are all wrong. In the future, please refrain from misguided attempts to correct the posited notions of others when you've clearly got no idea what you're talking about.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And because pop culture has spoken, I'm automatically wrong. Pop culture can pretty much kiss my ass; being popular doesn't make it right. Being romanticized sure doesn't make something right. I can romanticize any number of vile things; doesn't make them right.

Vampires, especially in Shadowrun, are monsters, straight up, as they have been for most of their literary existence (and as they should be again). It's tragic, but it's also the way things are. Just because some bleeding hearts want to paint it differently doesn't change a thing.


You've got that right. I'm not trying to be popular anymore.

This almost made me fall off my chair with paroxysms of laughter. (Sorry; I just got to play that word in a game of Words with Friends for a bajillion points, and I'm still kind of jazzed about that, so it might pepper my speech for the rest of the day.)

You do know what my other gaming gig is, don't you? I keep a mostly-dead Star Trek gaming system alive in my copious unstructured free time. I can't say for certain, but I'm willing to bet I've been a Trekkie longer than you've been alive.

I've never had a problem with Spock's heritage, as a fan or a writer, and frankly, I think it's a specious argument since the two aren't really analogous at all. Spock doesn't cause death and/or suffering by virtue of his very existence. Vampires, et al, do.

Wouldn't be the first time I'd seen that happen.

Actually, you know what, this is exactly what I am saying: If someone sits down at a game table, and after having discussed with the GM what characters are and are not allowed, they have every right to play that character, and any player that refuses to cooperate by at least meeting the other player at some middle ground is simply being a douchebag. I would do exactly the same for anyone who had joined my gaming group, even if they played some archetype that I didnt like, so I expect the same of everyone else. We're playing a cooperative game after all, and it doesnt work if the players dont fucking cooperate.