Runner Companion notes that only 35 nations around the world afford rights to HMHVV infected characters, and then only to some - what does this mean in real terms, and what nations are those?

I am returning to Shadowrun after about 12 years away from the game, and have convinced my group to give the game a whirl. One of the players has come up with a concept that includes being infected, specifically a vampire. My take was that KE forces on the ground, in Seattle (where we'll be playing for the first little while) would likely react negatively to him, were they to become aware of his Infected status - after all, vamps aren't like ghouls, they can't get their food from the dead that have willed their bodies to be eaten.

It would seem that the hurdles to playing an Infected character will largely depend on the type of game being played and the style of the GM. In a magic heavy game, they are far more likely to be Assensed and thus exposed for what they are (leaving aside any Masking of their aura of course) whereas in a less magical game that risk is far lower. Things like that.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the topic, and in particular any sources that they can point me to for further readings?

I do not know much of the physologie of the infected. But since Nosferato spit out their internal Organs, there have to be differances.
My first guess would be, that it is possible to expose them via infrared.

So it is less dependend from the campaign and more a question of the GM.
Some GMs do not want to bring this kind of drawbacks to their game, unless it leads to pre written story arc.
Others give you a beating if you forget to mention to but on gloves.

Fortunately for your player, assensing is virtually the only thing he has to worry about in terms of things that could expose him. Vampires are physically much harder to spot than ghouls, nosferatu, and the like.

Running Wild has an entire chapter of debatable pertinence on the Infected. According to that chapter, the following nations and corps are friendly to the Infected: Amazonia, Azamando (duh), Aztlan, CalFree, Czech Republic, some country called Euskal Herria, France, the Philippines, Salish-Sidhe COuncil, Yakut, Aztechnology, Cavalier Arms, DeBeers-Omnitech, Draco Foundation, Evo, SK, Wuxing, and ZetaImpChem.

Thanks Sephiroth, that was exactly what I was looking for! Now, to Amazon to find this Running Wild book!

It's been A long time since I posted, I just got the sixth world almanac-It seems now I in the shadowrun metaplot 2070s that the Infected are starting to get Rights; While I agree with some rights Their has to be a treatment or as the Mana Levals rise the whole earth could be HMHVVized-In another thread I saw Ghouls referred to as the New Orks, Have any Ghoulsploitaition Tirds or Sims Come out yet in the 2070s I think Gholesploitation would be just as cool and Groundbreaking as Orxsploitation.

A game wouldn't even have to be magic heavy to spot a vamp. Sporting a Parashield contract is doable for any decent security and that comes with dual natured critters. When Hermes the Hell Hound starts barking at the pale guy and begins firing up his torch then expect some issues.

On the technological side since it says in the description that Vampires hearts slow down. A simple scan of some sort, be it ultrasound or what have you, would show their inhumanely slow heart beat. With the Shedim scares it's not surprising if the security has been trained to report such odd results and to detain the people until they get a better look at them.

to fulfill the mass-murdering sociopathic requirements of being a secret society of toxic mages, our mages hunt down any and all infected as part of our objectives and drain their karma/essence/magic attributes before giving them a merciful chance of rebirth into a higher state of being..

we see killing all infected metahumans as euthanasia .. afterall they are truly infected and living a miserable state of existence.. even being a troll/orc is better than being an infected and to kill them are acts of mercy indeed..

also, we will be fulfilling the havoc toxic requirement of mass-murdering so that humanity can restart afresh.. imagine if every and all infected personnel are wiped off the face of this earth.. wouldn't that cleanse humanity and evolve the state of humanity upwards?

and let's not forget, infected can pass their disease onto unwilling victims very easily.. plus the fact that murdering organizations like Tamous exist to kidnap live victims for the subsistence of the infected.. we would be indeed be doing the SR world a favour and protecting innocent victims by culling all infected...

In my opinion, in a campaign, all the players should be infected or none of them. When all are infected, they all share the themes and you can build around that. If only one is, he'll take much more space then the others because you always must take his conditions in consideration and the poor suckers (pun intended) who plays more mundane characters needs to constantly accomodate him (Work mostly at night, pause during an extended run to help him feed etc.). And if he choses to feed normally on metahumans, he is forcing the hand of every other players to create PCs who will find that acceptable. That can be potentially annoying. Most of the PCs I've ever designed wouldn't be too shy about putting a bullet in the brain of a vampire, especially one that behaves typically.

