Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Shinobi Killfist on <04-19-19/1838:31>
-
? Is the title. Wandering if they are alive for the purpose of contact preparations.
-
Yes they have Sapience and an aura. And they really only need the aura to count as I understand it.
Now Are AI's alive? Do they have an aura?
-
Yes they have Sapience and an aura. And they really only need the aura to count as I understand it.
Now Are AI's alive? Do they have an aura?
Only Number 5.
-
I'd have to say "No."
Keep in mind that having an aura doesn't necessarily mean the thing is alive, in a rules mechanics-sense. For example the earth itself has an aura, and for that reason some in-universe people claim the gaiasphere is a living entity. But from a rules-mechanics standpoint, I don't think anyone's prepared to argue that hitting the ground counts as a "living entity" for the purposes of the contact trigger.
Also keep in mind that a homunculus doesn't have an aura. An astral form, sure. But that's not the same thing as an aura. For example, spells and foci have astral forms but not auras. Is there anything that ever says homunculi have auras?
-
Also keep in mind that a homunculus doesn't have an aura. An astral form, sure. But that's not the same thing as an aura. For example, spells and foci have astral forms but not auras. Is there anything that ever says homunculi have auras?
By the rules it's sapient, which again by the rules means it thinks and makes choices, it has mental attributes, which is said to be a step up from animals according the critter section. Are you gonna say animals don't have aura or trigger contact triggers? Cause they sure as heck do both at my table.
-
There's no debate as to whether animals are living things. But that's not the point: animals clearly have auras, but it's not clear that homunculi do. Other ongoing magical effects have astral forms, not auras.
A homunculus is an inanimate object that is infused with magic via the appropriate ritual. Ergo, even though it's neither a homunculus is more like an active focus than an animal.
I'd think we're able to agree inanimate objects are not living things, even with the whole gaiasphere thing muddying the waters? That just leaves whether the magic that makes the inanimate object become a homunculus is also giving that inanimate object *life*. In a rules mechanic sense: does the ritual bestow an astral form to the inanimate object or an aura?
If we disagree whether the ritual is giving life and an aura, or a magical effect and an astral form: then let's agree to disagree. We've argued enough before that I'm sure neither one of us will convince the other.
-
As I recall, a homunculus is an inanimate object with a spirit bound to it....
-
Then SSDR explain what Sapient is. It's alive and thinks and as such it must have an aura.
So to your mind do sprites not trigger contact triggers?
Watchers are spirits. Thus a watcher bound into an object has the aura the spirit bound into it.
The same way a body is an inanimate object if no longer has spirit in it. In the same way as Shediem possess bodies.
Shediem set off contact triggers and have auras?
-
Well first of all I think sapience has nothing to do with the state of being alive. Second of all, nowhere in the Homunculus rules does it say it's either alive or that it has has an aura which then implies it is alive. OTOH pg 312, Auras and Astral Forms, establishes a trinary status for all things. They are either:
Living, and in possession of an aura.
Magical but not living, and in possession of an astral form.
None of the above, and having neither.
Homunculi are clearly not the third. Since there's nothing that says homunculi are alive, there's no reason to assume they are. Ergo, they're in the "magic" bucket and have an astral form, as far as I'm concerned. Spirits are alive and have auras, yes. But the Homunculus rules establish numerous differences between them and spirits.
Then SSDR explain what Sapient is. It's alive and thinks and as such it must have an aura.
Sapience is defined on pg 400. Note that a state of being alive or having an aura is not part of the definition. And obviously plenty of living things don't have sapience. There is absolutely no correlation between having Sapience and being alive.
So to your mind do sprites not trigger contact triggers?
Nope. Even if sprites had a corporal form with which they could contact a trigger, they don't count as living as far as having an aura. You can't cast spells on sprites either, for this very reason.
(on the off chance you typo'd spirit, I'll answer that too)
I wouldn't call spirits "living" beings per se, but per pg 312 it does explicitly call out that they have auras rather than astral forms. So yes, for the purposes of a contact trigger, I'd consider them "living". Because they have an aura.
Watchers are spirits. Thus a watcher bound into an object has the aura the spirit bound into it.
As of 5th edition (maybe 4th, didn't play that one so much), watchers are no longer spirits. I don't think they have a categorical name for what they are. From the first sentence on Watchers, pg 298:
Watchers are like spirits, but in actuality are entities born
from the ritual leader’s own mind rather than the metaplanes.
You're not "like" a spirit if you ARE a spirit. Ergo, they're not spirits. And just like homunculi (same page), it never says they have an aura or that they're alive. Pg 312 doesn't say they have an aura, and they're clearly not mundane, so the remaining possibility is a magical effect that has an astral form rather than an aura. Again, not a living thing.
EDIT: The same way a body is an inanimate object if no longer has spirit in it. In the same way as Shediem possess bodies.
Shediem set off contact triggers and have auras?
