Metabolism of a Vampire, Does Kissing make you puke? Options

[Irion]

@Brazilian_Shinobi
The main differance is, that they are actually in no way a danger for the human race.
And give them some forrest land? What the hell? Their existance alone is probably interesting enough.

They could in general be integrated or completly segregated from the metahuman society.

If you go about in morally, you need to justify why you are acting this way and not any way else.

The point is, people are not really known for doing the right thing, to any time.

Thats why this "flowerchild stand" on infected annoyes the crap out of me.

Metahumanity is not discribed as a me second society. In no freaking way. It is not a society of pacifists neither.

[Glyph]

The trouble with "rights" is that they are purely a philosophical construct. You can say that people have an inalienable right to life and freedom, or whatever, but in actual reality, people get oppressed or killed all the time. Society is what basically assigns who has the "right to live", but society is just another social construct that individual people may participate in, or obey, to various degrees. So even if, say, a liberal administration replaces Brackhaven and decrees that ghouls have certain basic rights, there will still be people who will decide, on an individual basis, that ghouls should all die.

If you compare human beings to other animals, then look at how prey animals behave. They congregate together for mutual protection against predators, and tend to attack potential predators whenever the odds favor them (set an owl loose in the daylight, and see how the other birds behave). So for humanity to try to wipe out the infected would hardly be "unnatural".

[CanRay]

Our society and culture is all that separates us from the Barbarians at the gates, who have their own society and culture of being Barbarians at the Gates...

[Hamsnibit]

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?

Bear a SIN, have money, be an obedient, constructive member of society, buy anything you need.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[CanRay]

Bear a SIN, have money, be an obedient, constructive member of society, buy anything you need.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Still die from getting shot by a SINless Pink Mohawk Shadowrunner. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The UCAS and CAS still have good-sized portions of the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution as part of their own laws, so it would come from there. (There's probably a few pieces of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the UCAS Constitution as well.).

[Mercer]

Thats why this "flowerchild stand" on infected annoyes the crap out of me.

I'm probably as pro-infected as anyone, but I wouldn't describe my stand as flowerchildish. Like I said up thread, the disagreement seems to be between those who believe that infected are ravening monsters and those who believe not all infected are ravening monsters. In my game, I can use vamps and ghouls and the like as soul-sucking monstrosities, but I can also use them as "just folk".

So my question to the anti-vamps still goes, why is having one type of infected (only monsters) better than having a bunch of types of infected (monsters are people and people are monsters)?

[Yerameyahu]

Exactly. And I know I've said this at least three times: there is no 'flowerchild', there is only 'interested in complexity instead of easy, oversimplified situations'.

It is *realistic* that there would be rights movements for all the weird things in SR, including sapient Infected. The unrealistic position is saying there's not (and it's contrary to the canon and SR4 rulebooks).

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

You could feed the essence of feral ghouls and ppl with a death sentence to vampires

[hobgoblin]

Makes me wonder if it is the other infected that is keeping the ghoul population in check.

[ggodo]

OOH! Plot Hook!

[Yerameyahu]

Makes sense. Is there any hint that vampires/etc. can't feed on Infected? Apart from the Wendigo, of course. I could see there being such a rule, but I don't remember seeing one now that you mention it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Paul]

I don't understand why this has to be an either or siutation? Why can't some infected metahumans be mindless, feral creatures (Which makes them none too different than a lot of uninfected people in a lot of cases) and others be normal people facing adversity? I mean as a GM i use what's best for the story I want to tell. The world of Shadowrun is big enough and diverse enough for both sides to be right, and more importantly OOC: useful. For me as a Game Master it's about keeping as many options open to make the game fun, not removing potential plot hooks, or avenues that could lead to fun for my group.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Because a feral ghoul is as sapient as a smart dog at best. While only really mentally-ill people behave like rabid dogs.
People are usually locked down somewhere aside from the rest of society, rabid dogs are put down. Choose which one feral ghouls resemble most.

@Irion
Say that to Russia, I think they would disagree with you. *Looks ate Yakut*

I've played a character who would kill ghouls on sight. I would no go out of my way to kill one, but if I ever spotted one during a tough situation, I would shoot first and ask questions later.

