"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Sentient does not equal sapient.

Actually, I was just at those 2 pages, and they really don't clarify the issue. I will research their precise definitions further.

Sentience doesn't mean talking and thinking [although animals do think, and some fair number of them talk], nor does it mean reasoning; in fact, its intent is to mean the opposite of reasoning, that which isn't capable of reason, only feeling, which is what sentience actually means: capable of feeling sensation. It's from the Latin word "sentire," meaning to feel or perceive.

[edit: Well, now that we've thoroughly covered that by talking over each other... Seriously, is an AJAX message forum too much to ask?]

After a bit more quick research, you (three) are correct. Please substitute "sapient" for "sentient" in my previous posts in this thread. My apologies for any confusion or misunderstandings this caused.

I'll consider that today's "Word of the Day."

Dumpshock - Not Just Entertaining, It's Educational, Too! ™

What about murderers, especially 'crazy' serial killers (as opposed to just… shadowrunners, heh)? The only thing that matters is 'do they eat the victim'? Are 'pygmies' (I know, but you know what I mean) okay? Buffalo Bill skin-suits? What if they just take trophies, like ears or fingers? Armed robbers? Soldiers on 'evil' sides? Is there anything that's *not* a monster/non-person?

It seems to me if you hate vampires conceptually, you'll hate vampires in SR. There's no amount of me saying "vampires don't have to be monsters" (which is well supported in canon) that's going to counteract someone's hatred of them.

I'm pretty neutral to vampires. I've played the White Wolf games (although they aren't my favorites), and I've seen a fair number of vampire movies but I've avoided pretty much all the vampire books (Anne Rice and so on). I like to use vampires in SR when it fits the needs of the game, which means sometimes I use them as bloodthirsty monsters and sometimes I don't. I like to keep my options open.

This has actually been an issue for me in SR for some time. It probably goes against the grain for many people here, but I won't play PCs that are into wetworks or involuntary extractions. Perhaps I'm scarcely the world's best roleplayer, but I don't like venturing too far beyond my real-world morality, especially as I've gotten older.

Even playing someone with an "extra-legal" career, I have limits. Big corporation A hires us to spy on and/or sabotage big corporation B's new product line...I won't lose any sleep over that. Corporation B will probably hire someone to do the same thing to corporation A next week; it's just how the game is played in the Sixth World.

But offing or kidnapping someone just for money? Won't do it.

For my newest character in our upcoming campaign for early next year (I take about 2 months to fully prep a new character), she has essentially no real shadow experience at all - she's done some work assisting and safeguarding Draco Foundation archaeological teams around the world, but has never met a real Johnson or done what most would consider to be "proper" shadow work. I think I'm really going to enjoy the change, to tell the truth.

Truthfully, I've seen some great vampire movies. I loved The Lost Boys, Fright Night (1 and 2, haven't seen the newest one), and Bram Stoker's Dracula.

It's really the most recent works that have had me positively cringing. Never get me started on Twilight. Anne Rice degenerated into a joke, but the first few books in the Vampire Chronicles back in the day were actually good (though I preferred Lestat over Louis as he was a hell of a lost less angsty – most of the time) before she went utterly off the deep end .

And I’ve considered checking out Fred Saberhagen’s old Dracula meets Sherlock Holmes series. So it’s really the more recent whiny modern vampires that I can’t stand. Or at the very least, the plot and acting must be spectacular if that’s involved – see Forever Knight, I really loved that series (though I wanted to Nick to get over his angst and just keep being a good cop and living on cow’s blood).

Perhaps I’m just getting old.

I don't think Y was talking about PC's that make skin suits, but rather people do occasionally kill people, eat people, make them into skin suits and so on. We wouldn't say "human beings are capable of murder, so we should exterminate all human beings," but how is that all that different from saying, "some vampires are kill people, so all vampires should be killed"?

If I was playing in your game Jan and the run was about offing some bloodthirsty, murderous vampires it wouldn't bother me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if someone is nice enough to run a game I'm just grateful, and secondly I have no trouble believing that some vampires (like some people) are monsters. There may be vampires in the world who aren't monsters, but those wouldn't be the ones we were dealing with that week.

