Dumpshock Forums > HMHVV infected Characters and the Law

Help - Search - Members - Calendar

Full Version: HMHVV infected Characters and the Law

Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun

Pages: 1, 2

WyldKnight

Jan 11 2011, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (Sengir @ Jan 11 2011, 04:15 AM)

And how's that different from a guy who kills people for money?

Depends on who he kills. A mercenary attitude isn't a bad thing as long as it is backed by a strong code of ethics. You can say "I only killed bad people" and while you're still a murderer at least in some ways the world is a better place for it. You can't say "I showed that child love" and get the same affect. Maybe you did show him love but you also scarred him for life and took advantage of him. Big difference.

Sephiroth

Jan 11 2011, 05:02 PM

QUOTE (Charon @ Jan 10 2011, 08:24 PM)

A team of runner could never be as careful as scientist if they had a ghoul partners. Imagine that; you are wounded, your ghoul buddy grab you to pull you to safety... Oh, F**k. You are contaminated. It's virtually impossible not to become infected sooner or later if you work in close proximity with something this virulent in the context of a runner's life.

Until a cure is found, equal rights for Ghoul is complete non-sense. If they have their own nation (Asamondo), that's one thing, but when they live in a non-infected city, the risk they pose is staggering, and giving them rights and SIN is astoundingly moronic. Containment is a bare minimum response.

While you make good points, I think it's important not to overlook the ethical and social issues affiliated with second- and third-generation ghouls, who are not in fact contagious. I seem to remember something in the 6WA where the entire Olympics team from Asamando, who had done nothing wrong, was killed purely out of fear and ghoul-prejudice, despite the fact that all of the ghouls on the team were non-infectious. I severely doubt that their being cannibals by nature can truly and completely justify that.

Manunancy

Jan 11 2011, 05:47 PM

One important point to keep in mind about ghouls is that if I remember the fluff right, the majority of them are either insane and/or brain damaged enough from the change that they are, for most intent and purpose, nearly animalistic man-eating biohazard. Add to it the high infectiousness of their HMHVV strain and it's going to be a serious hurt for the acceptance of their saner brethern.

Plenty of peoples will consider putting down ghouls on sight as on par with shooting rabid animals, and do it before waiting for it to come close enough for talk - which isn't distanced enough from 'close enough to jump on ME' for comfort. Especially considering there is no way to tell on sight wether a given ghoul is contagious or not.

Sengir

Jan 11 2011, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (WyldKnight @ Jan 11 2011, 04:28 PM)

Depends on who he kills. A mercenary attitude isn't a bad thing as long as it is backed by a strong code of ethics. You can say "I only killed bad people"

Which is exactly what Charon said: Nobody thinks he is a bad guy, according to their own code of ethics. Provisions against murder murder have been codified since the Codex of Hammurabi and Abrahamic mythology. And taking payment makes it even worse, performing crimes for hire is almost universally considered an aggravating factor.

A contract killer probably considers himself a moral person, but what he does is still near the top of the judical highscore.

WyldKnight

Jan 11 2011, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (Sengir @ Jan 11 2011, 10:25 AM)

Which is why I tolerate contract killers more then pedophiles. A pedophile can't say something like that. What he does isn't right in anyway whereas a killers targets can clean things up a bit. I literally give not a crap if I hear of some bastard criminal getting killed. I only care if civilians get caught in the cross fire.

Anyway I agreed with what he said for the most part except the justification part. I don't know a lot but I do know some people who justify the wrong things they do because apparently, unlike the vast majority of the world according to Charon, they aren't that pathetic.

Yerameyahu

Jan 11 2011, 07:52 PM

Everyone is entitled to their own view, but the one you've described is pretty immature. It's also quite common, and presumably still is in 2070. *shrug*. It doesn't answer the question raised above; the pedophile almost certainly thinks he's not evil, for example.

For vampires (/etc.), the 'I only kill bad guys' approach has certainly been used many times, and it's often opposed by the 'vigilantism is illegal/wrong' counterpoint. Questions of justice are hardly simple, and there are many different ways that different characters could see it. The basic point (already made above) is that the players need to make the group work together, by taking these concerns into account. If they don't, it's bad player-ing *and* bad roleplaying.

Sengir

Jan 11 2011, 08:29 PM

QUOTE (WyldKnight @ Jan 11 2011, 08:47 PM)

Which is why I tolerate contract killers more then pedophiles. A pedophile can't say something like that.

Of course pedophiles can, and they do. There's nothing wrong with pedophilia, dozens of old high cultures did it, the children want it, even the trauma of the victims is rationalized away - it's not the rape which traumatizes, it's the outrage which does.

