cont'd: Infected as PC Options in SR, Vampire the Shadowing - a good idea? Options

[Patrick Goodman]

Running Wild claims that the bounties are still on the books, but about to fall in the UCAS (and not enforced anymore as well).
Same for the CAS, but they are lagging behind a bit.

I don't remember writing that, at least not specifically, but I could be wrong. It's been a while, and I've slept since then, and a great deal of my discussion here has been based on my memory (a dicey proposition at times) and my current gut feeling. I definitely need to go back and re-read all the Infected stuff I can, especially RC and RW (oddly enough) so I can make more assured statements.

It's kinda confusing if you hide the explanation somewhere in the running text, while putting the bounties in a sidebar, but it's actually pretty clear what's up with them once you find the corresponding passage.

The bounties as a sidebar made more sense to me, and it helped with layout of the text. Where they wound up might lend to confusion, but I'd have to look at the pages again to be sure.

Note that these laws are not passed yet. In fact, they could still be voted down, especially in the case of the CAS.

We'll just have to see how things shake out, and whether I ever write for the line again.

[Patrick Goodman]

I disagree about the citizenship. You're a covict, sure, and you have limited rights, but you are a citizen. Thirdclass citizenship still is citizenship. And that means it would, for instance, be illegal to shoot you dead if you cross the street unless you have a sound reason and/or a law enforcement badge.

You know, thinking it over in this light, you're right. They are citizens...just not very-well-thought-of citiznes.

It does place law enforcement in a tricky position, though, doesn't it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

I would suppose the bounties are only on unregistered Infected, as an enticement to register, or something. Which, of course, won't gain you anything as a society unless you lock the infected up in some sort of reservation, but there you go.

That would make sense. Might not actually work that way, but it would make sense. Something to ponder.

[hermit]

You know, thinking it over in this light, you're right. They are citizens...just not very-well-thought-of citiznes.

It does place law enforcement in a tricky position, though, doesn't it?

I suppose they resist arrest rather reegularily. Still, it offers them a significant plus in protection against Hunters.

That would make sense. Might not actually work that way, but it would make sense. Something to ponder.

No, but it could be the balance to strike if you really want rights for the und- ... post-metahuman.

We'll just have to see how things shake out, and whether I ever write for the line again.

Same with the AI rights laws. All it takes is a ghoul with a fluffy hat, and the laws pass. /sarc

At least if the development of the line follows the pattern chosen with AI. Which I sort of hope it won't, because it makes no sense.

[Patrick Goodman]

A fluffly hat? Am I missing a reference somewhere?

(And NO MORE OLD POST! I can embarrass myself with this one alone now!!)

[hermit]

The AI rights law that passed and was lauded because the AI had a cute fluffy thingy for an icon. Because if it's avatar, which is totally arbitrary and untied to it's function, looks cute and fluffy, it cannot possibly be dangerous. I found that a bit ... stupid, for a reason why the public should suddenly support an AI ("Support bin Laden! He has a fluffy hat! Nevermind he blew up parts of Manhattan a few years ago!" Does that not make sense?)

[Grinder]

Reference for this?

[Angelone]

Still think running with infected is a stupid idea and that they are terrible PC options. Buddying up with the infected is like a (sentient) chilidog willing going to a baseball game, it's not productive to your long term health and most likely lifespan.

[Dr.Rockso]

Still think running with infected is a stupid idea and that they are terrible PC options. Buddying up with the infected is like a (sentient) chilidog willing going to a baseball game, it's not productive to your long term health and most likely lifespan.

Most sentient chilidogs I know don't have guns or magic.

[Dread Moores]

The AI rights law that passed and was lauded because the AI had a cute fluffy thingy for an icon. Because if it's avatar, which is totally arbitrary and untied to it's function, looks cute and fluffy, it cannot possibly be dangerous. I found that a bit ... stupid, for a reason why the public should suddenly support an AI ("Support bin Laden! He has a fluffy hat! Nevermind he blew up parts of Manhattan a few years ago!" Does that not make sense?)

I just finished reading through emergence again, and I have no idea what you're talking about. What am I missing? Are we talking about the AI with Horizon? Because he clearly had a whole lot more influence than a fluffy hat.

[hermit]

Reference for this?

I just finished reading through emergence again, and I have no idea what you're talking about. What am I missing? Are we talking about the AI with Horizon? Because he clearly had a whole lot more influence than a fluffy hat.

No, this is from both RC, the AI chapter, the case of Xiao-Renraku vs. Teskit, and Unwired, "Horizon newsfeed moderated by Holly Haskins" sidebar, for the precise fluffyness reference.