EDIT ANSWER: Shedim are spirits. Watchers are not. Homunculi are not spirits nor are they watchers... they are homunculi. Watchers and homunculi, not being spirits, don't have auras unless something says they do. That leaves them with astral forms instead.
-
Well first of all I think sapience has nothing to do with the state of being alive. Second of all, nowhere in the Homunculus rules does it say it's either alive or that it has has an aura which then implies it is alive. OTOH pg 312, Auras and Astral Forms, establishes a trinary status for all things. They are either:
Well you're very mistaken. As Spience says they are as smart as people see definition below. A Homunculus, has skills can aparently learn new ones (See below), has critter powers, can think and moved around by itself, and it can be killed, all of which clearly implies its alive. Can you think something not alive that can choose to learn new skill that not alive? Nothing in the rules says characters are alive at generation ether, it obvious.
Sapience
Type: P Action: Auto
Range: Self Duration: Always
Sapient critters are self-aware, capable of making
their own choices, and are generally at or above the level
of Homo sapiens. While most critters are considered Unaware (see p. 131) of any skill they don’t possess, sapient
critters are merely Untrained (see p. 131) and can default
normally. They are also capable of learning new skills if
they so choose.
Most sapient critters are mundane, but they are capable of Awakening and possessing a Magic attribute.
Awakened sapient critters are capable of learning any
magical task they set their minds to, and follow the same
rules for magic as normal characters. While no sapient
critters are known to have Emerged as technomancers,
the appearance of “technocritters” has led many scientists to believe that it’s only a matter of time—if it hasn’t
already happened.
Living, and in possession of an aura.
Magical but not living, and in possession of an astral form.
None of the above, and having neither.
None of that is in the rules, you may like imagine it is but ain't so. Watcher have ability choose to manifest (See below). So how to your mind is something not alive able to CHOOSE to manifest.
Astral Form
Type: M Action: Auto
Range: Self Duration: Always
A critter with this power only exists in the astral plane.
Only astral attacks or mana spells/powers may hurt an
astral critter; physical attacks or spells/powers have no
effect. The reverse is also true; an astral critter can only
affect dual-natured beings or those on the astral plane,
whether through astral projection or astral perception.
Critters with this power may manifest on the physical
plane in the same way as astrally projecting magicians
(see p. 313).
There is absolutely no correlation between having Sapience and being alive.
You meet a lot of things that have free will, choice and learn things aren't alive? This isn't a statistic model SSDR. We aren't analyzing probabilities here. We aren't searching for causality. Dead things don't do any of those things.
As of 5th edition (maybe 4th, didn't play that one so much), watchers are no longer spirits. I don't think they have a categorical name for what they are. From the first sentence on Watchers, pg 298:
Just to wrap this up once for all. Lets go look at what you referenced:
Watchers are like spirits, but in actuality are entities born
from the ritual leader’s own mind rather than the metaplanes. Page 298 First sentence under Watcher (Minion.)
So the rule say they are born.
born
/bôrn/
1.
past participle of bear1 (sense 4).
adjective
1.
existing as a result of birth.
birth
/bərTH/
noun
noun: birth; plural noun: births
the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
QED the rule do say they are Alive, and that is RAW. So SSDR your whole argument is in fact founded on false assumption. I'd suggest reading more closely in the future. Good Night.
-
Being able to make your own choices or learning new skills has nothing to do with whether or not you have an aura.
And while there's thousands of years of philosophy to use in arguing about what is or is not life, for the purposes of the game we know that life is defined as whether or not you have an aura.
Not whether or not you have sapience.
-
Being able to make your own choices or learning new skills has nothing to do with whether or not you have an aura.
And while there's thousands of years of philosophy to use in arguing about what is or is not life, for the purposes of the game we know that life is defined as whether or not you have an aura.
Not whether or not you have sapience.
Well as it happens the rules do say it's alive, therefore it has an aura, and so on and so forth. The point is clear.
-
The Contact Trigger for preparations only requires "the next living being to touch the preparation" for activating it. The argument of aura contact stems from people making arguments like "well I'm wearing thick gloves, so I'm not technically touching it" sort of shenanigans. This has prompted the idea of if your 'living aura' touches it, that triggers it too. Which also leads to a couple of work-arounds like Alchemy Gloves and Bio-pockets which dampen the effect of the magical aura and keeps the contact-trigger from setting it off regardless.
As for this discussion on auras and that relation to living things. Spells have auras (description of illusion spells pg 290), Preparations carry an aura (pg 304), and there are several instances of the wording "living things with auras" for determining things like the dice pools for resistance. This is mostly in reference to spells and effects being resisted with attributes (like Willpower or Logic), but objects not having these attributes and therefore resisting based on Force (for magical stuff) or Object Resistance or Structure/Body (for mundane).
Although Watchers and Homunculi aren't full-blown spirits, they do have their own forms, attributes, and Sapience, so I would argue that they are living by most definitions in the same way that a spirit would be. Whether or not they have an aura is functionally irrelevant. They follow all the standard rules for a Critter while they exist, which is about as close as I know of for Shadowrun defining a living thing.