Personnally, I am dubious of this metaplot trend to have the infected gain too much acceptance. Unless you can find a way to feed them in an entirely artificial fashion, with the cost coming out of their own pocket (SR has precious few welfare states...) and they accept to wear a tag of some sort, I'd expect authorities to keep offering bounties on their head. Even the 'nice' ones are a blight on society as long as they must submit to their dietary requirement. Even fluffy kitch vampires who feed exclusively from blood banks are not exactly kosher; you may not realize this, but feeding a city's population of vampire isn't exactly what a blood bank ressources' are supposed to be dedicated toward... . The fact that they can spread their disease also strongly militate toward agressive containment unless the government decides it'd be perfectly okay if the entire population became infected one day.

Beside, being shunned because of a disease is half their theme (the other being potentially to preserve some humanity if you play them). If they become accepted, they lose much of their use from a plot perspective. When you'll leanrn your sister became a vampire you'll be thinking "That's so cool! Think of what you'll save in cyberware!" instead of being properly horrified.

The plight of an infected who maintained his humanity is meant to be tragic because, as much as may feel sympathy for him, it doesn't change the fact that all effort to 'contain (with lead if necessary)' the disease is still the correct course.

Plus people forget at the end of the Day, Ghouls and Vampires are Predators (no if, buts, and wait a minutes about it), and thier dietary requirements will make them see, at the end of the day, everyone else that is sapient as food when push comes to shove. The whole Anne Rice and Twilight rubbish at the end of the day as allegories on human suffering cover the end result: The things eat people or the remains of people. Period.

Most Sixth Worlders are going to see it this way, given how harsh the place is. The Ghoul and Vampire rights thing is a smoke screen in 4th edition to cash in on the Vampire/Twilight crowd anyway.

My Players have very healthy fear of ghouls after the First in the Dawn series when all they had was a technical, a HMG, sidearms and hatchets between them and being Dinner for Asamondo Ghuls in Lagos.

To counter balance this, they know of a Nosferatu in Italy that has the non-infectous trait. Not that he isn't creepy as hell. and I played that up. Just because he can't infect you doesn't mean he doesn't see you as dinner

Considering that HMHVV is in a lot of a ways the SR version of AIDS I think them getting rights has more to do with Gay rights then anything else and makes a lot more sense considering most SR fans wouldn't be fans of Twilight. Catering to that crowd would make little financial success if any.

Charon:

Wait, so Shadowrunners can be ok with killing people for money but suddenly it's weird when one of theirs does it to survive? I'm going to be honest as long as the Leech is feeding off the opposition and not me I could care less. Either way the guy is dead, at least this way he is a part of the food chain and keeps my team mate full and happy.

Working at night isn't an issue for most since that's the best time to sneak around. If you need to go out during the day a simple spell keeps the vampire safe. How is stopping to feed a problem? They loose essence once a month. Even if they hold out for five months all it takes is a good kill or two to bring them back up to speed. That's not an issue, that's barely one job.

Most runners have no issue with killing people to make their living. They will take issue with working with something that might decide to eat them. Also, even with all the noise about giving rights to infected, there still are bounties offered on them in most parts of the world. (The rights push is for ghouls anyway, not vampires. Ghouls can eat the dead, vampires have to eat the living)

You also have to remember that wards will bounce a vampire and they are actually more common then you think. In addition, there are lots of things mundanes can have that will mark an infected.

I wouldn't trust people who kill others for money any more then I would trust something that may eat me. They're both predators and for the most part monsters in their own way. There isn't a reason a guy who would kill someone for money is any more trust worthy then someone who would shoot the person half to death and then finish em off by draining them of essence for money. The point is they both kill for money. One is just a WEEEEEE bit better because he has no choice in the matter. Quite frankly I would trust the vampire more because hey at least he's honest about it. I keep him fed he doesn't eat me.


Ah Wards, they're so useful for security against the things you wouldn't otherwise notice. What things can mark them?

There are lots of plants and bacteria that react to the supernatural. Some are used in this sheets in walls to stop things, some are put in little plastic bottles that glow when near ghost and dual natured, etc. There are also plants that will react, which are often used in landscaping.

Very good point.



Yeah!