[Angelone]

Reference for this?

He's being hyperbolic, but that's basically what Emergence? states that happens. Even after one of the new AIs takes over an orbital weapons platform they are welcomed with open arms because of a cute spokesAI. EDIT- It's suprising how quickly people forgot Dues.

Ok the sentient chilidog wasn't the best metaphor should have said a sheep in a wolfpack.

[Kid Chameleon]

Ok the sentient chilidog wasn't the best metaphor should have said a sheep in a wolfpack.

I don't know, now I want to fit one of those in. Maybe after the drone/cyberpenis.

[hermit]

A chilidog + free spirit PC + shared life = sentient chilidog.

[Samoth]

It was a short life. A short, delicious, life.

[Rasumichin]

I don't remember writing that, at least not specifically, but I could be wrong. It's been a while, and I've slept since then, and a great deal of my discussion here has been based on my memory (a dicey proposition at times) and my current gut feeling. I definitely need to go back and re-read all the Infected stuff I can, especially RC and RW (oddly enough) so I can make more assured statements.

The bounties as a sidebar made more sense to me, and it helped with layout of the text. Where they wound up might lend to confusion, but I'd have to look at the pages again to be sure.

We'll just have to see how things shake out, and whether I ever write for the line again.

Well, i hope so. It was fun to read the infected chapter in Running Wild, and i have always chalked up the contradictions between it and RC as both minor and explainable as different positions ingame.
This was reinforced by the fact that Ancient's text in RC came from the perspective of legalese-touting diplomats giving an abstract of a research paper with whose results they seemed rather uncomfortable (and we all know how that always turns out), while your text's narrator was -at least how i read it- marked clearly as unreliable as well by posters in the shadowtalk.
The parts about him not knowing about cybered vampires, his personal involvement due to the transformation of his sister, both clearly commented on by Jackpoint posters. His entrenchment in a less...post/non/para-human friendly society. Stuff like that.
When i combed through the texts again parallel to this thread, all seemed to point towards two intentionally biased sources, both labeled as such.
So contradictions seemed inevitable.

At least that's what i made of these texts, i have, of course, a completely different perspective on all that stuff.

I guess i'm reading too much into this, but whatever.

You know, thinking it over in this light, you're right. They are citizens...just not very-well-thought-of citiznes.

It does place law enforcement in a tricky position, though, doesn't it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

I'm beginning to love all those legal grey areas in SR4.
Infected are not the only case here.
Don't know whether such oversights and contradictions in the law are intentional, but their real life counterparts aren't either.
Works fine for me, actually.
Even though it's always giving me a headache at first. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I suppose they resist arrest rather reegularily. Still, it offers them a significant plus in protection against Hunters.

I'd absolutely say that this is how it turns out on both accounts.

It's a different legal situation than back in SR1, but it is a continuation of well-established ingame developments, whether they made sense to all players or not. They where not as prominent back in the day, but that's plausible as well. The whole topic is really boiling up, and in contrast to other subplots like Crash 2.0 and the aftermath, it took it's time to develop.

A lot of the infected still pose a massive and accute thread as well.
Not their entire population, though.

Many of them now pose entirely different, but at least much less menacing problems now, at least in my opinion.


--Let's assume for a moment that the transformation following infection is at least partially responsible for the feral nature of ghouls (by a very far margin the most widespread infected- actually the only truly numerous group of non/ex-metahumans). Many older and current sources suggest this possibility.

--Let's also assume that decent sanitary conditions and a policy of containment by various means from hunting to limited citizenship under strict supervision has decreased the number of new infections in industrial nations.

--Let's also assume that this has led to a shift in the composition of the ghoul population. As new infections became rarer while birth rates increased or at least remained stable, the number of ghouls wo did not go through the trauma of transformation and grew up within an adapting ghoul society grew as well. Meaning that at least proportionally, the more reasonable, less feral ghouls became more and more the dominant variety of ghouls over the last 20 years of ingame time.

Even though this is a retrofit, it is internally consistent with previous statements as well as current ones.
It could provide a framework for why and how infected rights develop, would provide a reason why the zombie apocalypse didn't happen (at least outside of Western Africa) and what makes ghouls playable now without denying their previous status as a pseudo-undead threat, in fact without taking away the possibility of still including such ghouls as horrifying, threatening NPCs that can be blown up without many moral concerns by the PCs.
Knight Errant can't do it without causing problems, but still no one cares if the runners nuke a pack of sewer-dwelling, baby-hunting, totally feral zombie ghouls.
They can still collect a bounty if they track down a wendigo serial killer setting up a cabal down in Mississippi (even if they stop issuing ghoul bounties, this does not have to apply to every kind of infected equally, as the threats posed, the lobbies behind them and their overall numbers are different as well).