-
Kiir do you have an opinion on the AI question?
That whole line of inquiry may simply be a philosophy question. But I think it's interesting and could be core of an interesting plot line.
-
As for this discussion on auras and that relation to living things. Spells have auras (description of illusion spells pg 290), Preparations carry an aura (pg 304), and there are several instances of the wording "living things with auras" for determining things like the dice pools for resistance. This is mostly in reference to spells and effects being resisted with attributes (like Willpower or Logic), but objects not having these attributes and therefore resisting based on Force (for magical stuff) or Object Resistance or Structure/Body (for mundane).
See, now THIS is how you debate the rules. By citing the rules.
And it's a great point. I would have been prepared to argue that the instances on 290 and 304 were more likely to be cases of sloppy technical writing/editing than being truly accurate given how pg 312 establishes what auras and astral forms are, and what sorts of things have them.
And in going to quote that passage, I realized there's more than one way to read it. I have to concede it's actually my interpretation to say that it's a trinary paradigm (i.e. everything is in one of the three buckets, and only one of the buckets). It could also be read as saying an astral form is just a special kind of an aura, rather than being something other than an aura entirely. That doesn't conflict with your citations, AND I also see that contrary to my memory it's saying the gaiasphere has an ASTRAL FORM and that is cited-in universe as proof of life, rather than an aura as I said upthread.
So yeah, Kiir I think that's the stronger reading.
-
Another point I find interesting:
The Detect Life spell (pg. 286-287) explicitly does not detect spirits. Implicitly, this probably also means Homunculi and Watchers since they're not technically spirits, they do work like them in many ways.
Since the magic that "detects life" doesn't recognize spirits as living, arguably a contact trigger wouldn't either.
-
Another point I find interesting:
The Detect Life spell (pg. 286-287) explicitly does not detect spirits. Implicitly, this probably also means Homunculi and Watchers since they're not technically spirits, they do work like them in many ways.
Since the magic that "detects life" doesn't recognize spirits as living, arguably a contact trigger wouldn't either.
That's not very PC of Detect Life. Buttercup may press discrimination charges.
Since the exact quote is "... detects all living beings (but not not spirits)...," I think spirits are living beings that are an exception to the parameters of this spell. The use of "but" does not concretely make spirits an exception as opposed to a clarification of the definition of "living beings," but I feel that it is a stronger interpretation that they are living beings that need to be excluded. Why? Maybe to restrict the number of planes that the spell acts on; you can only act on one plane (there are probably exceptions), but if spirits are living beings, they are astral/meta planar living beings and thus may not be detected by a spell focused on the material plane.
Looking at the other detect spells, Detect Enemies does not exclude spirits. Whether they are included as living targets, is up for debate. Detect [Life Form] and Detect [Object] do not use spirit as an example, but that is inconclusive. Detect Magic explicitly detects spirits and not critters or awakened individuals, but it does not do so in the context of living versus nonliving.
Let's change the question a bit and see what you think.
Steve the magician casts detect life. 2 meters to his right, Bob the other magician is slumped over because he is astrally projecting. Bob the other magician's astral form is standing 2 meters to the left of Steve the magician. No one else is in range (assuming we are excluding, mundane insects, bacteria, and other tiny things that are living beings, but would break the spell).
So, how many living beings does Steve the magician detect? One or two? If it's one, does he detect life to the left or to the right?
-
Yeah, based on the wording, I would say the Detect Life spell is making an exception to the norm, it detects life forms except spirits. They have to call out spirits in that way because they would normally be included as a living being, the spell just doesn't detect them. There a couple of possible reasons for this, spirits are covered by detect magic or maybe the intent is that Detect Life is for detecting biological life, and since spirits aren't biological, it doesn't hit them.
Cabral: Detect Life would detect the physical body if it were cast on Material Plane, and the projection if it were cast on the Astral. Since it is a mana spell it can be cast on either, but it only affects the one it is cast on.
Marcus: I would say that philosophically AI are alive, but yeah it is really just a philosophy question because Magic won't ever detect them in that way. Because although they might be alive, they lack a physical form. Even if they are currently "occupying" a drone, they still lack a physical component to their existence. They are just puppeting the drone through the Matrix, so the drone wouldn't trigger anything life-wise.
-
So, carrying the thoughts about Detect Life over to Contact triggers...
Contact: The next living being to touch the preparation
activates the spell. This trigger adds +1 Drain.
Do contact triggers use the same paradigm as the Detect Life spell, or do contact triggers use some other form of magic inherently unlike Detect Life when determining what's touching them? It seems like a GM call, but I lean towards "they detect "life" the same way detect life works." Which would mean spirits don't set off contact triggers, and then by extension certainly homunculi wouldn't either.