In an RPG group, it's necessary for all the PCs to be at least somewhat able to stand each other. Playing a vampire means you force all the other players to play characters that are okay with that. That's a huge imposition!

I'd certainly have trouble with that. I like to play somewhat immoral PCs, but not completely unscrupulous ones. Vampirism would definitely go too far. I wouldn't want to work with someone whose nature is to eat me.

It is more like leprosy than aids.. at least with aids, you are safe as long as you avoid sexual contact..

Is there an update for vampires somewhere or something I missed? I'm looking in the SR4 20th and it doesnt state vampires are dual-natured. How do wards bounce them?

Bug City is a 4th Ed book?

Except you aren't, with the hundreds of thousands of people that received HIV+ tainted blood (people who were minding their own business and got ambushed by a vampire (who didn't then bother to kill them before the change)).

Or the millions, worldwide, who were born to an HIV+ mother (second generation ghouls).

Or dirty needles...or contaminated transplant material...or...

The AIDS metaphor works, particularly considering the large number of people out there that, even today, still spout stuff like "we should just put them all in camps" or "just execute them when they're diagnosed, problem solved" and so-forth.

Also, vampires aren't dual-natured. So wards won't do much to them they wouldn't do to any other person (assuming they aren't awakened, which not all vampires are, it just tends to spark deeply buried latent awakenings that likely wouldn't have surfaced otherwise, so awakened vampires are more common, statistically, than they should be).

Clearly, that one book where a shadowtalker mentions a friend of hers that'd been a vampire and a totally stand-up guy that only accepted "donations" from willing people who was murdered by a wannabe "vampire hunter" was a very early 4E book. Somehow, it seems like I read it years before, though...

This is sarcasm, right? So hard to tell with text...

all of these arguments are valid the problem with HMHVV is there needs to be somekind of treatment or cure. The infected have a right to a cure just like the uninfected have the right to not want to get HMHVV. The problem with HMHVV rights outing too far is that there is eventualy somekind of glamorization of HMHVV at least at the fringe of the HMHVV rights community-which also leads me to ask is there such a thing as Ghoul/Vampire/Banshee/Windigo HMHVV Posers? yes Ghoul and Other HMHVV posers I think of everything;which also leads me to say the New HMHVV rights concern are just a reflection of the rising mana levels and just a warm-up for when in the later 2070s all the unseen earthdawn races start appearing and demanding Their Rights, But I will save that for it's own Thread

AIDS doesn't require you to have intercourse and spread your infection or at least drain life-force to stay alive yourself. So the metaphor doesn't really work all that well.



No, it's not sarcasm.

They have the right to run, and to die tired...

-Issues with Vamps, et al, since 2nd ed.

Well then it should be, because creating characters that will get along well enough to be played together is part of the gamer's social contract.

That's exactly the problem. If player A wants to play a vampire, then players B1, B2, ... BN must all play characters that would tolerate a vampire. That's a big imposition by player A.

Most of the Infected, given the conditions that they must fulfill to stay alive, pose a narratively interesting roleplay opportunity. It makes for interesting characters, and if it can be dealt with from a character's biographical background story, then I think it's not only legit, but good sport.

When I played D&D, I created a whole world where "good-aligned" orcs existed (as did ogres, orogs and several goblin species), and formed functioning communities (orcs were based on a kind of libertarian chieftainhood, goblins had freed themselves from slavery and formed a republic, ogres and half-ogres had extreme-right racists and left-wing -- liberal-style -- 'open society' proponents). Obviously, since WoW, the idea of good-aligned 'Horde type' characters became more popular, or at least : less frowned upon as deviant. But, when I started, most DMs would simply refuse to allow orc, and especially ogres or other large creatures, because they couldn't get beyond the idea that they would be socially inept, dangerous roaming man-eaters.

--

The 'bottom-line' argument is a balance question IMHO, which I see as less problematic in SR than in D&D. In the later, because it's very much a combat-based game, monstrous creatures had powers and weaknesses that could pose problems for party equilibrium; less with orcs, obviously, than with D&D trolls with their regeneration. But in SR, trolls are basic character choices, and so big and physically mighty that the 'it's too exotic' argument falls short IMHO. Ghouls may be quite inexpensive, so it may be of concern, but the drawbacks of choosing to play one are to be pondered. Vampires and especially Nosferatu both suffer from severe weaknesses and tend to cost so much BP that it leaves little room for skill point investment; plus they can't take too much cyberware without losing their magic, and with it, all their 'active' powers (like regeneration and fear).