But at the same time, they can play a nosferatu on the Azzie payroll, complete with full corporate citizenship (and the lvl2 Erased quality to cover up what he actually is, if they want to play it safe).

I'm fully aware that's not the only viable interpretation of the fluff.
"No one gave a damn about line development and now it's all a giant mess, makes no sense and everything is filled with sparkling bullshit" is just as possible.

But i'll most likely stick to what i've outlined above. It works, it makes sense, it offers the full range of options (except for "kill em all", but even that could be arranged if the whole infected rights experiment fails).
Sounds allright to me.

I hope it's halfway intelligible to others. Maybe i'm just rambling, it's like...half past 5 in the morning here and i should probably go to bed and get rid of this buzz. Goddamn Sambuca. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

Most sentient chilidogs I know don't have guns or magic.

A chilidog + free spirit PC + shared life = sentient chilidog.

This thread is giving me one campaign idea after the other. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Daylen]

So why not ignore the fanged (I sure hope they have fangs anyway) version of Mr sparkle and include nosferatu as the terrible monsters they are, whose actions would make most women and children at no longer have an appetite, instead of admitting defeat and letting marketers/writers ruin more things by making it into something only for children?

[Patrick Goodman]

Look! Semi-current at last!!

True, but there are also bounties on criminals. Also, the same article says there are no more bounties on the newly citizenised Infected - so no, the government in the UCAS will not give you money for killing a ghoul anymore. It'll give you handcuffs and jail time instead. Because you really don't need to contain the zombie apocalypse when it is still possible!

Well, the government of the UCAS sub-contracts a lot. Most law enforcement jurisdictions are handled by corporate law enforcement corporations, and while those contracts theoretically oblige them to enforce the laws of the community they serve, we both know there's a hell of a lot of gray space that the corp (and even the individual officers involved) can interpret as they see fit.

Ya get what ya pay for, after all.

If I recall correctly, the bounties are also handled by way of contracts, with law enforcement agencies able to draw on an established fund to pay bounties when someone comes to claim them. They're still on the books, after all, and there's probably not a tremendous amount of oversight. Or maybe I'm not remembering that, and just imagining that it should be so. In any case, there's a lot of jurisdictions that aren't going to bat an eye if you bring a ghoul carcass (or a vampire carcass, for that matter) in for the bounty, SIN or no SIN. Friends of the Infected might blow a gasket, but them's the breaks. PETA still gets all up in arms if you kill a wolf in self-defense; why should they have all the fun?

This would refer to the feral Infected. Loup-Garou, Dzoo-Noo-Qua, Goblins and to a degree Banshees are hard to consider sapient, and so are many Ghouls. I suppose they check whether you filfill basic sapience premises before labeling you a citizen, dear child of the night.

Feral Infected still make up the majority of them, I'd think, especially HMHVV-II Infected and Infected ghouls. And it's hardly going to matter to the guy who wants to shoot you in the face for the bounty. So even places with "Infected rights" groups don't afford citizenship, or even basic rights, to everyone.

There's the matter of bred ghouls, second-generation and beyond, but that's probably best left to another discussion.

Man, I get off on some tangents. Bad Patrick!! Bad, bad, bad!

'Poor' is what comes to mind reading this, yes. Pity the RW stuff wasn't used for RC.

Thanks; I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Pity no consideration was paid to the fact these PC should be received with hostility by any sane human (meta)human being.

You assume they're not greeted with hostility. I don't see that as actually being an issue; all the Infected-rights flak to the contrary, there's an assload of hostility in the everyday citizenry, and it's probably even worse amongst the shadow community. Human nature dies hard, and it's going to take a lot more than some resolution somewhere to make it go away.

Pity they were forced into the setting with a nonsense UN initiative like AI and Neo clones.

A UN resolution/initiative that has not, as of Running Wild, actually passed, if I recall correctly (I asked during the writing of things, but as with many things, I've slept since then). There's a lot that was "theoretical" about the UN resolutions. The beauty of UN resolutions is that they're unenforceable even if they do get passed.

[Falconer]

Playable infected are one of the worst decisions ever. They should have been left as a GM-only threat like the other toxics.

