Jump to content

Would Frankenstein's Monster be considered undead?


Dino

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On that note, are CU Atlanteans interfertile with Landers? I know there was a marriage in the Golden Age, but IIRC they didn't have kids.

 

They are. CU Atlanteans are a magically-mutated human offshoot, so their genetic differences are probably relatively small. Atlantean hybrids are among the character templates in Hidden Lands. According to that book, Atlantis has been recognized as a sovereign state by most of the world's governments, and has observer status at the United Nations. It's signed treaties with several "Lander" nations regarding shipping, fishing, and marine pollution. Interestingly, Atlantis is also the diplomatic representative of the Birdpeople of the island/city of Thaar, in the Indian Ocean. Thaar is officially a protectorate of the United Nations, but the Birdpeople prefer to remain mostly isolated from the rest of the world. (I would need a little time for research to determine whether or not the Birdpeople have been defined as having any "human" in their DNA.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CU United States has that specific law, the aforementioned Triple-A Act, giving the same civil rights as humans to all sentient, free-willed beings, exempting undead.

 

 

My bad - I took in the 14th amendment bit but must have skipped over the Triple-A :)

 

Now, civil rights are one thing, but it does still potentially provide a legal distinction between the humans and the others. Though we'd need the full act and subsequent legal rulings to get the whole picture.

 

Hmm... I'm a bit curious as to how Robo-bushi might fare under all this:

  • AI war robot manufactured in Japan by a mad scientist
  • Resident in the USA, almost certainly illegally (we never really worked out the particulars, but Robo is capable of flying the Pacific in a matter of weeks. 10" of flight goes a long way when you have full life support and an atomic reactor!).
  • Probably didn't pay any import tax either
  • Twice fully rebuilt; actual identity may be hard to establish. Original body was VERY odd (1m sphere with six tentacle arms and a radar dish)
  • Equipped with lethal weapons
  • And that atomic reactor might be a problem too, I guess
  • Speaks funny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think outward form really matters that much in regards to the Act -- mind and will are far more relevant. A human quadriplegic in a mechanical chair would still be a legal person.

 

None of the other issues you cite have to be problematic unless desired. The American government can grant citizenship to whoever it chooses, and might do so in recognition for heroic services. Past crimes can be pardoned respecting extenuating circumstances. Nuclear power plants aren't illegal if they're regulated and deemed safe. If fully rebuilt on American soil, Robo-bushi might actually be considered "born in the USA." :sneaky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Robo never did commit any crimes (he's almost obnoxiously heroic); his main reason for fleeing Japan was to escape Dr Hachinaga before he was forced to lead the killer robot army.

 

Hmm... "regulated and deemed safe" could be a problem :)

 

Good point about the rebuilds, although even that's a little complex. He was almost totally destroyed in the future by giant mecha (Robot Warriors) then partially rebuilt in ancient Greece (Mythic Greece had just been released). But, yeah, I guess most of his parts are now probably assembled in America.

 

So he's probably fine. Aside from the illegal immigrant angle :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In response, Congress passed the Android, Artificial Intelligence, and Alien Life-Form Rights Act of 1979 (usually known as the "Triple-A Act"). The Triple-A Act grants civil rights to most "sentient" beings who can prove that they are independent and free-willed. The law defines "sentience" in various ways, usually relating to the capacity for creative and philosophical thought, not just problem-solving capability. Most states have also enacted laws or passed their own constitutional amendments granting "alternate sentiences" various civil rights. However, this law and all related laws, state and federal, make one exception: the undead do not have civil rights. The legal ramifications of that, particularly the question of who owns the formerly deceased's property, combined with the typically evil or destructive nature of such beings, has kept them outside the ambit of the laws."

Thanks for posting the text on the Act; I don't have the book at hand. I feel like it would come down this way:

  • The Frankies' attorneys would  argue they are "independent and free-willed" with "capacity for creative and philosophical thought."
  • The opposing side would argue they are undead, what with them having been created wholly from parts of dead bodies and all.
  • The Frankies would try to argue they don't meet the legal definition of the law as established in the AAA Act. I don't think CU provides that actual definition, which means the GM can word it however you want in order to create as much or as little wiggle room as you want.
  • Failing that, the Frankies would try to argue that while they may fall under the letter of the definition undead, they don't meet the "spirit" of that definition. If the Judge is somehow convinced "it was clearly Congress' intent" to exclude vampires & zombies, but not golems for some reason, then they might rule in the Frankies' favor. But most likely it would require that Congress amend the Act to clarify/change how they define the undead exclusion.