AIs being alive: I'd agree with Kiirnodel that AIs are alive, and that the question is ultimately meaningless anyway with regards to contact triggers. Whether they're alive or not, they have absolutely no connection to Astral space/magic. It just doesn't exist for them, aside from what magic might do to a device they run on. Getting back into philosophical arguments about life, one of the most basic criteria a potential life form must have to be considered "living" is the ability to reproduce. Now, A.I.s might be tricky here, but we just don't know enough about them mechanically to say. OTOH, we do know that the only way homunculi come into being is via a magical ritual. Homunculi are a hard fail on "able to reproduce", which means under almost any philosophical argument they're not alive.
-
I agree the detective life thing is an issue, and something I didn’t recall. Interestingly but utterly off topic that makes it’s a great way to hunt free spirits. I would agree either the biological life view, but a place to consider is bug queens and bodied drones. Any one recall if those show up under detect life? I’ll check the source material once I get out of work.
-
So, carrying the thoughts about Detect Life over to Contact triggers...
Contact: The next living being to touch the preparation
activates the spell. This trigger adds +1 Drain.
Do contact triggers use the same paradigm as the Detect Life spell, or do contact triggers use some other form of magic inherently unlike Detect Life when determining what's touching them? It seems like a GM call, but I lean towards "they detect "life" the same way detect life works." Which would mean spirits don't set off contact triggers, and then by extension certainly homunculi wouldn't either.
I would say that Detect Life has an explicit exception that contact triggers do not and spirits on the same plane as the trigger would set it off. Are triggers targetable from the astral? If so, then purely astral spirits might set them off too.
-
I would say that contact triggers for preparations don't reference the Detect Life spell, so it doesn't use the same paradigm for the trigger. There are advanced techniques for using detection spells to trigger other spells.
As far as the definition of life goes (able to reproduce), I would say that with the introduction of magic our definition needs to be reassessed or amended. Just because spirits, watchers, and homunculi can't (or just don't?) produce offspring doesn't mean that they aren't alive. A mule is a breed of equine that is sterile, it can't reproduce, but that doesn't make it non-living. Perhaps in the magical sense, because a spirit can be summoned/conjured, that fulfills the "reproduction" aspect of our definition of life.
The simplest way to look at it is to fall back on the rules. Use the definitions that the rules give us. Spirits, Homunculi, Watchers, etc. are all Critters. Critters are living things.
Cabral, preparations aren't dual-natured until they are activated, so they can't be triggered from Astral space.
-
Thanks for all the replies I find this interesting. Not sure what the official take would be but I’m leaning towards not alive. People were using sprites and aI in the discussion and using those as an analogy to me AI are like free spirits, sprites and like spirits and watchers/homonculus are more like a deckers agent. They are constructs with a facsimile of life and not actually alive.
-
The primary issue I have with that stance is that unlike Agents, which are just advanced programs capable of receiving somewhat complex commands, Homunculi are fully sapient, capable of independent action and thought. Sure, they have a short life-span and they follow orders, but I'm not sure any of that makes them not alive.
-
The primary issue I have with that stance is that unlike Agents, which are just advanced programs capable of receiving somewhat complex commands, Homunculi are fully sapient, capable of independent action and thought. Sure, they have a short life-span and they follow orders, but I'm not sure any of that makes them not alive.
I’m not sure they really are capable of independent thought. They have a personality imprint from their creator but they don’t really think they just follow orders. If a computer that can beat you at chess. It has a range of programmed capability based on its force and who the creators were. But I don’t think it’s taking any independent actions or thoughts. Like I don’t think it would bake cookies for the hell of it unless given some kind of command to go so.
-
The primary issue I have with that stance is that unlike Agents, which are just advanced programs capable of receiving somewhat complex commands, Homunculi are fully sapient, capable of independent action and thought. Sure, they have a short life-span and they follow orders, but I'm not sure any of that makes them not alive.
I’m not sure they really are capable of independent thought. They have a personality imprint from their creator but they don’t really think they just follow orders. If a computer that can beat you at chess. It has a range of programmed capability based on its force and who the creators were. But I don’t think it’s taking any independent actions or thoughts. Like I don’t think it would bake cookies for the hell of it unless given some kind of command to go so.
They have the critter power. If you read Sapient, by definition it says they think, sure they aren't brilliant minds smart, but by definition they are as smart as people. That's what the critter power says. I referenced it directly in here already. If you want to house rule they don't have it, and make them just little magic robots, more power to you. But that means changing what their stat line says.
-
The primary issue I have with that stance is that unlike Agents, which are just advanced programs capable of receiving somewhat complex commands, Homunculi are fully sapient, capable of independent action and thought. Sure, they have a short life-span and they follow orders, but I'm not sure any of that makes them not alive.
I’m not sure they really are capable of independent thought. They have a personality imprint from their creator but they don’t really think they just follow orders. If a computer that can beat you at chess. It has a range of programmed capability based on its force and who the creators were. But I don’t think it’s taking any independent actions or thoughts. Like I don’t think it would bake cookies for the hell of it unless given some kind of command to go so.
