QUOTE (D2F @ Apr 22 2010, 02:12 AM)

1.) An Object takes damage as well.
Yes, but the point I made after my first paragraph was that the amount of damage it takes to kill a person is usually far less than the amount of damage it takes to actually, physically
destroy their body. I mean, hell, theoretically, a hacker who gets brainfried by black ic is going to leave a full and complete corpse to use as a (relatively) sturdy meat puppet even though they've taken their full physical damage track plus overflow.
QUOTE
2.) The rules rquire a suffiecientyl whole object, so the GM could even rules that the freshly departed don't qualify in the first place.
Yes, but in the case of a corpse, we're not talking about something that's subject to biological processes anymore, so even in the case of a hardass GM "sufficiently whole" probably allows for a bit of maiming. Personally, I'd allow it if the body could still maintain skeletal integrity and had at least one soundly attatched limb to drag itself by (although spirits know why you'd want a corps cadavre in that condition).
QUOTE
3.) Nothing in the text states that the damage stops being there, when the Boject transfers from the living state to the inanimate.
No, but a lot of it simply wouldn't matter anymore. A sliced-open carotid artery is a pretty big problem for the holistic integrity of a living being. A sliced-open carotid artery to a shambling meat-mound means that it's a shambling meat-mound that happens to be getting itself wet. Similarly, since the spirit is animating the limbs, muscular damage is going to be less of an impairment to mobility and general functionality than it would be for a living person.
Personally, I think the corpse would best be treated like a golem, one made out of flesh and armor rather than stone or earth, with the GM deducting an ad-hoc amount of damage depending on the condition it was in when possessed. That's my two cents, anyway.