QUOTE

whereas a killers targets can clean things up a bit. I literally give not a crap if I hear of some bastard criminal getting killed. I only care if civilians get caught in the cross fire.

Marvel called, they want their fantasies back...

And speaking of morality and ghouls - shenanigans with dead people are not acceptable today. But historically, blood, fingers and other frankenstein remedies have been in high demand. Pharmacies were still selling "mummy powder" as a cure-all at the start of the 20th century. So who knows what people in the 2070s, after several occasions where bodies piled in the streets (or got up again), think about adequate treatment of the dead...

Charon

Jan 11 2011, 11:21 PM

QUOTE (WyldKnight @ Jan 11 2011, 02:47 PM)

Which is why I tolerate contract killers more then pedophiles. A pedophile can't say something like that.

Of course they can! All you are saying is that you'll buy an assassin's justification but not a pedophile. It doesn't change the fact that neither see themselves as evil.

Still, your refusal to accept any justification for a pedophile is a common response. Just as I'd expect refusal to accept any justification for a cannibal (one who carries a viciously virulent disease and is bound by his hunger to spread it) would be pretty damn common.

You see my point now? Most people, including an assassin, would likely see a ghoul the same way you see a pedophile. Especially if they have seen the results of a ghoul attack.

WyldKnight

Jan 12 2011, 02:21 AM

QUOTE (Charon @ Jan 11 2011, 04:21 PM)

You see my point now? Most people, including an assassin, would likely see a ghoul the same way you see a pedophile. Especially if they have seen the results of a ghoul attack.

I said I agreed with that part. What I didn't agree with was that everyone tries to justify what they do. That is what I thought was wrong.

Yerameyahu

Jan 12 2011, 02:23 AM

It's probably more accurate to say 'nearly everyone'; there's always that possibility of the willing monsters, at least on the surface level. The vampire Lestat, certain modern serial killers, etc. are examples. Still, the other side is much more common.

Patrick Goodman

Jan 24 2011, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (Sephiroth @ Jan 4 2011, 08:56 AM)

Running Wild has an entire chapter of debatable pertinence on the Infected.

In what ways is it debatable?

Patrick Goodman

Jan 24 2011, 09:51 PM

QUOTE (Charon @ Jan 10 2011, 06:24 PM)

If you read Running Wild, you discover that HMHVV III is ridiculously virulent and easy to spread. We always knew it was contagious but those SR4 stats are crazy! Simple contact is enough if the victim has open sores and it's almost impossible to resist the disease. And it's still a fact that the majority of ghouls are ferals AND can breed. Simple logic tells me that if you don't put them down at very fast rate, the whole world would become ghoulified in a matter of a few generations. Societal tolerance of ghouls flies in the face of common sense.

Even in the fluff, we learn that both of the Kriegers (the scientist couple who first identified the strain) eventually became contaminated despite their best precautions. A team of runner could never be as careful as scientist if they had a ghoul partners. Imagine that; you are wounded, your ghoul buddy grab you to pull you to safety... Oh, F**k. You are contaminated. It's virtually impossible not to become infected sooner or later if you work in close proximity with something this virulent in the context of a runner's life.

In my defense, I didn't write the disease stats for HMHVV (any of them). It should have been a much more easily resisted Injection vector, IMO, for Krieger.

The biggest problem with Krieger is the conditions in which ghouls live; there's all manner of filth and other Infected material that someone would come in contact with. That's why Dr. McAllister mentioned it being so virulent in the fluff. I should mention that he's not always right, either.

Sephiroth

Jan 24 2011, 10:22 PM

QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Jan 24 2011, 05:40 PM)

In what ways is it debatable?

The fact that it focuses much more on the HMHVVirus than the Infected themselves, and all that entails. How personality might shift upon being infected, how all the types of Infected view and interact with each other, info on the actual Infected social groups like the GLL, Tamanous, etc. - all this is mostly absent from the chapter. The chapter itself is solid and helpful enough to a GM, who can use HMHVV as he or she sees fit, but it is not as helpful to someone wishing to play an Infected character. I'm not saying the chapter is bad, just that its relevance to players is debatable.

Patrick Goodman

Jan 24 2011, 10:38 PM

Okay, I can see that. Even concede it, really. I wanted to go into things in more depth, and might be proposing an ebook one of these days, to cover some of this from that perspective. I didn't have the time or the word count to do everything I wanted to do, and I knew the article wasn't going to be what everybody was wanting, so I erred on the side of the kind of info I was wanting.

Sorry. I do appreciate the polite criticism, though.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.