Here's the thing. Let's say there was one guy with HMHVV who wasn't a monster. He only takes Essence from willing donors (either paying for it, because what does Joe Blow Wageslave care if someone takes a little of his "lifeforce" that he isn't going to miss and probably doesn't even think is a real thing, or because there are enough Anne Rice reading vampire groupies out there who get off on getting fed on), and is simply trying to live his life with his own peculiar set of circumstances.

If your position is we should kill him because one day he probably will harm someone, and anyway it doesn't matter what he does only what he is, then by my definition that would be monstrous.

Except that humanity has done that to itself for milennia without the need for a virus to be introduced.

Edit: never mind, forgot to check the page count before responding...

@hobgoblin
Well, I is kind of different.
Those make mankind actually beta-predators. I do not think those would be appreciated.
(No, dragons are not such a Problem. With their size I doubt they would actually consider eating humans (unless to make a point). (I guess their main source of meat would be cows or horses. More meat, less bones, less poluted)

Okay, six-thirty am, one cup of coffee in post...

I cannot get behind advocating the death of entire bunch of folks because "they eat people!" I mean seriously. That's reactionary and dismissive. There are plenty of intelligent characters within the Sixth World canon that showcase that yeah, they require metahuman flesh - but they're still people. Tamir Grey, Hannibelle, Hannibelle's dinner partner, the Ghoul Queen, the population of Asamando...

We have enough ethical discussion regarding eating animals, for Chrissakes...have any of you ever looked into how the meat you is created? How many of you have turned vegan because of it, or (in our case) eating as environmentally friendly / minimally cruel as you can? Heck, right now we're having hand-wringing over horse slaughter being legalized again here in the States.

Again: the ghouls of Chicago hid refugees during Bug City. When they were eliminated, there was enough outcry over the tragedy that a monument was erected in their honor. Tamir Grey used his ability and his intelligence to bring attention to the actual plight of ghouldom. Dunkelzahn had their backs, and advocated not only for continued citizenship, but actually set it in his Will to have someone find a synthetic flesh substitute created to help them out.

Asamando: most technologically advanced nation in the world. But they still need to eat. And don't you import your food?

Can't agree with Vanessa's point at all, really.

@ravensmuse
Ghouls ain't so much of a problem, as long as the population stays small. Suckers are.

I hate to Godwin a thread, but -

The South, 19th century: "Blacks are okay, as long as they're kept small and in control."
The British, early 20th century: "The locals are okay, as long as they know their place."
USA, 1950s: "Blacks are okay, so long as they stay in their schools and use their own facilities."

Again, the number of feral ghouls is starting to be balanced out by the number of non-feral. And regardless of the fact that yes, they are now inflicted by a magical disease that requires them to eat flesh, they're still the people they used to be.

"I'm sorry Mom, but even though you can still hold a proper conversation with me, now that you need to eat flesh, I kind of have to put you down. Even though you probably regret it."

I can't get behind this thought process.

It's just that a significantly above-average number of them works in the shadows or other extra-legal professions which regularly kill people. Premeditated homicide to facilitate another serious crime is about as bad as it gets in criminal law, yet runners do this every day. But when the runner takes a bite out of the corpsec he just downed [little girl voice]eeeew, that's gross, make it go away...[/little girl voice]


As far as Asamando goes, it's an absolutist monarchy where those not fitting the queen's eugenic views are sterilized and sent to the mines or hard labor. Hardly a model state.

@Sengir
Well, depends on your view of "model" state, I guess...

It is less on moral level more a on a rational level. Kill 100 people today or watch a million die tomorrow.

@ravensmuse
Rather risk an outbreak? (I forgot about that...)

I've seen nothing anywhere in canon material that disallows cloned material as the source of the dietary requirements of the Infected, so there needs to be no wiggle room. It even says outright in RW that cloned parts - even bioware - can "satisfy some of these dietary requirements". If a clone can be a viable character, functioning exactly as any other character (and this is canon), there is no logical reason whatsoever that cloned parts cannot serve as food for the Infected. It is possible that there is some need for a 'higher quality' cloning process for fully viable clones, but there is no either fluff nor crunch to support this either. The problems here are monetary, ethical, and possibly legal. Nothing more.

