Yeah, I liked the Vamps in buffy being portrayed as souless monsters. Though they tended to be a bit on the mook side of things.

So when discussion the accepted morality in a game world, we should ignore the average inhabitant of this world...riiiight

Also, how many shadowrunners play Robin Hood for every 1000 who just work for cash? Two?

Me, I've been thinking that, given that the human standard range for attributes is 6 points wide and that 3 in a given attribute is the mean, I then consider each attribute point to be a standard deviation. So, that means that 68.2% of humans, for example, have between Logic 2 to 4, 13.6% have Logic 1 to 2, and 2.1% have Logic 0 to 1; actual mental retardation is when you have an effective Logic of below 0 due to penalties, like the Mental Handicap neg quality. (Another 13.6% have Logic 4 to 5, and 2.1% have Logic 6, with 0.1% having Logic 7.)

So, now, let's shift these down; Ghouls lose one point of Logic from the transformation, meaning that the new mean is a Logic of 2. That means that most Ghouls (68.2%) have a Logic of 1-3, and 15.7% have a Logic of less than 1.

Note that these are natural numbers, assuming a normal distribution--and, of course, the feral ones have a rather nasty selection pressure against them which will diminish them proportionately from the entire population.

I just had an SR2070s remake of AUstin Powers with Fat Bastard as a troll yelling "BABY GET IN MY BELLY!"

Sure, I'll take a look. I think it was in Bug City or feral cities that I'd found these numbers, but it might be just something from my head though. (And don't worry, I didn't think you meant as irony or condescension either)

More digging, but no hard numbers.... I had thought that the 10% was the number of non-feral ghouls. I wish I could remember where I got that impression from.

"Many ghouls, though suffering from goblinization trauma and possibly loss of mental capacity, remain thinking creatures..." (SR2 225).

"The transformation often destroys the intellect of the victim, but many ghouls remain quite intelligent" (Critters 30).

"... [A] small group of sentient ghouls and thousands of their brain-damaged fellows..." (Cyberpirates 101), in reference to the founding of Asamondo.

Shadowrun Companion covers ghouls as characters on pp32-34, but doesn't give a specific rate of reversion. An infected character does lose at least one point in Intelligence and Charisma each, and may lose up to three points in each.

Something of interest found while I was digging... the comparison of HMHVV to AIDS dates back to at least to Threats (p34), published in 1996.

While we are at it:
Does anybody got an idea when exactly in cloned or created babies the sapience begins so that HMHVV 1 infected can drain them?
Its an eternal discussion around abortions too.
Is it kindergarten age? Is it when they begin to speak their first words? When they are 9 Monts old?

Well, from a somewhat logical standpoint it 'should' be after when babies realize that they are separate from the world around them. That would be a prerequisite for 'sapience' I think.

Why?

Because if you believe that the entire world is just an extension of you, it's a bit harder to make intelligent, knowing, judging decisions based on it.

If you don't realise that you are separate from the world, you won't really have a sense of self, and will likely fail the 'mirror test' and other cognitive tests.

Now, this would possibly not mean that you have the equivalence of the Sapience power, but not having that level of self-recognition and perception about the world will most likely mean that you won't qualify for it. Self-recognition is a major part of what science refers to as consciousness, and that definition would likely have to apply to anyone in Shadowrun that possesses the Sapience 'power'.


Edit: I should probably have uesd a more apt term than 'consciousness' here, but I'm tired.

And yet, when my Son was born, he could recognize things, communicate, and interact. Maybe not as well at birth as he can now in Kindergarten, but he was still cognitive. *shrug*

To everyone: haven't abandoned this thread, but actually had to get back to work today.

Yesterday was some serious server downtime, which gave me a very long extended lunch to post responses during, but now I'm making up for lost time. I'll continue work on responding to multiple posts into tonight.

...and most animals can recognize things, communicate, and interact - yet isn't regarded as sapient (especially not according to the SR definition).

Being cognitive is not the same as being sapient.

Children acquire the ability to be fully self-aware somewhere close to 12-18 months old. Only about a dozen animals exhibit the same understanding of themselves and the world around them.

If we want to go further, it might require the individual to be able to 'think about thinking', or exhibit 'metasapience'. That is, the individual has to be aware of the fact that they are aware of the world around them, and be able to take that into account when making decisions. This goes beyond simple 'cause and effect' understanding and enters the realm of knowingly altering the 'cause' to acheive a specific 'effect' beyond just using learned experience. This ability has only conclusively been proven in humans, apes and some monkies.

