As I have said before, the fact that you KNOW about the vampire and can tell everyone could become a bargaining chip. Vamps have enemies.

Hey, you could even try to contact the Vatican or search for any descendants of Dr. Van Helsing...

Maybe it's in everybody's interest to keep things quiet, maybe she just wants you to do something for her...

Plus, it would help if you KNEW why did the vampire take your friend in the first place.

Information, information, information. What you don't know can kill you, and that's especially true for shadowrunners. Boy, I would love to play a decker in your game!

Sorry, hacker, age shows!

Cheers,

Max

I don't know about negotiation with this situation. It doesn't sound like they got a ransom call within a viable space of time (24 hours). That doesn't bode well for the kidnapee.

Well, right there is a job for your hacker...I mean, intercept some communication traffic and spoof a call coming from the dispatch and get some LoneStar on premises yourself. That would create enough of a distraction to work you way in to save your friend as well.

Finding a local anti-vamp group could work as well. I just think getting more people there, in general, is going to help a lot. Put the onus back on the vampire (ie, GM) to figure out how to handle things. If you have a couple squads of LoneStar and your ready for action team there, I would have to think things would go differently the second time around!

Lone Star may not do anything. Being a vampire is not, in and of itself, a crime. If she were a poor downscale vamp that would be one thing, but for a rich upscale vamp she'd have to be draining her neighbors without their consent, or worse.

This, of course, depends on the flavor of our game. Whether or not vampires have civil rights or are treated as animals is a question that is up for debate, as well.

Martin DeVries is the guy you want to talk to if you have vampire problems. He hates the bloodsuckers so much that he intentionally become one so that he can kill them better. That said, he does tend to follow his own agenda and probably has biger fish to fry.

True, they may not do anything, but the idea is that their hacker can get LoneStar involved in a number of creative ways and the whole point is to run a distraction and act while the known vampire is reacting to the diversion.

There is very little reason to quarantine a vampire. The only way to spread the disease is to kill with essence drain. Vampires can survive without killing and most individuals have no need for the first five points of their essence. Heck, most individuals would pay good money to get drained by a vampire, so even fears of vampire predation would be low.

If they have enough money to afford a house in an A neighborhood, then they have rights. Barrens squatters are the ones without rights. If your check clears you can eat babies in front of an officer and he'll ask if you want any condiments.

Yes, definitely. I mean I'm completely, and utterly okay with Ghouls eatting human flesh, it is an actual physical *need* that they don't have a choice about. They are afflicted, Vamps are a grey area really. However eatting human flesh without need is pretty much saying you are sick bastard that needs to be exterminated.

Question, where does the line get drawn? At your own 'race'? Meta-humanity? "Sapient" Creatures? "Pets"? Anything with a face? (Remember that cannibalism as a form of respecting the dead has been practiced in some cultures on Earth.)

Would the same ban apply if the meat were cloned?

Is killing someone for food any worse then killing someone for their organs?

In fact is killing someone for their organs/food worse then killing someone because they are in your way or has something that you want/need?

Personally, for both me and the characters I play, the line is drawn at "innocents and non-combatants"

To put that in more explicit terms, unconscious guard? no kill. OC enforcer? shoot. Child? Anyone want to mess with it, they have to go through me. Tamanous? Expect catastrophic additions to be made to their skull's cross ventilation.

Cops are getting into a grey area... if I know the cop and know he's dirty/corrupt/evil, yeah, I'd do a public service and take out some trash. But if I don't know him or I know that he's a good guy that just so happens to be shooting at me, I'll pull out the gel rounds.

But, yeah, while those are my guidelines, I go on a case by case basis, judging on their actions and, most importantly, their intent.

in terms of the case of the cannibalistic restaurant, there's no need, there's no reason... just some sickos getting their kinks out. Ergo, both their actions and their intent are bad, which means that it's time for the ultra-loaded cannibals in question to come down with a bad case of dead, and for the restaurant owners to get 9mm brain hemorrhages.