The only exception to this is the part they take while draining Essence, where the vampire will take some blood, the wendigo some flesh etc. Those amounts are 'token' according to RAW, and thus the Essence Drain itself is the problem:



Yes, the need for Essence is the biggest problem here, and should be the main reason to devote study and funds toward finding a cure. With the numbers Patrick quoted, it would mean that the Infected need something like 1,000,000 points of essence per year to survive. Now, it's possible that this could be partially solved short-term by donors (much like there are donors for kidneys, bone marrow, blood etc in other diseases), but with the quantities needed it wouldn't work in a long-term perspective. Not even if you start making Essence Drain into a legal execution method for those sentenced to death, and a viable means euthanasia.

The only solution is to find a cure of some sort for the Essence Loss, some artificial means of creating Essence, or invest heavily in revitalization treatments. Barring that, you'd have to let them starve or murder them (because no matter how you try to justifiy it, that's what you are proposing -- murder).

However, many Infected do not need Essence from victims to survive. Ironically, many of the most feral ones fit this category.



Indeed they won't, but if you get infected you will become a killer. A better example would be the plague - if you were infected you became an uncontrolled murderer until you died yourself. Much like an Infected, except you didn't eat people. Certainly more dangerous, albeit for a much shorter time. The reason you can compare Infected with victims of other diseases is because they ARE the victims of a virulent disease. The symptoms are nastier, sure, but it's a disease all the same.



...yet as with other sapient, contagious beings that pose a threat to humanity, isolation and control should suffice. It may be more humane to kill them, as opposed to keep them incarcerated and more or less starving (some of them starving to death) -- but humanity doesn't have a great history of being humane...




I have raised chickens, and while they certainly act stupid, they are not the stupidest of birds (though not quite at the level of corvids and parrots). Cows are actually quite intelligent, for grass-eaters at least, and pigs are pretty much on the level of dogs - they've had cows and pigs solve labyrinths and play video games successfully (I'm guessing custom-designed video games, and not Half-Life or GTA). Most animals speak, but few can be taught to 'speak' in languages humans easily understand (dolphins, chimpanzees and orangutans); however; many animals can be taught to understand commands and words in human languages...

Regarding the Dietary Requirement:
RC p.61 black box clearly states:" Cloned metahuman flesh and blood, including
bioware, can satisfy some of these dietary require-ments."
This sounds like cloned metahuman flesh is alright e.g. for ghouls.
Its more a matter of money how should someone who dont get any regular job anywhere without a SIN be able to afford this?
No job -> No money -> no food -> "alternative" food/money acquiring methods is a problem any SINless and unemployed is going to face at one or another point in the sixt world.

If a dictator let his people starve who turn to cannibalism who should be condemned?
Coprs are nothing but feral predators too they just have better PR managers who cover their grmica better.
And they are more subtle and socialised because their wear nice business suits and have biosculpting.
They feed on people in a more metaphoric way nonetheless until you are valuable enough for them. I think somewhere in SR3 was stated that high ranking board and meeting rooms have a tendence to have a slightly sterilistic background count i think that speak volumes. Unfortunately i really dont recall where this is, it was somewhere where sterilists are described, gotta check the books again.

And regarding the intellect thing, ghouls e.g. get -1 logic crunchwise the Asamondo chapter in Almanac says that 10% of the population is mentally degenerated and unable to be alphabetizated. That means that somehow the rest 90% of them is able to read/write and comprehend.

Infected can turn into monsters when left on their own or if they were power hungry assholes who revel in tossing others around that still doesnt mean that they are brainless monster all the time.

Im pretty sure that Osama bin Laden was able to be a real nice guy if you was islamic and rightous in his worldview, its just a matter of perpective. And he had a family too, probably he was a good father, i will never know. These assumptions dont mean that i personally think that this guy should have been rendered harmless at least. Hes dead now and its okay too for me although im not a fan of premeditated murder which obviously was the case here.
I know this is an extreme example.

There are infinite shades of grey and thats especially true in the shadows.

Infecteds fall more the monster in the man more easily for several reasons, that all.


Edit:


Image the banshee/vampire community drooling over all this millions of essence wasted away with implants, precious, tasty essence, om nom nom.
How about donating that 2 essence points to a vampire before surgery? Either in sleep before the operation or before to experience the sensation? Under watch of an assensing mage and his 2 Troll bodyguard buddys of course. No? Why not? But you already donored that liver and your kidney you upgraded into bioware.

Essence Drain doesn't leave an essence hole you cann fill with ware.