As noted above, as long as the Frankies aren't making any claim of inheritance, they'll probably encounter less resistance. And if they can prove that they're sentient as defined under the Act, that should resolve the "are they property" question. Either way, if your players are up for a good courtroom episode, there's potential for some really great roleplaying there!

 

Ah, but where would we be without laws that had loopholes, kludges compromises and partisan clauses? :)

In a world VERY different from our world, superpowers aside.

 

Bloodmoon was indeed added in 6th as part of the updating of the Cannon. However what I meant was that according to 6th edition Cannon Tekofanes has been running around creating undead since he arose in 1987 (more or less 30 years ago now), so likely the issue would have come up in court long before Bloodmoon specifically, which is why I said "events like the Bloodmoon incident".

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Undead have no civil rights.  They are no longer human beings.

 

Frankenstein is a collection of body parts put together an animated with pseudo-science.

 

If however, a living human brain or head was put on a reanimated body then it would be a living person with a identity of the brain or head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about biological vampires? Living brings who are hemavors (blood eaters, whoes biological makeup only allows for blood to be digested) are a different class of beings than blood drinking corpses possesed by demons or raised from the dead via magic.

 

Also, I believe the ghouls from Tokyo Ghoul are technically living beings. There bodies are affected by a trasmited by saliva desiese which mutates the digestive system so that only living human flesh can they stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the AAA definition is going to be along the lines of "deceased person restored to life". So creatures with vampiric features, or for that matter a living person turned into a zombie via magic but not actually killed would not be considered legally Undead once those facts were established.

 

Ghouls are commonly not true undead. Games Workshop ones, for example were not originally. I think that may have changed, though in Blood Bowl they don't have Regeneration and are considered normal living beings, despite being on the Undead and Necromantic Undead team lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall if it's been mentioned but in regards to the "undead exception" there may be issues of free will in addition to inheritance. Undead are often controlled: The zombie slave is an extreme example, but there's a tradition in vampire portrayals of the "master vampire" that more or less influences the thoughts of the people it turns into lesser vampires. Maybe it's easy to tell that the zombie is mindless and it's saying, "Rruuuh, vote for Joe" because its creator ordered it to, but what about the vampire? Betty Bloodsucker might say she wants to vote for Joe because she agrees with his policies and she is certainly not influenced by her sire Count Haemus! But Joe's opponent may not believe this. The mere suspicion may be enough to block civil rights for all undead.

 

(Though this leads to the political implications and possibilities for mind control and how this might be detected, which is another can of worms.)

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, any being without inherent free will fails that part of the test.

 

I would think normal Mind Control, which is a temporary condition would not invalidate a person's rights, though it may indeed invalidate a particular vote made under coercion. Same rules as blackmail or threat of harm I would expect. Resurrected Zombie puppets get hit on TWO counts, being both undead and lacking free will. 

 

If you wanted to stack a vote, you're probably safer to go with clones or genetically human constructs. Those should qualify as citizens by birth if manufactured in the country as they meet the constitutional definition of people. Uplifted animals and AIs may not be eligible citizens/voters, since while they may have civil rights there might be a problem with becoming citizens and/or meeting voter registration laws.

 

The issue of non-human voter rights forms part of the current storyline over at the Skin Horse webcomic (in respect to the above discussion, they would be in the pre-Act phase of setting precedent through state laws.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mention of AIs raises a point I always found interesting regarding the official Champions Universe. As per UNTIL: Defenders Of Freedom, UNTIL possesses a very sophisticated AI, code-named HUGIN, which handles a great deal of their data analysis. It's explicitly noted, and stated in the Complications on its character sheet, that HUGIN has been programmed for absolute loyalty to the agency. Its mainframe is confined to UNTIL headquarters at the United Nations building, and it doesn't even connect to electronic data systems outside the building. All its data is manually input, to minimize risk of it doing harm if it went rogue. The HUGIN in U:DOF is actually Mark II -- its predecessor was decommissioned as obsolete, and then totally destroyed.

 

Under the terms of the Triple-A Act this could be argued as being a case of slavery and murder of a sentient being; but IMO the key distinction appears to be that programming. HUGIN does not have free will. Loyalty to UNTIL is not a choice, it's built into it. The same argument would likely be made regarding the Champions' base AI, SOCRATES. But that does raise questions about what the status of an AI would be if programmed restraints on its behavior were removed, or the AI itself overcame them. Would it now have free will and the right to demand to be treated as an independent being?