Don't worry, we'll still be here when you get back...

And just as messed up as we always are.

I'm neither for the "Give Ghouls A Chance" bit or against it. Personally, I think it's too early, as there's no alternative to cannibalism and Essence eating yet.

Dunkie wanted them to have a shot, good enough reason for me in-universe. Me personally... I'm putting Zombie Plan #4 into effect.

That may be, but Humanity is considered Sapient at Birth (and some may even extend that to Conception - Though I believe the normal definition is alive). As such, why not just extend that to Shadowrun. Self Aware is not the same as Sapience. At least last I checked. Maybe that has changed. *Shrug* I should probably go back and look at Patrick Goodman's Definitions to clear the cobwebs a bit.

So, to summarize the two sides:

On one side, we have the Deontologists, who believe that we should judge the intent and principles behind the actions of the Infected; yes, they have to feed, but do they do it with some sort of moral code behind their actions, and with reluctance, resignation or gusto?

On the other side, we have the Consequentialists, who believe that we should judge the outcomes and consequences of an action and who rightly point out that, regardless of intent, the Infected will harm people, and, as a result, should be prevented from continuing that harm.

Sound about right?

(just finished finals, including an ethics paper, so all of this stuff is fresh in my head; it's nice finally having names for all of these things! )

and on another note: hey, TJ, why do you always bold people's screen-names?

I'm no expert on the subject - do you have a source for humans being considered sapient at birth?

I only know of sapience being defined as 'the ability to act with judgment', which hardly fits newborns and prenatals. Self-awareness certainly does not equal sapience, but it's pretty much a necessary step on the path to sapience as defined by science.

This is the definition from Running Wild, matching pretty well with scientific views:



Now, if that is the minimum requirement for a non-human critter to be viable for Essence Drain, the same limits would probably apply to metahumans. Rules-wise, though, the only requirement for metahumans would be having Essence - but there's nothing either fluff or crunch that says when a human being gets Essence. If it's at conception, then clones should always have Essence (even if they are the de-brained version), or should never get it since they aren't conceived.
If it's only when the individual becomes capable of self-awareness and conscious choice-making, it should happen somewhere after a year for normal metahumans (this is unlikely, since most living creatures have Essence, and if being 'alive' is the requirement, we enter another debate with no clear-cut boundaries and a lot of guesswork -- besides, since having Essence isn't the only requirement for other living beings, logic dictates it wouldn't be for humans either).
Anything else is in the realm of pure speculation (and 'at birth' doesn't really cut it since there's no clear definition of what 'birth' would be, and it would also rule out clones. C-sections? Natural birth? Cutting of the umbilical cord? First breath?)

Yeah, that sounds about right.

As for the Creationists...

Yes, I had a chance to read a few essays on this a few months back myself. This enabled me to say that, in general, I'm a Consequentialist/Utilitarian who is opposed to Deontologist thinking.

When I get home, I'll post a link to a free Kindle book from Amazon about "The Ethics/Morality of Superheroes" that I found to be facinating reading, and arguably quite relevant to this debate here.

Oooooooooooooo, that sounds like an interesting read!

...

Wish I could read right now.

I'll try to get home before too late, CanRay. Part of being a DBA, however, means never really being off duty most of the time...

Ok, CanRay, just for you, I have retrieved the link to what I'm pretty sure is the right ebook:

Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture

One of the (middle?) chapters, IIRC, discusses Deontology vs. Utilitarianism at some length, with regards to "Should Batman Kill the Joker?"

Go on, guess my answer to that one.

I'd be happy to add my own chapter to this book: "Should We Exterminate the Infected in the Sixth World?"

Ah, now if I only had a Kindle. Thanks anyways Janessa. As I said, reading is an ability I don't have right now.

I don't have a Kindle, either. There's a free PC reader app - read it on your desktop/laptop. And I don't understand about reading - you're obviously reading these forums, so I'm a bit confused.

So that they stand out in the text.

I guess I don't get why people are bothered by that. I could care less if you highlight my name in pink flowers. I have better things to worry about than how people on the internet type my name.

It's just weird. Obviously. It's like being that one non-staff jerk who has to post in colors, etc. (This refers to a generic, theoretical jerk, on any forum.)