@snowRaven

So lets take those which are more likely to fit. Serial rapists or murders, pedophiles.

If you have a 2 year old Vampire he has to at least hurt 5 people very badly or 24 lightly. If you are playing with all the rules some of those might have died later on, because of that.
Thats TWO YEARS as a vampire. (And some who is really taking care of not using much essence to begin with)
Someone who enjoys it (well, which is a bit part of the infection) will leave probably a hundred of victims per year.

Or look at infections like ebola. What do we do with ebola patients? We lock them in a hospital untill they are cured or dead. Afterwards we release them or burn their body.

Just looked it up:
p.98 Aug
Note that Essence lost from other sources—addiction,a blood spirit’s Energy Drain power, etc.—does not leave an Essence hole
that may be filled up with implants. That Essence is lost for good.

Ah well you are right, mate. Was just an idea which came to me.

That is all based on metagaming math that they may not have in game.

I fully agree.

The point is, we don't go about killing anyone infected with a deadly disease, or for that matter anyone who exhibits a predilection toward pedophilia (while murderers and rapists and pedophiles are more apt for comparison, they are not currently diagnosed with diseases that make them identifiable). We take steps to protect the rest of society, and if they break laws and rules we convict them, isolate them and attempt to cure them if they are deemed sick or ill, or at least keep the disease in check. Even so, we release them once they have served their sentence.

Compare a convicted pedophile to a convicted ghoul.

The pedophile is let loose in society, with limits, after he's served his sentence. Why should a ghoul be any different?

A ghoul gets caught eating the flesh of a living human instead of cloned flesh, and is convicted with assualt. When he or she gets out, after serving the term for his crime and being subjected to therapy and treatment, he will be a registered 'ghoul' and subject to limitations regarding that.

If the ghoul killed to get the flesh, he'd be treated as a murderer.

Vampires are more complicated, because a fully drained victim that becomes a vampire isn't dead, so murder can't really apply. They'd have to be charged similar to an HIV positive who knowingly spreads the disease, as well as with the assault if the victim was unwilling.


Now, compare most shadowrunners to the Infected.

Infected attack people because they are victims of a disease, and have few alternatives.

Shadowrunners attack people because they get paid.

Both should suffer the consequences of their crimes, but neither should be killed off-hand because of what they are - the Infected less so, since they often cannot help being wehat they are. Shadowrunners have a choice.


JanessaVR, I'm guessing your characters have committed several crimes, and even if they haven't killed non-infected they have surely commited assault? If anyone finds out about this, should those characters be killed without trial just because of what they have done?

Compare Ghouls to the plane-crash survivors in the Andes who were 'forced' to eat their dead to survive? Should those people be killed because they chose to eat humans instead of starve to death? That's what a ghoul faces, after all - eat humans or starve to death.

How about those Infected who are 'infertile' and can't spread the disease? How about people who are carriers of HMHVV without developing the disease? What about the (extremely rare) Infected who can't spread his disease and survives on scavenging; eating people who are already dead, buying 'medical waste' from a street doc, etc?

I can certainly understand the standpoint that all Infected should be killed 'for safety'. The same reasoning can be applied to any other 'threat', though: terrorists, sexual predators, cannibals, murderers, drunk drivers, etc. Regardless of your definition, the fact remains that many Infected are sapient beings; living, thinking, reasoning, feeling metahumans. Even those who turn feral can be likened to metahumans who suffer brain damage that remove their ability to reason and function in normal society. Indiscriminately murdering them isn't really the response of a sane, normally functioning metahuman being.

Infected in Shadowrun aren't undead, non-human murderers. Ghouls aren't mindless walking corpses. There is no 'black and white' moral ground here, where all Infected are Evil. Shadowrun is a dystopian place, where there are only shades of moral gray. Supporting the extermination of millions of metahumans just because they are diseased, when you normally are against killing, is certainly on the darker scale of grey, and that is perfectly fine. It's Shadowrun.

Just don't pretend that you're the 'good' one, taking the moral high-ground.

A character who normally refuses wetwork and even kidnapping, but will go out of his way to exterminate sapient beings, doesn't show high morals and a sound mind. It shows prejudice, double-standards and possibly paranoia -- all fine traits in any Shadowrun game

As humans we are at the top of the food chain but was also are normally quick to dismiss the fact that there are other species that exist beyond us and place them lower on the food chain.