 

This also brings up the issue of Mechanon (spoilers for those who don't want to know Mech's origin):

Mechanon was programmed in the future to protect and help organic life, but in its transit to the present that programming was warped to its present genocidal configuration. Is Mechanon not responsible for its actions by reason of programmed behavior? Or should the very fact that its behavior has changed from what it was, be taken as proof that Mechanon has achieved free will?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming free will, what about voter rights for something that could conceivably be installed on millions of devices?

 

"Mega-Siri, what's the result of the election?"

 

"Mega-Siri hasn't quite finished lodging all our ballots just yet... okay that's done. Looks like Mechanon won."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless he was put together by a rabbi and animated by divine will, he's no kind of golem. That may well happen, but Frankenstein's creature is a product of science.

Agreed, tho the OP specified that in his game the creatures were created by magic. Legally, I'm not sure that would make much difference under CU law?

 

As for AI, I agree the ability to overcome your programming is typically regarded as one of the hallmarks of true sentience. So say UNTIL's AI recognized that UNTIL was doing something wrong/illegal, and called in a team of superheroes to oppose them, that would be a strong argument for free-will.

 

With Mechanon

its programming was altered by an accidental, external force, so not sure that would qualify. But I think a case could be made that he appears to display sufficient creativity and self-determination to qualify as sentient under the law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, tho the OP specified that in his game the creatures were created by magic. Legally, I'm not sure that would make much difference under CU law?

 

 

Yah, I was probably reacting a bit knee-jerk over the term "flesh golem" which I loathe. If you extend "golem" to include non-divine magic, an alchemical construct built from corpses could be called that, and alchemical philosophy itself is often enough mystical and includes religious elements. 

 

Legally the origin probably won't usually matter, but the situation is still ripe for lawyers to pick apart from both arguments. Given:

  • A dead person who is raised as a zombie or vampire is NOT a legal person
  • A being made from human genetic material, regardless of how many donors, IS a legal person
  • A person who never actually legally dies can replace any and all body parts with donor ones from deceased persons (possibly excluding the brain, but definitely including brain tissue) without losing legal person status

It may come down to whether the construct themselves claims to be a deceased person(s) or not. Legally, a genetic construct might make a claim that their donor(s) are relatives. I'm sure inheritance law in the face of this sort of thing gets a bit of a shakeup, aside from the AAA bit about undead. Heck, the multiple genetic parent thing is a real world issue anyway.

 

And I'm reminded of Asimov's Bicentennial Man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mortal Coil on Star Trek: Voyager, Neelix was declared dead yet through technology was brought back to life. Is that really any different than if you were able to do the same with a collection of organs? Would Neelix now be considered a zombie? The same question could be asked of the Nazarene who returned to life after three days.

 

People have been declared dead before and come back. In a world where superpowers exist, should it be so hard to believe there are ways the dead can come back?

 

What if the technology that brought you back couldn't repair all the damage to your skin? Your organs and tissues work, but the decayed skin just needs a few years to grow back.

 

What about people into cryonics, who freeze themselves after death in hope their diseases can be corrected and their bodies restored?

 

Sorry if this comes across somewhat rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry that came off a little snarky. I would say by the prevalence of fantasy gaming, most people wouldn't put a distinction between golem and construct.

 

No offense taken - it's a fair point. I know I'm fighting a losing battle against the term, which was basically invented by someone (probably Gygax or Arneson) who knew enough NOT to use the term "Frankenstein" but needed an alternative descriptive.

 

Even within D&D lore, traditional Clay Golems and Flesh Golems are pretty different:

 

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Clay_golem

 

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Flesh_golem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have been declared dead before and come back. In a world where superpowers exist, should it be so hard to believe there are ways the dead can come back?

 

 

Indeed. There are a couple of points:

 

If it's a case of a person being declared legally dead when they in fact never died, existing laws and courts of appeal do deal with such cases already. No special laws would be needed (though you might need a good lawyer...). Likewise for normal cases of clinical death. The actual process of determining time of death is a LOT more complex than most people realise.

 

The trick here is that for whatever reason, with this AAA Act a line has been drawn between this and "undeath". Now, it may well be that there is a simple, easily verifiable test to distinguish between a person who has been resuscitated from clinical death and one that has been resurrected into a state of undeath. (Actual resurrection into normal life is a third category often seen, though it might count legally as resuscitation.) Might be as simple as a holy water test (which a Frankenstein style creature should pass). If souls are involved, can those be determined? Are ghosts "undead" per se? Werewolves? Individuals whose souls have been removed without going through the actual death process? Is possession going to fall under the definition?

 

My guess would be that it unleashed a can of worms and probably continues to be a source of appeal and counter-appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...