[Hamsnibit]

Makes sense. Is there any hint that vampires/etc. can't feed on Infected? Apart from the Wendigo, of course. I could see there being such a rule, but I don't remember seeing one now that you mention it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The essence drain power just requires a physical sapient being in RAW.
Therefore shapeshifters, sasquatches and other infectes should work.
Note that infecteds still count as metahumans as they can be targetet by spells restricted to metahumans (slay orc, elf etc.).

Another thing on the whole essence drain topic:
Renfield (Drug in Running Wild i think) provides 1w6 essence per use and need 1 essence to be created thus it would provide an infinte essence loop for vampires and banshees and their happy mook. And the best thing is : you feel fucking damn good for the whole week the stuff lasts.

Anybody up to feeding a loving vampire? Think of it : the drain essence power intensifies the emotion you have while being drained. image being drained while a hot banshee chick rides your lap and after a long night you just take your shot of renfield and bang you are filled up with essence again.
Aint that bad, huh? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Paul]

While only really mentally-ill people behave like rabid dogs.

Come spend a day with me at work. I know plenty perfectly rational people, who are violent and not mentally ill. In the end people are arguing their personal preferences.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

They might be violent. I don't disagree, but I'm talking about mentally-ill people with a condition that makes them violent, not someone who resorts to violent to get what they need.

[snowRaven]

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.

Sounds like a fun character; there are tons of possibilities for someone like that in a shadowrun game. However, only some (possibly most) Infected are monsters in the same sense that Invae, Wraiths and Horrors are. All of them (along with some other critters and types of humans; blood mages, toxics, insect shamans, shedim...to name a few) would be excellent targets for a 'monster hunter'. However, such a character works 'best' in games where both the player and the GM understand that not all of those targets will act like monsters. Most might, but there should really arise moral issues like what we've been discussing here.

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.

I don't really think that Infected are a metaphor for AIDS victims, nor do I care if they are. I'm only basing my view of Infected on in-game, canon material.

The only reason that I've used real-life diseases as examples is to try and make a point: that the Infected ARE humans, albeit diseased, and that taking the stance that they should all be exterminated because they pose a threat is a very inhumane position to take.

For my examples, we can easily substitute VITAS for HMHVV - if there was a new VITAS outbreak, should those proven to be infected just be killed and burned instead of treated and possibly saved? After all, we've seen VITAS kill millions of people on each sweep - a MUCH bigger threat that HMHVV in anything but really long-term scenarios (and very few humans, and even fewer organizations and corporations, consider time-spans beyond a generation or three). So, to save those potential millions of victim, should we kill and burn the VITAS-infected without second thought or due process? Would you kill and burn your sick grandmother because she might infect you and kill you?

Makes sense. Is there any hint that vampires/etc. can't feed on Infected? Apart from the Wendigo, of course. I could see there being such a rule, but I don't remember seeing one now that you mention it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It's even been mentioned specifically that creatures with Esssence Drain can use it against other creatures with Essence Drain. I can't remember if there's a specific mention of this in SR4, however.

I don't understand why this has to be an either or siutation? Why can't some infected metahumans be mindless, feral creatures (Which makes them none too different than a lot of uninfected people in a lot of cases) and others be normal people facing adversity?

Exactly my point. There can be no case made that all Infected are inherently good and innocent. They're not. That's pretty much undisputable fact. Likewise, there is plenty of canon, in-game 'proof' that not all Infected are soulless monsters, and that some of them can have higher morals and better values, and work harder against social injustices, than a large part of metahumanity.

The essence drain power just requires a physical sapient being in RAW.
Therefore shapeshifters, sasquatches and other infectes should work.
Note that infecteds still count as metahumans as they can be targetet by spells restricted to metahumans (slay orc, elf etc.).

Another thing on the whole essence drain topic:
Renfield (Drug in Running Wild i think) provides 1w6 essence per use and need 1 essence to be created thus it would provide an infinte essence loop for vampires and banshees and their happy mook. And the best thing is : you feel fucking damn good for the whole week the stuff lasts.