Especially with the nature of the infection (and the rediculous disease rules) making it a miracle that we still have shadowrun instead of Left4Dead. If anything those need fixed and retconned, not the status of infected in the world.



IMO: ghouls in sanctioned ghettos might get criminal sins provided they stay in their corner and accept the scraps tossed to them. But anywhere outside the bounty should be free and easy to collect.

Any PC who comes along should NOT be surprised and the GM should actively encourage the other players to off them on the principle and get the money.

[Patrick Goodman]

It is completely idiotic to give the infected rights and the protection of the law. These are things that kill and eat people, or infect you with a disease.

Or both. Sometimes at once.

While in a harsh future they are given the right to infect and kill people. Why? Seriously? It makes no sense what so ever, it boggles my mind with how stupid it is. Has the world (and education system) really gone that far downhill that people don't realize getting eatten or turned into a zombie is a BAD thing?

Pending further research (and I need to do it, but this whole "life" thing keeps getting in the way), I have to say that, while there's a push to allow the Infected certain rights of citizenship, it appears to me that most of the Infected rights people have in mind are ghoul rights, mostly because of the massive publicity regarding the Cabrinit refuge since the Bug City incident.

Yes, education has gotten that bad (even today it's that bad, and imagine what it's like 60 years down the line), and the PR machine of the 2060s and 2070s makes modern day PR look like hand-drawn ads on a bulletin board at a second-rate supermarket. So yeah, some of the people might be fooled...but not all, or even most, of them.

[Rasumichin]

Where does it state that infected have the right to infect or kill anyone?

A vampire completely draining a victim would still be considered a murderer, draining an unwilling subject or infecting someone could also constitute criminal charges.

I see no reason to believe otherwise, unless you are obsessed with making up strawman arguments.
Unless there is an official source for such statements (hint : there is none), it's not beneficial to the discussion at all to make such assumptions.

[Patrick Goodman]

That needn't be the case in your personal SR setting, but it will be in mine, by-golly. I can see the brouhaha triggered by the Infected rights movements not only creating a shitstorm for them, but backlashing on other entities (like Emergents and Sapients, even some metahumans) and setting back civil rights for them.

Only if I'm supremely lucky. I do see something like this happening, though...just might not be how I'd do it. We'll have to see.

I thought it was odd they presented the Infected as playable characters in the Runner's Companion. For that matter, I don't like drakes much either. But I don't object to them being in the book. As a GM I can simply say they're off-limits as PCs in my games; that's easy for me to do. It would be a lot harder for some GM to have to create rules for PC Wendigo if he's willing to allow them and a player really wants to play one.

And it seems to me like this is the most sensible approach. You don't like them...just don't allow them as options in your game. Problem solved. It's how I do it.

[Patrick Goodman]

Vampires on the other hand can go to the local blood bank for one half of their dinner, and their HMHVV variant is less communicable. But the other half of their nutrition requires them to do permanent damage to a sapient being, which is hardly allowed in any jurisdiction. Another problem is that HMHVV I is extremely rare, which means vampires simply do not have the lobby of Ghouls. Probably even many ghouls have adopted a kind of "kiss up, kick down" mentality: "we are good upstanding citizens, the problem are those filthy bloodsuckers"

Ding ding ding! QFT.

[Patrick Goodman]

Not a bad way to look at a portion of the infected wannabees.

You know, I really wish I'd thought of that when I was writing the piece in RW, and I really wish I'd had the space to explore it if I had thought of it. There's probably a certain segment of the Infected-wannabe culture that thinks just exactly like that: It's better to be a monster and have some power and get out of my current situation. They may not give much thought to what they're becoming, and what they're doomed to, but there's probably a segment of the population that thinks it.

Thanks to you and Brazilian_Shinobi for pointing that one out to me. I'll need to file it away for later.

[Patrick Goodman]

I thought they also require Essence on their meal, don't? If so, ok, Ghouls are "less" dangerous then vamps, but HMHVV is not the same thing as HIV (although I can see where the inspiration came from)

Ghouls do not drain Essence. They have to eat metahuman flesh, which is bad enough in most camps, but no, they don't have to have Essence along with said metahuman flesh. HMHVV-III behaves a lot differently than HMHVV-I.

[Patrick Goodman]

*: OK, a sidebar in RC says that clones and even bioware are suitable food, but since this contradicts everything else we have heard about HMHVV (why would Big D promise a reward for ersatz ghoul food if simple vat-grown organs do the job?) I just ignore that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I really, really, really want to do something about that sidebar. Like erase it from the timestream.