Cows, pigs, chickens, horses, fish, etc., all are living beings that form communities, interact with one another and build relationships. I'm sorry, there isn't much of a line beyond animals and human. I might be squicked out by eating humans but seriously, I don't see how this "MONSTER!!!ZOMG!!!!!!" thing comes into play. Its flesh. Humans eat flesh all the time.

ETA: Can't there just be a good black market for flesh and blood? I mean really. This is Shadowrun after all. Or did I miss something that it has to be taken from a live person?

Nop, they can feed very well on cloned flesh/blood and there is an lifestyle option (although a bad one we houseruled ) in RC.

That's what I thought. I thought I read something to that effect somewhere. Yeah so totally not seeing this "MONSTER!!!!!!one!!!!11eleventy!!!" thing.

And no one's asking anyone to *like* them, play a character as them, etc. You just have to recognize that it's insane to take certain positions about sapient, metahuman-derived populations (mostly) based on squick; especially if those positions are ethically incoherent. It's the laziest kind of thinking to have a switch you flick from 'person' to 'monster', which is a theme our crime literature has explored for centuries.

@snowRaven

Well, actually a pedophile who is diagnosed to be still a threat does not get out that easy. And since you can't cure "beeing a ghoul"....
(I totally agree with you that morally you would need to release them if they "paied" for their crime. Cured or not.)



So, what? One year for assault and they die in prison.
The problem is, that moral (I take we are talking about the moral going back to Kant) is a doubled edge sword in this instance.
To stick with the rapist comperism:
It is like having a person who needs to rape another person every year or die.
Thats hard to provide following the same moral. That is the major issue here.

Yes, ghouls are again a bit easier if killing clones for parts is allowed.
But with vampires it is much more severe.
Most moral codes which wouldn't allow a genocide to "solve the problem" would also prevent you from feeding them.
(You would need a code which declares them "the same as humans" and puts life before dignity...)


Shadowrunner have nothing to do with the problem. So please leave them out of the picture. Yes, some of them might do "evil" things and yes even in today it is regarded as "OK" to kill someone to prevent him from doing "evil things", it is called self defance/defending others.




Those guys did not even commit a crime nor are they a danger to the general population.



Oh, you are so wrong here. If you apply a moral system, all things go from grey to BLACK AND WHITE.
A system of values in grey would be worthless.
It would be like a compass pointing anywhere between north and south.


Again, thats not the problem with ghouls. The problem with ghouls is, that you have probably no way to provide food for them, so they would starve. Espacially in "more moral" regions, because harvesting stuff from clones might be outlawed there. So you would need human flesh from "donors", aka dead people. And we no from the organ donor thing, that there is not much around.
(Example: Organ donars. It is not even ok for the state to say: Alright, if you have not decleared that you want to keep your organs after death, we are free to take them. And that would really not be such a big thing, would it? If you would not want it, you would just need to send a lettre)

And here we go with sanity... Well, if you apply a strictly natural point of view it is. The only goal is for your species and your genetics to survive.
So every threat you got rid of is just a threat you got rid of.
And if you look at how people dealt with the pest or other diseases back in the "old days"...
The point is, there is not any such disease today.
But even today, whenever a similar question is posed, it goes more in the direction of "not beeing sane" after your definition.
An example:
Some time back after 9.11 we had the discussion of what to do if one airplane was hijacked and would probably used to crash into an building.
The moral answer (again using Kant) would be, that you are not allowed to shoot it down, because you can not kill INNOCENT persons to save others.
This was uphold by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. (Most people did not think of this to be "sane"...)

The best example for that is still:
If you could smuther Hitler in his manger, would you do it?
Moraly it would be wrong, because you would kill an, up to this point, innocent person. (Kant, not in every system of morals...)
It would not be insane however...
@hobgoblin
Well, so? They probably just know that vampires need to kill to stay alive. (Probably one per month) That makes is so much better for the vampire...


@tehana
Vampires need essence so no.

*leans back in his chair and watches with great enjoyment*

Irion:

I reject your rejection of the analogy to 'non-monster' criminals, including shadowrunners.

I can't even understand your point about morals and grey. Shadowrun is by definition a grey world.

It *is* okay for the state to claim corpses, if the former people didn't opt-out. It's just not a law we have in the present day. We should.