They have the critter power. If you read Sapient, by definition it says they think, sure they aren't brilliant minds smart, but by definition they are as smart as people. That's what the critter power says. I referenced it directly in here already. If you want to house rule they don't have it, and make them just little magic robots, more power to you. But that means changing what their stat line says.
It's less changing what the power means and more giving credibility to what the fluff says about the limits of their sapience.
But indeed, YMMV.
-
The primary issue I have with that stance is that unlike Agents, which are just advanced programs capable of receiving somewhat complex commands, Homunculi are fully sapient, capable of independent action and thought. Sure, they have a short life-span and they follow orders, but I'm not sure any of that makes them not alive.
I’m not sure they really are capable of independent thought. They have a personality imprint from their creator but they don’t really think they just follow orders. If a computer that can beat you at chess. It has a range of programmed capability based on its force and who the creators were. But I don’t think it’s taking any independent actions or thoughts. Like I don’t think it would bake cookies for the hell of it unless given some kind of command to go so.
They have the critter power. If you read Sapient, by definition it says they think, sure they aren't brilliant minds smart, but by definition they are as smart as people. That's what the critter power says. I referenced it directly in here already. If you want to house rule they don't have it, and make them just little magic robots, more power to you. But that means changing what their stat line says.
It's less changing what the power means and more giving credibility to what the fluff says about the limits of their sapience.
But indeed, YMMV.
Fluff comes and goes and it's often not a reliable source, Watcher spirits have been around for multiple editions and are basicly mechanically the same, baring the swap to ritual spell-casting as to how they are created. Regardless I remember them very fondly, and I would very much dislike to see a player given the wrong idea about what they are and what they can do. One of my all time favorite SR character's watcher spirits appeared as paperboys (Think the Musical Newsies.) You can do all kinds cleaver things with them. Most people just considered them to be Astral Trip wires they can be a lot more.
-
Commanding a homunculus is not like commanding a spirit. A spirit is intuitive and intelligent; a homunculus just follows orders and becomes frustrated when the task becomes impossible.
That makes it pretty clear that homunculi don't think.
Now, the real question is: Which part gets Errata'd out when/if we get the Core book errata?
The fact that homunculi only follow orders and can't think there way out of a cardboard box?
Or the Sapience power?
Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.
-
Yeah the way they're described they sound like they "think" exactly like a drone's "dog brain". But yet they have the sapience power. So, meh.
-
I did consider responding to you both. But it's really just not worth my time.
If you guys wanna keep at this by all means, be my guest, and have fun! lol
-
Commanding a homunculus is not like commanding a spirit. A spirit is intuitive and intelligent; a homunculus just follows orders and becomes frustrated when the task becomes impossible.
That makes it pretty clear that homunculi don't think.
Now, the real question is: Which part gets Errata'd out when/if we get the Core book errata?
The fact that homunculi only follow orders and can't think there way out of a cardboard box?
Or the Sapience power?
Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.
If a creature is able to "become frustrated" and are compared to other creatures which are described as "intuitive and intelligent" that tells me that Homunculi are capable of thought, they're just not incredibly bright.
But yeah, I think we've pretty much hit all the major points. I think the only thing left to discuss are the finer sticking points of how we want to define "living" and whether intelligence plays a factor, and by extension, how much intelligence...
Most of those things don't have clear definitions, and definitely not within the SR rules themselves.
-
Yeah the way they're described they sound like they "think" exactly like a drone's "dog brain". But yet they have the sapience power. So, meh.
Drones is a good analogy I think.
I think it’s the best they could do with their rules. They don’t have a almost sapient quality. Heck by the rules until errataed watchers aren’t really sapient as the powers is physical and doesn’t work on the astral. We ignored that rule as we get the intent of the power. They are sapient in the context of a being created from magic who can only follow orders and is a reflection of its creators personalities. They won’t learn skills as they don’t gain karma or have the lifespan to train but it does reflect their ability to remember events and report it to their creator. They can default on skills and aren’t unaware acting in accordance to their personality imprint but not freely or independently as they only follow orders.
Sapience with their description reflects that they have a limited range of problem solving capabilities when attempting to complete their orders. They don’t have drone brain as a critter option so you end up with this. Sapient also helps reflect that they do have a personality even if it’s just a reflection of their creators.
End of the day this isn’t hero system where you stat out a toothbrush. And powers, qualities etc aren’t as precise and don’t perfectly fit.
-
Commanding a homunculus is not like commanding a spirit. A spirit is intuitive and intelligent; a homunculus just follows orders and becomes frustrated when the task becomes impossible.
That makes it pretty clear that homunculi don't think.
Now, the real question is: Which part gets Errata'd out when/if we get the Core book errata?
The fact that homunculi only follow orders and can't think there way out of a cardboard box?
Or the Sapience power?
Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.
Neither. "Don't think" is not the same as "not considered an example of intelligent behavior."