Also, with guns being so cheap and easy to get, having a lot of 'physical might' doesn't make you so much more proficient with guns. Elves have the most AGI in the game, and can get SURGEd for some more. A troll ghoul is handicapped, and his 8-13 (18) STR actually means very little in reality. Obviously, BOD is more useful for wearing armor and stuff. With 10 BOD (an orc ghoul can get as much without spending more than for an average score; 20BP), you can wear 20 armor without encumbrance; compared to the average human or elf (BOD 3), with a maximum of 9 impact armor (FFBA counted; 6 I weights in only for 3), this makes it a bit unfair. Obviously, humans and elves have other advantages (incentive to spend EDGE for human, or more CHA and AGI to avoid fighting altogether), but even there, it's 33 for an orc ghoul (using FFBA) and 12 for a human/elf. Of course, abysmal CHA for the orc/troll ghoul helps mitigate that, and with the saved ESS (ghouls are capped at 5 instead of 6) this means that with a proper spread between cyber and bioware, one may get 1.33 more essence worth of cyber/bioware (6.66 versus 8 ). All in all, this evens out. Even a basic troll may get that much armor, and more cyberware than a ghoul, who will have to pay for other necessities.

Vampires and Nosferatu are in bigger trouble than ghouls : can't spend essence on 'ware, less BPs left, more severe weaknesses.

--

But going back to topic, the Infected are interesting to play, quite balanced overall if the game involves more than just headlong charges on security forces (and even then, Railguns kill the walking tank cyborgs). The question becomes : do you want to take into account the meta-plot element of 'Infected rights' ? If you don't, that's your house rule, but the 'mainstream' is becoming a bit more open to this diversity, and I think it is for the better.

Same with a rigger who has 'too many' drones for some fellow players, or someone who plays a cybered street sammy and wants to fight all the time. Vampires or Ghouls are not a different kind of 'social contract' issue, even non-Infected characters must get discussed to see if it fits GM's gamestyle, and player wants.

Also, the contrary is true : players B1, B2, ... BN are imposing to player A their playstyle. That's a bit tyrannical if player A has no say ? Why would it be the Infected that are abnormal and other players considered legitimate 'a priori' ? Ideally, these things are discussed reciprocally so that all those involved are happy.

Maybe it's just because I'm too new to Shadowrun and come from playing World of Darkness and LARP games, but I have a hard time seeing it as being a significant problem if a couple of players have to make their characters accept that they collaborate with a Vampire/Nosferatu/Banshee/Infected. Where is the real difference to any other diverse group of characters and players? You ALWAYS have to come up with some reason for the characters working together and accepting eachother's presence, despite having potentially radically different backgrounds and outlooks on the world. Is it really a much bigger problem if someone is playing an Infected, than if someone in a group wants to play a Human that sympathises with one of the Humanis groups, whilst playing in a group with a Troll, two Orcs, and an Elf? What reason does a clinically paranoid character have for even remotely trusting the other members in a group? Why is an Elf Face with a high society background hang out with an Orc Ganger that grew up on the streets, a Troll enforcer with Mafia ties, a Dwarf mechanic, and a Human Street Shaman who grew up in Detroit?

As long as all players are in agreement that disagreements amongst the characters are to result in nothing more than verbal jousting between them, all that kind of tension brings is an excuse for some roleplaying IMO. Unless things have to come to physical blows between characters I don't see a problem. And even if it does come to a fight between two or more characters it can still be OK, as long as the players are OK with it.

I agree.

As a GM, players often tell me that their character wouldn't be able to run with another PC character (perhaps an elf-hater playing with another elf PC). I agree with them that the roleplaying will be interesting, but I put the onus on them to come up with the backstory as to why this particular PC is an exception to their particular "ism" (perhaps they saved his life, they remind him of a close relative, their philosophy seems different the rest of "them"). If they decide that they are not creative enough to come up with any possible reason to play nice with the other PCs, I ask them to create a new character. The PCs decide why their group is exceptional, but it is up to the GM to enforce this.

No, it's the fault of the offending PC, not the offended.

Could you elaborate ? The way I'm reading : there is obviously a side which offends, and a side which is offended. Is it that simple ?