Heh, well there's many levels of apathy. It's certainly different and noticeable, but you see hundreds of examples of people ignoring it all the time. Every now and then, someone is bored enough to ask him why he's weird. I wouldn't describe it as 'bothered', etc. In some heated threads, I've seen touchy people say something about it, irrelevantly.

Maybe it's because of my line of work but I just don't care. But apparently I'm the minority.

It's just always struck me as a harmless, eccentric affectation, but that could just be me....

Jesus Christ, some guy is trying to make his post more readible and is hit with stick for that...


Well, scientific the answer is no. Still, you do not get charged for "destruction of property" killing a baby nor animal cruelty...

Welcome to Dumpshock!

Hmm...

So, how would a banshee reacto to the combination of [Random Common Fluid]+DMSO

Would they puke after getting it absorbed into their body or must it literally be 'consumed'?

Or even better, you have an autoinjector in your body (just in case) that continously disperse something in your body that is *not* blood but harmless...

That something would be filtered by your kidney

Doesnt matter since the autoinjector would kep one dose in your system continously - the kidney might hate me though...

Kinda like an alcoholic, constant drunk and the kidney and liver has severe issues with your lifestyle

And what is the name for "runners murder people and nobody cares, why should they be bothered if somebody takes a bite out of a stiff?"

Infected make the perfect wardens. 1 mutaqua + felons = Profits. "Permanent Corrections - Imprisoned for this life no chance at the next."

Replace 'Batman' with 'LoneStar' and 'Joker' with 'Shadowrunners'.

Now, I AM a Consequentialist, but you have to apply that on an individual basis and not judge an entire group on the actions of the few.

Those Infected who do not require Essence could in most cases survive without commiting crime, and are not by default 'monsters' just because they have to feed on metahuman flesh. They ARE victims of a disease, and if treated as such by society they could in many cases live full lives and contribute to society. Unless they are feral, they will still be more or less the same person that they were before their transformation. How would you feel if you were diagnosed with a disease and people told you "sorry, but if we let you live, an unspecified number of people WILL die or be infected, so from now on you are no longer classified as a human being and we will put you down." Or if it was your child or family member. They did nothing wrong. With the right help from society they may not ever do anything illegal (though what they do may be unethical). What justifies killing them?

Those who need Essence pose a different problem, but not all of those will commit crime either - if they live off of voluntary subjects. This cannot last forever, of course, and necessary steps will have to be taken - but on an individual basis.

If you want to take the stance that all Infected must die because most of them harm nonconsenting humans, then why not take the same stance on any Shadowrunners that kill? Thrill-gangers? Organized Crime? Drug dealers? Pimps? If it's the harming per se, regardless of consent, then you have to go after BDSM practitioners as well.

Most of those people are in fact a lot worse than many Infected, because the criminals choose to kill and harm other people. Most Infected do it because it's their only possibility for survival. Much like the survivors of the plane crash in the Andes that ate their dead.



Exactly. The crimes Shadowrunners commit, as a group, are at the same scale of severity as crimes Infected commit, as a group - and neither really begin to approach what Organized Crime does, as a group.

There are laws for dealing with them - even if they're often ineffectual and/or badly applied. Even hunting, and the putting down of dangerous animals, is regulated. If you allow people to indiscriminately murder the Infected, and even encourage it, people WILL accidentally kill non-Infected that they suspect of being Infected.

No, because there is nothing in the laws about 'sapient beings'; only human beings:

Regardless of the mental state of a human, you'll generally get charged with murder if you kill it.

Regardless of the mental state of an animal, you won't. At worst it's 'animal cruelty'; at best you get paid for it.

(Yes, there are exceptions were killing a human being isn't murder: legal executions, some cases of euthanasia, suicide in some places (but not all) - but none of these havve anything to do with 'sapience' either. Essence Drain apparently does.)

sure, but the things would be solved in your blood and therefore irrelevant, or vampires would have to throw up on everyone they bite (because there are many things solved in blood).

Well, and if lonestar kills a Runner? Well, one Terrorist down X to go.

There are exepctions: Those Runners who do not kill anybody and work by outsmarting the opposition. Those will be taken alive, because you are unlikely to lose men doing so and you will have a field day if you bring that guy to trail. (And just killing him could lable you "brutal" or "incompetent" and if you killed the wrong guy...

But some crazy shit terrorist, well I guess the world would care about him, like the world did about Osama bin Laden. And thats the stand the world will probably have with the infected. "Well, they shot that vampire in the head. Guess the could not capture him." "Whats for dinner?" "Sojaburger" "Thankfully that thing is off the street."