...and Slay (human) working on vampires is even further proof that they still ARE human, and just victims of a disease.

As far as Renfield goes...Interesting point; I wonder if the case with Renfield being a renewable source of Essence was intentional, or just an oversight? After all, if vampires can create pawns and feed off of them ad infinitum, there would be little reason to chose another method of draining Essence. I'm not sure I like that possibility. Something like that will create just the type of menial vampire-fetish world that Janessa so vehemently hates. Complexity is good in a game world, as well as in the real world.

Now, I can fully understand playing a character who is prejudiced against Infected for one reason or another (and I can come up with many, many reasons) and killing them any chance you get. That's fine, and can create a lot of interesting situations. But I have a hard time understanding why a player would take that stance and apply it to any scenario and any character that comes along; especially when that view so clearly contradicts canon -- to me, that seems like a whole lot of metagaming...

[Paul]

Potato, potatoe.

[snowRaven]

Because a feral ghoul is as sapient as a smart dog at best. While only really mentally-ill people behave like rabid dogs.
People are usually locked down somewhere aside from the rest of society, rabid dogs are put down. Choose which one feral ghouls resemble most.

@Irion
Say that to Russia, I think they would disagree with you. *Looks ate Yakut*

I've played a character who would kill ghouls on sight. I would no go out of my way to kill one, but if I ever spotted one during a tough situation, I would shoot first and ask questions later.

Since a Ghoul is a metahuman, a feral one should be treated as a feral human: apprehended (or be killed while trying to apprehend) by law enforcement and either incarcerated or treated.

If you treat Infected as non-human animals, you also take away their accountibility. After all, can you arrest a dog who rapes a human? One who steals? One who endagers others?

Treat an intelligent, thinking and communicating (metahuman) being as if he has no rights and no obligations, and chances are he or she will do what they can to take advantage of that. But hey, just kill them and forget about it, right?

In all honesty, do you expect anyone who isn't a psychopath or the like to not feel guilty about murdering say, a crying teenage girl pleading for her life while clutching a teddy bear, just because she's injured someone and likely will again? Especially if the person doing the killing normally has a strict moral code about killing? If the killer catches the girl brutally murdering or mutilating someone, that's one thing - I can understand that. But just off-hand murdering her?

Nightmares, and guilt-trips, and issues, oh my!

[Yerameyahu]

After all, if vampires can create pawns and feed off of them ad infinitum, there would be little reason to chose another method of draining Essence

I always assumed this was the point of Renfield… that's why it's called 'Renfield'. It's supposed to allow relatively stable master-slave dynamics (logistically and socially).

[snowRaven]

I always assumed this was the point of Renfield… that's why it's called 'Renfield'. It's supposed to allow relatively stable master-slave dynamics (logistically and socially).

I don't think there was an inherent Essence-well in vampiric pawns in previous editions, though...

One 'Renfield' pawn could supply a handful of vampires with all the Essence they need, forever (unless there's something about the creation of 'Renfield' we don't know of).

At a 'cost' of 4 Essence a month, you receive 4D6 points of Essence that month, which is on average 14 points; enough for the Renfielder, his master, and 8 more vampires. Some months, you'll lose a point, but most you'll go plus-minus zero or gain points.

This would shortly reduce the entire 'vampires prey on humans' debate to one issue: 'is this pawn willing or not?'. Bad idea, IMO. Just as bad as going on a crusade and killing as many Infected as we can muster... =/

[Yerameyahu]

I mean, you can tweak the numbers, or change the side effects, but presumably Renfield *is* fundamentally intended to create long-term servant relationships. It also has its own fun issues with being a drug, being an addiction, etc. I'm not saying the implementation is perfect, but it wouldn't exist and be called Renfield otherwise. Another option is to remove it entirely, of course. Also, screw previous editions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

My preferred implementation would have long-term degenerative effects. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

@snowRaven
That's my question actually. Should feral ghouls be legally treated as mentally-ill, diseased humans or as diseased animals?

[Mercer]

Relevant.

[CanRay]

Relevant.

Where's an AC-130 when you really need one?