Of course, if A hits a real person B with a stick, then I can tell who offended who. But sometimes, 'taking offense' is offensive for people; i.e. Gays are offended by the people 'taking offense' about what they do, and the Gay rights movement tries to publicize and fight for recognition in a context where people who exhibited or admitted certain behaviors were treated as criminals (up to death penalty, still in place in some countries).

Sometimes, the offender is obvious (given baseline human values, like the illegitimacy of uncalled violence), sometimes it's a controversy over different views that enter in conflict, and then sides cannot be classified in a Manichean way.

I meant that there is no tyranny of the majority in roleplaying. If there's one vampire and 3 non-vampires, they win. In Game2BHappy's example, it's the fault of the elf-hater, not the elf.

Yeah, except that trend makes no sense with the rest of the fluff and rules of SR4! On one hand, they talk of the ghoul right movement gaining ground and on the other they describe the infection as horrifically dangerous.

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.

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.

HMHVV I ain't too swell either.

They are the 'Infected'. Until you can cure the infection, you have to contain the infection. No alternative.

And if they are going to be a player option, I don't understand why they should be coddled by the setting. It cheapens the concept if they gain acceptance.

You see, that's the thing. I think all the talk about infected rights/ghoul rights is from corpers who have never seen a ghoul except maybe a second or third gen born infected on the trid. You can pretty much take it as fact that people living in the slums and ghettos will have the same reaction to ghouls that they did back in 3rd edition. Which goes a little something like Space Marines and heretics.

That's a gamer's morality. That's exceedinly rare for a real person to think like that, including a killer.

Here's a little secret about human nature; Almost no one considers himself a bad guy and embraces it. We all need to believe we have worth. We need to defend our self-image.

One man is a military sniper who kills for his country but looks down on someone who kills for money. One is an assassins who kills for money but is discriminating on what contracts he accept. He looks down on the military sniper whom he sees as a deluded drone who probably killed targets far more innocent than he ever did. He'd also beat up a pedophile if he crossed path with one. The pedophile knows that he only gave the children some love while the assassin is a psychopath. The assassin despise the gang member who perform drive-by shooting and other messy act of violences. The gang member thinks the hitman is a stuck up, pampered a-holes who does not have what it takes to survive in the street and defend his posse.

And most likely, all of them wouldn't piss on a ghoul if it was on fire. Because whatever else can be said about them, they ain't f*cking cannibals!

What you expressed is what I'd describe as cartoon morality. I am not sure it even exists in the real world. You can be damn sure most killers would differentiate between shooting someone in the head and devouring him alive. There are all kind of killers and they all think they are more worthwhile than the others. Whoever worked with a flesh eating ghoul would need to be able to rationalize it in a way that didn't make him feel like he was Jeffrey Dahmer. Of course, perhaps he is Jeffrey Dahmer. Then good for him. That's fine for some group, but I wouldn't touch that.

In my opinion everybody shooting a ghule or vampire from a distance less than 10 feet away can always plead of self-defense for being attacked with a deadly weapon and get away with it.

Couldn't agree with you more. My toxic mages are helping to make the world a better place for the downtrodden by removing supernatural evil like the shedim, insect spirits and horrors, the evil megacorps, the infected and other toxic mages, yet too many close-minded prejudiced citizens of the SR world keep casting us as "psychopaths"..

frankly it hurts..

i wonder though if there is anyone in this forum who would support the ghouls and other infected.. we should start a poll..

The soldier and the assassin are both professionals who kill. They may have different reasons but the point is they still kill. The hit man is the same as the soldier and the assassin but at least the three of them may have morals so whether or not any of them are REALLY bad would be decided on a case by case decision and not solely from their professions. The pedophile takes advantage of children. You can't justify that in anyway without sounding like a fool. And the ganger is just an idiot, anyone who does drive buys and endangers innocent people isn't a person whose opinion should be respected or even considered.

If a Ghoul eats a dead person I don't care as long as they were either A) Ok with it or B) Someone who the world is better off having dead anyway (read ganger from the paragraph above.) It's not that different from being an organ donor. In fact, it's the same bloody thing. You get cut up, your organs are offered to another person, you save a life. The key differences (one eats you and the other uses you) aren't that different either. They both still use you up. I am a registered organ donor and I have no problems with the idea of my flesh being used to save a life no matter what way that is. The point is I will still be useful in a fashion after death.