But they can't be pointed OUT. Thats the main reason. Yes, ghouls might get some pitty, since they "just" eat dead meat. But still, if there is no meat around, you will probably prefere to let them starve to killing yourself and offer your "meat" as dinner.


Yeah, and boxer too. Jesus Christ.
YES, SHADWORUNNER WHO KILL ARE FREE TARGETS!
If a cop shoots one of those guys, he gets a medal and some time in TV.

Again: If you consider the healing possibilities and costs, this "essence drain" is about as bad as cutting someones arm off.

Just be careful whose arm you choose to cut off.

I had one contact who had that done to him in a bank robbery, to prove they were hard about hurting/killing hostages. SWAT had to save the Robbers from him.

He likes his new arm better. He can swap it out with a jackhammer for his job working road construction.

Irion, that's missing the point. There's a difference between a legally justified target and a 'non-person monster *race* to be exterminated', and the reasoning behind it it equally important ('oh, well they eat real people').

Because they want to, or because they have to?

Do you kill someone so you can live? Do you live off of the flesh of the already dead? Can you do that? Do you just enjoy the killing so much that you do so anyways even when there are other options?

Supernatural touched on this twice... Once with a group of Vampires that were just trying to survive (Drinking cow's blood), and once with some kind of critter that Sam didn't want to kill, but Dean ended up killing just because she was a monster.

Which is better, CanRay? (I'm asking, I dunno your position.) A lot of runners kill for the fun, which is more monstrous than killing in self-defense, for food, or even for money (depending on your precise moral happenstance). But, I'm mostly talking about the practice of *categorizing* an offender as 'non-person/monster', as opposed to simply 'offender but still a person'. We have enough cultural history to know the difference between those, yeah?

My position is that Infected *are* a nice, complex, grey area, as I'm sure everything in SR is intended to be. Some Infected do *have* to eat living sapients (though that assumes you accept Sasquatches as people, how progressive of us ), and that's pretty hard to be okay with. Some Infected only have to eat a pretty smallish amount of metahuman flesh now and then, and it can be off corpses or cloned; pretty hard *not* to be okay with that, if care is taken. I *love* that that range exists, and I'd never argue that all Infected are okay, just as it's lazy to argue that they're all morally-safe targets for death by fire. AFAIK, complex, heterogeneous grey areas are the whole point of SR.

I just went through the augmentation to see what I suspected: Aside from the revitalisation there is no amount of money or time given to regenerate essence loss.
Celular repair does say it fixes it at 18k a week, but how much? One Point a week? 0.1 point a week? All in 2 month? Or one point in two month?
The only given numbers, the one on revitalisation are quite high...
Around 2.5m for a vampire to get by one year...

On an other note it would take a "cattle" of around 100 humans to savely get by without killing someone.


But yes there are no-person-monster-races in SR by definition. Because a gaming world without existant gods has not one single, true moral code.


@Yerameyahu

Well, it depends on what moral you follow. The point is, the second one is supportable even without beeing a hypocrite. (Meaning not applying the same values on yourself)

Lets put it like that: Killing infected is as hard to defend as eating animals today.

After reading it, I would say that Cellular Repair heals a Point of Essence Loss per Week, at a cost of 15,000 Nuyen/Week. Since shortest and longest times are listed as 1-8 weeks. Now, that would be Full immersion Repairs, so 168 Hours (That is the entire Week) in the Tanks, so to speak, with absolutely nothing else going on.... I would probably also charge the Hospital Stay as well.

But, man, a vampire with a herd of 100? Totally makes sense in SR (and other settings). But… who said you could safely deal with the Essence Loss problem in the first place? As far as I'm concerned, that item (cell repair) shouldn't exist, it's un-SR. I'm totally fine with soul-eating vampires.

It depends if you're a murderer or not, Irion, and maybe which animals you eat (mm, monkey brains). The fact is that it's quite difficult to kill someone who's *talking* to you, and then claim it wasn't a person. It's much better to say that it was a *person* you needed to kill, because of X or Y. It's not the killing I care about, it's the reasoning.

I disagree... Cellular Repair is VERY Shadowrun... Technology marches on. You will never see it being used by the homeless masses. It is strictly an upper Echelon treatment, as they are really the only ones who can afford it.

If you can repair Essence Loss due to Implantation, you should be able to restore Essence Loss through any other method (Drug addiction, Drain, etc).