What about unconcious guards who got a good look at you during a run where (like most) you really, really didn't need to be seen?

Yes, the restaurant isn't doing this as a rather weird religious practice. Which again is a rather grey area for me This exploitation of the poor to a degree that old social revolutionaries would have once used it as a metaphor. These guys are taking "A Modest Proposal" literally. That is all kinds of screwed up. Also clonal flesh is I suppose alright, but given cultural taboos probabely means the person who really wants that is a bit deviant.

Ok, I guess what I trying to ask is this...

Outside of Self Defense and possibly Revenge should the reason for a murder matter?

Are any of these situations worse then the others?

A) Killing Jane Wageslave because she saw you and might be able to identify you later?

B) Killing Jane Wageslave because she has just walked in on you and is about to trigger an alarm that would bring the heat down?

C) Killing Jane Wageslave because you need a chip that has been implanted inside her?

D) Killing Jane Wageslave because someone wants to send a message to her husband?

E) Killing Jane Wageslave because someone wants to eat her liver with a side of onion?

F) Killing Jane Wageslave because Mr Johnson's daughter will die unless she gets one of her vital organs?

G) Killing Jane Wageslave because she has taken out loans from some very bad people and is now refusing to pay?

---

The reason I'm asking is because in the end run, Jane is just as dead if she was in the wrong place at the wrong time as she is if your Johnson's real name is Mr. Lector. And unless the canibal restaurant serves its dishes still alive then in the end all they really are is committing murder.

And in a game where you are a very bad man who shoots people in the face for money why is it worse to kill Jane Wageslave then it is to kill Joe Guard just because Joe carries a gun? After all you are the one who is forcing Joe into a situation where he might have to shoot you, not the other way around.

Well obviously wet work is generally not considered good. However its most likely less evil to kill someone and take there organ for one very simple reason. You *need* your organs. You don't need to eat someones liver. However end of the day killing in all of those categories is pretty much evil. Though still due to it being almost completely unneccesary the liver eatting is pretty damn evil, and so probabely wins.

Fair enough Serial_Peacemaker, but then what about the difference between Jane Wageslave and Joe Guard? Why should it be considered any less "evil" to kill Joe just because he has a gun?

I never made the argument one was morally superior to another. Obviously both are just poor saps doing their jobs. I was simply stating that eatting another human being simply because you want to see what it is like, is pretty much beyond the pale.

Ok fair enough bibliophile20 but I'll ask you the same question I asked Serial_Peacemaker, why is killing Jane Wageslave any less "evil" then killing Joe Guard just because Joe happens to have a gun?


<<<<<>>>>>

If the question is Joe Guard vs. Jane Wageslave, eventually the question of Jack Soldier will come into play. From a most gut-level response, there's a difference between killing somebody in the heat of the moment and killing somebody in cold blood, and putting a few rounds into Joe Guard is less about specifically wanting him dead and more about generally wanting him to stop shooting in your general direction.

Of course, this helps to clarify that there are two general sorts of 'runners out there. The first sort would gladly commit murder or morally equivalent acts if the price were right, the other sort generally has nonlethal attacks handy for inconvenient bystanders. The question might be raised why the former type would become shadowrunners in the first place, to which I'm afraid the only real answers are of a metagame nature.

Of course, people who would gladly commit murder if the price was right could make a good living as corporate executives. Only those with some moral values are so alienated by the system that they must turn to a life of crime.

Touche'

The thing about ghouls is that they have humanized them steadily from first ed, when they were mindless cannibals, through now, when they're funny lookin bald people with weird tastes. Depending on the time frame you're talking about you may be completely right. For instance, the ghouls in Bug City (2nd ed) kept pens full of live humans for future consumption. By 3rd ed (they haven't really gotten around to covering ghouls in 4th) there'd be about a 50/50 chance of getting let go and getting 'et.