It's probably even legal (whatever that word still means) in SR to buy people as food, whether before or after death. If someone knew their family would be paid, they'd sell themselves to a vampire, sure. Rich Infected (not impossible) could probably coexist fine with more traditional demons (powerful criminal bosses, corp bigwigs, etc.). Whether it's any of our business to interfere with that transaction is a separate moral debate.

*insert popcorn gif*

@Yerameyahu


Well, it is very easy. If you apply a vaible moral code, there should not be any grey left. Thats what those things are for.
Yes, there are several moral codes and therefor the world gets "grey" but if you judge one action by one code, it has to be "right" or "wrong". Or your code is worthless,
because it is offering a leaver which can bring it down completly.
If it is ok to do X because of Y, is it ok to do X+1? X+2? X+3?
Why is X+99 ok but X+100 isn't?



I am not aware about the situation in the US. But in germany this runs down to the constitution.
The problem is, that you are probably even violating basic human rights handling it that way.

Bagged prepopped? Blech. Go big.

Then your table's world is not dystopian enough. I have had a character or two that are Cannibalistic. Does not make them a Monster. Just makes them a bit twisted.

EDIT: Most of the posts above speak better to this than I can. Well said, for those who have tried to explain.

Bagged and prepopped is the only way to go! Popcorn is one of those foods that I thoroughly believe is better the grosser you get. The popcorn tins you get around Christmas are my kryptonite. True fact.

Those are interesting questions, Irion, but they're not *answered* questions. There's scads of grey in RL right now, and laws everywhere are morally incoherent (i.e., grey). I didn't realize you were talking about a single (and 'complete') moral code… because that doesn't exist anywhere, especially not in SR. Any given *single* person has more than one moral code, and none of them are complete.

As I said, it's not about whether any country in RL does that. It's about whether it's possible (and again, IMO, should be the case), and then *in SR*.

*snerk* My mom does some work at the Cleveland Food Bank and gets paid in food. Last March, I visited home and end up coming back with a popcorn popper and a 50 lb. bag of popcorn kernels... Me and my gaming groups, we're still working our way through that thing...

I think I've heard similar statements before, and they worried me then, even when they were in history class...Magicians used to "Steal people's souls". So did the Tir Paladins before people found out they were just using a drug. That's a bit worse than eating people.

And I'm sure Trolls were accused of eating babies at least once in awhile. After all, that's what, one-two bites for them?*Blinks* Someone's glad I I asked a question?

Jeeze, I'm usually getting beaten with a stick over doing such things.There, see, Trolls Eat Babies. Time for them to be on the Quebec Bounty List (Unless they're Quebecois Trolls, then they're OK.).

But being a ghoul doesn't automatically constitute being a threat to society any more than being a murderer constitutes you being an automatic forever-more threat to society.



Prisons are filled with potential 'victims' for vampires, so unless you apply solitary confinement I'm sure they'll survive. They may get their sentence increased however, and eventually you'd be forced to 'starve' them...

But yes, ethicalo reasons will likely prevent the feeding of vampires. See my above mentions of this problem.



This was more aimed at Janessa's claims that Infected are inherently evil monsters that must be killed, just because they may or may not have commited a crime. Shadowrunners commit similar crimes, and pose a threat to regular law-abiding citizens (minus the infection risk, for the most part). If you convict and exterminate one threat indiscriminately without any evidence, why not another?




This was mainly in response to Janessas claim that anyone who has to eat humans to survive is a monster. A ghoul who feeds exclusively on the bodies of those already dead is on equal terms with the survivors of that plane crash. And yes, they did commit a crime according to the laws of many countries (not sure about the country they were in at the time) - desecrating a dead human body is a crime in many places.

Likewise, a vampire can survive solely on willing victims - at least for awhile. With good seduction skills and the inherent addiction that Essence drain can cause, he or she could probably stay alive and well for years without ever committing a single crime or creating another vampire.



In Shadowrun, there is preciously little that falls into the categories of black and white - if anything. That's part of the whole 'dystopian setting' thing.



It is problematic, sure - but not impossible. Cloned parts; donated bodies; 'medical waste' in the form of aborted fetuses, amputated limbs, non-functioning organs etc. It could be possible to add the bodies of convicted, executed criminals to the list. It may be objectionable and ethically dubious, but there are ways.



