[X] My Assistant

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[Malicant]

*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.

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[Fortune]

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! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[Kremlin KOA]

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.

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

[Cthulhudreams]

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

[Fortune]

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

[Cthulhudreams]

6. Under basic Shadowrun rules, characters can never have an Essence of 0 or less. If they do, they die.

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

Under basic Shadowrun rules, characters that have an Essence of 0 or less die.

or

Normally characters that have an Essence of 0 or less die.

or best yet

Characters that have an Essence of 0 or less die.

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.

[Fortune]

Hmmm ...

'Under basic Shadowrun rules ...'

... and ...

Normally, characters that have an Essence ...

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.

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[FrankTrollman]

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

[Malicant]

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

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

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'

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

[Fuchs]

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.

[Fortune]

Under basic Shadowrun rules, characters can never have an Essence of 0 or less. If they do, they die.

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.

[Malicant]

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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Cthulhudreams]

@Malicant:

Well, I did, and apparently it means

* means a child who is in serious or critical condition as certified by a physician.

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

Noun 1. near-death experience - the experience of being close to death but surviving
experience - an event as apprehended; "a surprising experience"; "that painful experience certainly got our attention"

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.

[Malicant]

Goddam double post.

[Malicant]

Your google-fu sucks if you're definition of near death only applies to children (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[Malicant]

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.

[Fortune]

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.

[Cthulhudreams]

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.

[Malicant]

So really, my google fu excellently supports my case that 'near death' does not satisfy the rules on page 62?

Huh? How?

I am not sure where you are going with this.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Google Fu!

[Fortune]

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.