I was quite aware of that. I was not aware of your own heritage. Prejudice against a fictional people is not as bad as prejudice against real people, of course, but it is still prejudice. The whole "ghouls eat people" thing was spun out of proportion by hatemongers in the SR world.

Feral ghouls might kill a person for food. Like any animal, they are most likely to do so if they are hungry and have no easier or more immediate food prospects. If they have a steady supply of rotting meat from a nearby graveyard or a kind benefactor, then they probably wouldn't bother.

The comparison is valid because, aside from the occasional feral pack, SR canon does tend to show ghouls cowering in ghettos and hoping that angry mobs won't come in and kill them. In particular, the old bounties led to the wholesale slaughter of innocent ghouls, including children, be profit-seeking mercenaries and shadowrunners.

If you look at the numbers, it should be possible to live in peace with ghouls. Enough people die of natural causes to feed the hunger of a large ghoul population and having them eaten is a heck of a lot better than having them come back to like as malevolent zombies. The feral ghouls can be domesticated. If they are well-fed they are no more difficult to deal with than any other mentally challenged individual. The functional ghouls can still make great contributions to society. The current issues with ghouls are all due to irrational fear, stereotypes, and hatred.


Yes, Wendigos are far more likely to eat him alive. They like to eat cannibals and start large secret cannibal cults just for that purpose. However, if his soul isn't already tainted enough for the Wendigo's taste then it would be likely that it would just add him to the cult and he'd continue to eat people alive for quite some time before the Windigo gets to him.

Unfortunately, there is no way to be sure without going Hannibal on him yourself.

There are always complaints on DS about inadequate magic security, so if you follow Hyzmarca's thinking, domesticated ghouls might make very good anti-mage security as they're sapient and dual natured, so can spot projecting mages and sustained spells. Easy to employ too; just promise them protection from ghoul hunters and supply them with carrion.

Not sure which megas would want to employ them though. Possibly Evo, but probably not the Japanacorps.

So which way is it then. Vamps have no rights, or they have rights. The big questions is, are vamps considered metahumans under the law? Could I kill a vamp and would it be considered murder? How much are they really protected under the law? Is this something covered in the books or are we left to sort things out ourself?

Presumably you're a SINless Shadowrunner, in which case the point is moot. You even wander into an A class neighbourhood and get caught (presumably having stolen someone elses identity) and you'll be dissapeared someplace unpleasant.

No, the point is very interesting.

Someone without a SIN is still a person, just not a citizen - legally speaking.
Which pretty much makes them stateless, leaving them without civil rights, but not human rights.

A vampire, on the other hand, is not a person, because the person the body belonged to died... and the now existing creature is not human nor recognized as a person by the UCAS (some states do recognize vampires as persons, but it's about Seattle, so UCAS law applies.)
And as the vampire is neither human, nor a person, it has neither human rights, nor can it be a citizen, loosing it's civil rights, too.

Basically, a vampire has about as much rights as a dog.
A stray dog that feeds on humans.

At the end of the day, if you maim a vampire, it's not murder nor selfdefense - it's destruction of property... hopefully 'in a state of emergency' - because otherwise, your biggest problem will be the family of the corpse, sueing you for compesation for defacing the remains of their loved one... which will be costly in the UCAS.

Except that destruction of property is usually a far worse crime than murder is, in the Sixth World.

If the vampire has enough wealth to support a comfortable lifestyle in an A neighborhood then its existence is far more valuable than the existences of most SINless individuals. If she survives by eating a barrens bum every couple of moths then the police will not care. If she kidnaps and tortures a SINless Shadowrunner then the police will not care. And if Lone Star finds out that they killed such a wealthy individual who was good for the economy then the murder may not go to trial but will certainly get the death penalty because the rich live by a different set of rules even if they aren't recognized as being metahuman.


Even then, there is a big question as to the nature of the "death" of an infected individual. While it may be actual death it may just be a form of suspended animation. The fact that essence is reduced to 0 means nothing. Cyberzombies have subzero essence yet remain alive.