That's awesome and all but I have never been that kind of person. Justifying your actions is pointless. What you did was either wrong or right, if you have to give yourself a reason for it then obviously it was wrong, you made a mistake, now own up to it. I judge a person based on their actions and I judge myself based off of mine. I've done some screwed up things in my life but I never once tried to justify them. If you don't admit and learn from your mistakes all it leads to is a false sense of decency. Many Shadowrunners kill for money, a vampire kills to survive. They both need to end human lives. So what is the difference between them is my question.

The example you gave was a good one but, and this is coming from someone who will be serving after he gets out of college, I think they're both murderers. Taking a life is taking a life. There are few ways to justify it and most of them are wrong. But in the end what is wrong and what is right is a case by case basis and solely depends on your point of view. A man (or vampire, whatever) survives by taking the lives of serial killers, rapists, and crack dealers then I may not like his existence but I will sure as hell tolerate it more then a mercenary who kills others only for the money.

Ghouls yes, there are ways for them to mix with society without hurting people.

Vampires probably not. There are only so many bad people in the world they can feed off of in the shadows and donating to them literally kills people. They are a health hazard through and through. If a way was found for them to feed without hurting anyone then yes I would be fine with them. I just wouldn't trust them but trusting someone was never a prerequisite for tolerating them.

I don't know much about the others so just use what I said above as a template.

Ways for them to integrate means I would but if they couldn't means I won't.

There are a few comics/manga out there which feature vampires living openly among humans. And in one of the manga, it shows the vampires as leaders of the world and leaders of corporations.

Now if vampires are really integrated into the world, it would make for a very very interesting SR world.

Imagine a new mega being ruled by vampires and/or other infected.. imagine all the governments of the world accepting such a mega.. how would the power dynamics and politics change?...

Awwww shucks, I just came up with a totally new adversary for my toxic mage megacorp.. Thanks guys! Hhehehehhehehe...

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


But as some have already said: Ghouls can survive without harmng people, and the Sixth World is not exactly known for its reverent treatment of the dead. Vampires need to drain living, sapient creatures.

There is a way to feed vampires withouth permanently hurting anyone:

While (true) {
Drain someone.
Put her in gene treatment to restore lost Essence.
}

Of course you need to have A LOT of money to do this.

I considered this at one point for a character I created. She only went after rich assholes that had earned some bad luck coming their way, draining them, but not quite nearly enough to kill them, then informing them of this helpful course of action at the same time as she laid out the blackmail material that'd keep them from going after her too vigorously.

Of course, she was an NPC, rather than a PC, so she didn't have to juggle Running with her "Hunting" procedures.

And sufficient volunteers, considering that restoring lost Essence takes FAR longer than a vampire con survive without getting his shot. There might also be some willing to literally sell their soul without the prospect of getting it back (sounds easier than selling a kidney), but again not enough to feed a decent vampire population.

In play, they often go hand-in hand. HMHVV I Infected in general can use the blood-drinking as the necessary emotional connection required to drain essence. There are exceptions of course, but overall it doesnt have to detract much from a standard run, and doesnt have to be a horrifying experience for everyone in the group. After all, as individuals not fully accepted in the world of Shadowrun, the infected will probably realize very quickly that running the shadows is going to be a requirement for survival, and will acclimate very quickly to that lifestyle.

On a side note, thinking of the various infected. Any of you remember that article written on the plague that was in World of Warcraft a while back? Basically, it was a very close analogue to what happens in real life. People will sometimes intentionally spread disease! Now, there's a vampire living in your neighborhood....

Give the rate of infection of the various HMHVV strains, the most likely result is: Cleanse and Purify. if it is as nasty as it is, one doesn't have to do too much math to see how quickly the Zombie and Vampire strains will spread demographically.

So sorry, undead and other cannibal players. You're going to get staked sooner or later, burned and have your ashes thrown into the wind.

People tend to look at other people funny when they realize the other person is probably looking at them as dinner. Survival instinct and all that

Which it isn't. The original author has repeatedly stated that the contact vector was an oversight.

And man-eaters only get funny looks if they lack fur and cute eyes...too bad that ghouls are blind and entirely bald

Sunglasses and a wig.

Then you too could look like Good Friend Tabitha.

Injection is bad enough, though. Contact is obviously wrong, but that doesn't really change what we knew (and the book already said 'open wounds').