In your quote, spirits are described as intelligent. Like when describing people as intelligent, that is saying spirits possess above average or exceptional intelligence (and the same for intuition). Contrasting that with homunculus means that the homunculus is average or less. I think with 1 intuition and logic, it may be the least intelligent non-metahuman with sapience, but that is still in the range of metahumanity.
This means you can tell a spirit to do something and it might figure out unclear instructions, question why it should be cleaning your cat's litter box, or explain to you why your existence is ultimately pointless while it smacks around security guards for you.
A homunculus will not question it's purpose or puzzle out how to work around a problem. It might be dumb, but it has sapience and is not lacking intelligence; it's just not the sharpest tool in the tool shed ... unless you made it from your best axe.
-
Your totally correct Cabral, sadly I think several folks in here have already made up their minds and have no real interest in what the rules actually say.
For me this thread inspired me on making some adjustments. To how i see tech and magic interacting. I plan to start a thread on consequences of making AIs and sprites show up in a nonstandard wave length of ascensing. In the mean time I wouldn’t be too concerned anyone reading the rules called out will know what side the rules actually support.
-
The part that confuses me is how the intelligence (or lack thereof) would affect whether or not it is alive. Creatures don't even need Sapience to be considered alive.
-
The part that confuses me is how the intelligence (or lack thereof) would affect whether or not it is alive. Creatures don't even need Sapience to be considered alive.
Also very true, further life span also has no bearing on if something is alive as well. May flies only live a day, and they are most certainly alive.
-
And since any contact trigger is constantly in contact with living microorganisms in the atmosphere and yet it doesn't go off, clearly what the real world has to say about what is or is not living has little relevance on what counts as living for the purposes of a contact trigger. So, that's a dead end argument.
OTOH your (and I dare say others who agree with you) argument has been "if something has sapience, it must be alive". Which is unsupported by the rules. Sapience says it can think, default on skills, learn new skills, etc. Not a word on whether or not it "is living".
-
And since any contact trigger is constantly in contact with living microorganisms in the atmosphere and yet it doesn't go off, clearly what the real world has to say about what is or is not living has little relevance on what counts as living for the purposes of a contact trigger. So, that's a dead end argument.
OTOH your (and I dare say others who agree with you) argument has been "if something has sapience, it must be alive". Which is unsupported by the rules. Sapience says it can think, default on skills, learn new skills, etc. Not a word on whether or not it "is living".
Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.
As to the the last. I think therefor I am has been considered philosophically a sound basis for proof for living sense a certain bath tub scene.
-
As to the the last. I think therefor I am has been considered philosophically a sound basis for proof for living sense a certain bath tub scene.
Thinking does not equate to living.
You've started another thread to this effect, so all I'll say on this topic in this thread is A.I.s are fully "living", and they don't have auras. Ergo, it's possible to be sapient without being living. So the argument of "Homunculi are sapient, therefore they're living" is a non-sequitur fallacy.
-
As to the the last. I think therefor I am has been considered philosophically a sound basis for proof for living sense a certain bath tub scene.
Thinking does not equate to living.
You've started another thread to this effect, so all I'll say on this topic in this thread is A.I.s are fully "living", and they don't have auras. Ergo, it's possible to be sapient without being living. So the argument of "Homunculi are sapient, therefore they're living" is a non-sequitur fallacy.
You ever met something that thought that wasn't alive? I think Sapient does equate to living and philosophy pretty well agrees with me.
You can say that by formal logic that it's fallacious, but I don't need a formal logic proof of it. I'm working a fun game not a tautology. A fact that I think you lose sight of very easily SSRD.
-
Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.
Fluorescing Astral Bacteria (FAB) has an aura. Perhaps there is an unspoken mass requirement?
-
Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.
Fluorescing Astral Bacteria (FAB) has an aura. Perhaps there is an unspoken mass requirement?
Hmm that's a very Good Point. Maybe? I don't want to bend over backwards to make it fit. But the aura things has worked very well.
Maybe the aura area generated has some proportion to the mass of the beings? And you need a certain "Volume" of aura? Eh that's basically the same a mass requirement. Hmmm.
-
Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.
Fluorescing Astral Bacteria (FAB) has an aura. Perhaps there is an unspoken mass requirement?
Hmm that's a very Good Point. Maybe? I don't want to bend over backwards to make it fit. But the aura things has worked very well.
Maybe the aura area generated has some proportion to the mass of the beings? And you need a certain "Volume" of aura? Eh that's basically the same a mass requirement. Hmmm.
I think its a "concentration" level of bacteria that matters.
For example:
A mage can astrally travel through the air, because the air (while not empty) may contain natural bacteria, but your aura can easily push them out of the way..
A mage can astrally travel through water, but at a much lower speed. Water is filled with bacteria, and microscopic life, thus offers more resistance to travel.
A mage can NOT astrally travel through the ground however. This is because the dirt contains massive amounts of bacteria and microscopic life which impedes the mage's astral travel.
-
Will this question be answered in 6e. Does 6e have a homonculous.
Will the toy master concept live on with alchemical infused homonculous toys attacking targets.