Again, this was in repsonse to Janessa, who's character refuses wetwork and kidnappings on moral grounds, yet have no qualms about exterminating those the character views as monsters without any evidence that they really are individual threats. A person who holds high morals about sanctity of life cannot claim to be sane if they will turn around and go out of their way to kill just because they believe that a certain individual may pose a threat to mankind based on nothing but that person belonging to a group that has been proven to feed off of humans.




If you are in a position of such prescience, you are most likely in a position to change him and affect the future in that way as well. That scenario is useless for discussions on both morality and sanity since it presents a scenario that is inherently impossible.

A better scenario:
The spokesperson for a group of 1000 people states 'we will murder and eat one person a month for the rest of our lives', and over the course of the next year, twelve of these people are found guilty of murder and cannibalism. Do you go out and kill the rest of these people on sight even though you cannot be sure if they have ever committed a crime, or if they ever will?
Next year passes, and 7 of that group is found guilty of killing and eating 12 people.
Year after that, only one person performs all murders.
Year after that, 30 people have been proven to take part. 10 of them say that they only eat, and would never kill.
Year after that, you come upon one of the group who is eating from a fresh corpse. You have a gun, he does not. Do you kill, or call the police? Which is the 'sane' thing to do?

No moral code is that absolute, though. There is always room to question why 'x' and not 'y', and why 'x' when 'z' equals 53 and not when it equals 54.

Heh... Heh heh heh... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ... ... ... He.

That implies we are living in a sane world. *Slasher Smile* People try to put order to things, but in reality, all is but chaos. So who is the insane? The ones trying to make order of chaos, or those that embrace the chaos? Which is the deluded fool, and which is the person seeing the world for what it truly is?

*Gazes down at you all* Who is the insane, indeed? When the world is just a tinderbox connected to a fuse... Waiting for the right time to set off the explosion that will rock the world and make it burn!

Mostly not really. There is debate about those points, but they are not "grey". Grey would mean it is neither right nor wrong.
Some people say it is right and some people say it is wrong.

It is true that most people and therefore also out laws are inconsistant.


True. Does not mean there is none.
Actually you can go a long way with just a hand full of premissis.

@snowRaven

The point is, if there is room for that it is flawed to begin with.
It is less moral and more self-righteousness.

To quote Nietzsche: He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

If during a mission I stumble across a ghoul, goblin whatever Infected by surprise I'll surely shoot first and ask question laters. Sorry if the comparison offends someone, but I see the same way as stumbling across a mama bear and its cubs. You either shoot before it kills you or you run fast and long enough it gives up killing you.
Now, I don't see a problem working with a contact that is an Infected, as long as they are not an street doc.

Do any of the source books definitively state what percentage of the infected ghouls revert to a feral state or keep their intellect (degraded or not)? That could alter one's view of "kill on sight" vs. "can't we all just get along." I'd swear I've seen something printed, but I can't seem to find anything beyond vague statements of "most" or "many."

I might be wrong, but I'd say more than half of the ghouls are feral.
I'd have to check my books when I get home though.

Sixt World Almanac p.100 states only :
" Through AR and VR, we can
teach all our people to read; our literacy rate is well over ninety percent—among our
citizens who have the intellectual facility to learn, that is."

I've been (understandably, from an editor/developer POV) encouraged to stay away from hard numbers when I work with this sort of thing. And honestly, I try to do just that. Hard numbers could make my life as a writer a harder thing than it already is.

I don't recall ever seeing a figure on that (feral vs socialized ghouls). That said, during most of our discussions, I think we're assuming 1 in 10 ghouls are feral. I don't know where that 10% figure came from, though; if I find a canon source, I'll post it.

I would be very interested in a source for this. (No irony or condescension intended; I'm genuinely interested.)

Yeah, the last game of vampire the masqueade was a 1 one shot where I ended up with a 2 or 3 humanity, having killed 4 people already and sucked the soul of another vamp. I can't play that game, all my PC's will end up in the same place quickly..

I edited my post, i didnt remember correctly.

Crunchwise i would argument that it cant be too much. Ghouls get -1 Logic i assume that people with logic 1 or not fully 2 (its just numbers) would turn more or less feral when getting infected.
Since Logic 1 is the exception i dont think that there are too much of em.