Hold on, wait... vampires are dead people? Since when? A lot of myth and legend and some second rate novels are not a valid defence for assault in a court of law when you ram a wooden stake through someone's heart. Has it ever been stated that vampires are dead, let alone legally? I can imagine the court scene now:

Lawyer: I put it to you, Mr. Aziz, that you are in fact dead.
Defendent: I plead not guilty.

Even if being a vampire did mean your late victim was already dead when you killed him, you'd still have to prove that if it went to court.

Defendent: I didn't kill him! He was already dead when I shot him in self defense!
Prosecutor: Riiiigght...

But, unless the PCs are SINners they're not even going to get to court.

Actually, essence is a measurable quantifiable part of a character, IC. The fact that they can measure essence is why deaths from too much cyberware are rare. While no one understands the exact nature of Essence, its existence and importance is considered medical fact in the Sixth World. A doctor can and will put essence loss as the cause of death.

Although a doctor might not label it as such, I think a wizard would, because whatever Essense may or may not be, a mage can measure it, and I think the the rules lean towards science also being able to measure Essense with fair precision as well otherwise I don't see people being able to reliably cyber themselves down to 0.01 Essense.

I don't think people can reliably cyber themselves down to 0.1 essence.

I suspect the discovery of "essence" took the following route:

The invention of cyberware slowly brought about the cyber-craze, where people would undergo voluntary surgery for physical enhancements. Cyberware installation continued to rise in popularity and more drastic surgeries were undertaken.

Corporate research into creating super cyber-soldiers revealed that extensive installation of cyberware could result in the irreversible shut down of biological systems and death.

Reports of a correlation between cyberware and loss of magical ability began to circulate, followed by reports where magicians had completely burned out.

As corporate findings about cybersurgery deaths and magic loss became more common. People began to worry that cyberware was damaged the "essence" of the soul, and reputable doctors began refusing to install cyberware on already heavily modified individuals.

In the corporate world today, voluntary cyber-modification is less common and many hospitals refuse to perform elective cybersurgery on people who are already extensively modified (essence loss of 3-4). Naturally, much of this is simply a public face for malpractice purposes. Less scrupulous doctors would be quite willing to perform underground operations. They also use the essence loss research as an excuse to encourage people to purchase more expensive alpha or beta-grade cyberware.

I highly doubt there is a doctor in the world that can reliably calculate essence.

Dude, a single assensing test can tell you a person's exact essence if you get enough successes. If you don't get enough the first time, you can make another test. Anyone with Astral Perception can exactly quantify essence. There is a reason why Awakened doctors earn a premium and it isn't just the Heal Spell.

You know saying Vampires are dead because the process that makes them kills them doesn't seem quite right. For example you can be dead on a table, and get revived. I always took the vampire thing to be similar. You get taken right to the edge, and brought back. So I can see the argument that if a vampire is dead, then so is a person that drowned, and then was revived.

Except that a person who had 'died' only to be brought back via medical technology doesn't need to eat other people's souls in order to stay 'alive'. If nothing else, the 'ick' factor will stack the odds against the vampire in proving that it is still a person and not a monster.

Given that the astral world is a place of emotion, it seems silly for the character to read: this person has 0.1 essence. Sure, that's the information the player gets, but to the character it means: "this aura has so little essence that it could not possibly get closer to the brink of death without stepping over."

A magical doctor might be able to conclude a person with .5 essence can withstand another minor procedure, but in the doctor's mind it isn't going to be "this person has .5 essence, so we can install another .4 essence-worth of cyberware." And I still think the fear of malpractice for that slim possibility of being wrong will discourage many, if not most doctors, from agreeing to the surgery.

You could also use semi-ED reasoning for it. Cyberware in that game is Blood Magic, specifically Blood Charms, and they cause something called Depaterning. Basically depaterning meant that your pattern was weakening and this effect was noticeable on the astral.

So your person with Essence 0.1 would mean that the character looks very faint and stretched on the astral.