-
I actually found this topic rather interesting to read through.
TLDR:
A homunculus is an inanimate object (non-living) that has intelligence and an astral signature, but does not have an "aura" because it is not living.
Therefore it cannot trigger the preparation.
It seems to me (and to summarize), you have to define what "alive" means in this context and it is FAR from clear.
Pretty much all the choices seem inadequate.
We are all used to some biological definition that we got in grade school but even that is inadequate, particularly for this discussion.
I think it is clear that "thinking" or "sapience" doesn't mean something is alive, since plants don't think (at least we think they don't think) and they are alive, the same goes for bacteria.
On the other end you have things like spirits in SR that aren't really "living" by normal standards but one might consider "alive" since they behave somewhat like living creatures. However, they aren't really "born" and don't really "die", nor reproduce soo.. that's a bit of a problem.
The book does say this, however, quite clearly:
SR5 p.312
Living things in general are not active on the astral plane but still cast a reflection of themselves there. This reflection is called an aura. it appears as a shining, vibrant, colorful luminescence. Any non-living objects appear as faded semblances of their physical selves; grey, lifeless, and intangible.
Therefore, living things have an aura. That is how you can know (in SR) if it is living or not.
Marcus said in his very first post that it requires and aura AND sapience but this does not seem to be the case. Only an aura is required.
SR5 p.318
All foci have auras that are visible from astral space and carry your astral signature.
Unfortunately (IMO) from this we must deduce that foci ARE LIVING (according to SR).
SR5 p.312
Anything active on the astral plane, including spirits, active foci, dual-natured beings, etc., has a tangible astral form.
An astral form is different from an aura, and is therefore not related to being living.
SR5 p.312
This ability is called astral perception. It is a primary sense used in the astral plane that allows you to “see” auras and other things in the astral world overlaid on the material plane.
This means that there are things other than auras (and hence living things) that you can see on the astral plane.. like astral forms.
I have to say that all this supports SSDR's assertion that there are 3 types of things:
1) Has an aura and therefore is living
2) Does not have an aura and therefore is not
3) Other astral things, particularly those with astral forms.
HOWEVER, even if we go by this and say that anything with an aura is living the key passage on triggers is:
SR p.304
"The next living being to touch the preparation activates the spell.
So it is not only living that is required but it must be a being.
Now we have to decide what a "being" is.. and I think we'll have to go to a general English definition. This becomes very tricky since definitions vary from dictionary but I think we have to concede (after looking at multiple definitions) that it generally requires sapience/intelligence, making Marcus' point valid here.
So back to the original poster's question..
SR p.304
The magician can bind a spark of intelligence into an inanimate form, creating a homunculus.
Clearly the homunculus has intelligence (contrary to Iron Crown Prince's assertion which relies on this:
(Despite the other little bit about "Commanding a homunculus is not like commanding a spirit. A spirit is intuitive and intelligent; a homunculus just follows orders and becomes frustrated when the task becomes impossible.")
Which I take as fluff or poor wording.. you might argue this.
So you are back to only a single question (IMO):
Does the homunculus have an aura?
We know that it has an "astral signature" but that does not mean it has an aura:
SR5 p.312
Generally, when magicians cast a spell or perform a ritual, they leave their astral fingerprints on it. This is called an astral signature, and it’s produced on anything affected by magic skills or abilities... Semi-permanent objects such as alchemical preparations and watchers contain an astral signature while they last.
So in the end my take is this...
A homunculus is an inanimate object (non-living) that has intelligence and an astral signature, but does not have an "aura" because it is not living.
Therefore it cannot trigger the preparation.
And my second conclusion.. I had way too much time on my hands this afternoon. :)
-
A->B does not mean B->A. So just because living things have an aura, doesn't mean that every aura is of a living thing. Look at it this way: I'm a billionaire so I'm rich, doesn't mean everyone that's rich is a billionaire.
p313 says "Objects that are neither magical nor living do not have an aura;" so in other words, if it has an aura it's magical and/or living.
-
Yes. I considered that.
However there are two parts to what I quoted (not just the A->B which you considered):
1) Living things in general are not active on the astral plane but still cast a reflection of themselves there.
2) Any non-living objects appear as faded semblances of their physical selves; grey, lifeless, and intangible."
It seems to me the text is trying to cover all bases in these two categories/statements.
1) If it is living.. it will have an aura
2) If it does not have an aura.. it is not living
I don't think (according to SR) you can argue that non-living things have auras given the second statement.
And don't get me wrong.. I think that is probably dumb.. it is just what SR seems to say.
-
We know from other contexts that there are things outside of this strict binary. At the very least, magical effects have auras. There are numerous examples that refer to magic auras: (a)foci, wards, and spirits are all examples of aura types given for specializations for assensing "by Aura type"; (b)several spell category descriptions refer to "the spell's aura" when talking about some effects; (c)Spell preparations, the thing that sparks this entire conversation, specifically have an aura until they are discharged.
Core Rulebook Pg 313, first text under the assensing table: " ...you can still get an impression of what type of aura it is (spell, ritual, spirit, living creature, foreboding horror from beyond all mortal ken, etc.)"
It seems to me the text is trying to cover all bases in these two categories/statements.
1) If it is living.. it will have an aura
2) If it does not have an aura.. it is not living
This actually leaves a large gap of classifications. Yes, if something is living it will have an aura, and yes, if something does not have an aura, it is not living. But this leaves a large space for things with auras that are not alive, which doesn't break either of these two rules.
And as I mentioned, spells and rituals have auras. So I believe that the homunculus actually does have an aura, because it is the creation of the ritual. Notably, Homunculi do not have an Astral Form (they don't get that critter power).
I think there is room for table variation, a homunculus is a non-living object that is then animated, has an intelligence (although not very bright), and can die (be destroyed). I would classify it as alive, but I can understand that others might not.
(Definitely has an aura though)
-
It seems to me the text is trying to cover all bases in these two categories/statements.
1) If it is living.. it will have an aura
2) If it does not have an aura.. it is not living
1 and 2 are equal. !B => !A is exactly the same logicwise as A => B. So your categories are not a full binary, and still allow space for something else. You are translating this as B => A, but A=>B and !B=>!A are both not enough to prove that.
'Living has aura' means 'Living && !Aura' cannot be true. No aura means not living also means '!Aura && Living' cannot be true. Both statements solely exclude 1 out of 4 options, it does not declare that 'Aura && !Living' cannot be true.
And one page later, as I quoted, it talks about Auras from both Magical Objects and Living Objects. So that in itself should already make clear that the 'more colorful and bright than auras' astral forms are effectively considered auras as well as far as aura-rules are concerned, and astral forms are not by definition living.
-
The issue is Michael, Living or Dead is a true binary. It's 1 or it's 0, it's True or it's False, you can get lovecrafty on it, but for logic and math it's a true binary state. So if's alive then it's not dead. 1=!0 0=!1 if math symbols make you happy. Spirits are alive, Watchers are very short lived spirits. A Homunculus is a watcher animating a rock. Therefor Homunculus is alive. It is born (the text says so), it is sapient (the stat line says so, and the critter power is defined), it feels (if it didn't it couldn't get frustrated), drones and computers don't have feelings they don't get frustrated. Also just b/c something doesn't live long doesn't it isn't alive. Mayflies live for a day, but they are very much alive.
As to the ridiculous statement foci are alive, they have the aura of whatever they are attuned to. So that line of logic is just doa. They are just part of something that is alive, like say your arm.
I have no idea why you guys are so devoted to this topic. But RAW says Homunculus is alive. It's yall table so by all means house rule otherwise, if it makes you happy, but it is a house rule.
-
...But RAW says Homunculus is alive...
Statements like that are why the thread keeps going.
It's fine to think that the Homunculus is alive. It's even fine to argue that the rules implicitly say so (as you've argued... "IF sapience = true, THEN life = true"). I don't agree that particular logic is sound, but we've been through that already upthread so we don't need to revisit that.
The reason I'm posting now, and providing a self-evident example of how the thread continues to lurch onwards, is the portion I've quoted. RAW does NOT say the Homunculus is alive.. you're misusing what RAW means. If there was a passage saying that the Homunculus were alive, you would have been able to quote it by now. The OP wouldn't even have needed to start the thread.
So: no, a Homunculus is not by RAW alive. You can argue that the writers' intent was that they're alive. You can argue that given the precedent of other rules, those rules by extension imply the Homunculus is alive. You can argue real life science and philosophy. You can say that it doesn't matter what the rules say, house rules trump book rules every day of the week and twice on Saturdays anyway. All of those are valid arguments, some stronger than others. Saying that "RAW says Homunculi are alive" is not a valid argument because it's demonstrably false: no such passage exists that says 'Homunculi are living beings/alive" or similar."
-
I did quote it SSRD you said you felt the author was wrong.
-
RAW means rules as written. The stat line says Homunculi are sapient, and thus it is raw that they are sapient. SSDR If you disagree with that please say so.
As I understand it, the definition of dead precludes something being sapient. Or re-stated something that's dead can no longer be sapient. Life is defined as the binary opposite of Dead, thus sapient things are alive. Which doesn't mean all alive things are sapient. But if something is Sapient then it is alive. Now SSDR you can disagree and that's your choice. But you're then holding a fairly odd piece of logic. Thus my concern about running into sapient dead things in 6e. (I'd usually insert an LOL here but apparently that taken as very insulting by some, so i'll skip it.)
So the stat line says it's sapient, so to me that means logically it must be alive, and in support I argue the author agrees, they said it's born, they said it has feeling, and all the rest we have gone over many times. I leave the reader to judge, if my argument is more rational then the opposite. You guys may not like something and that's fine. But what the book says is it's sapient and what the book says is RAW. Words have meaning and logical extension into the setting of the game.
-
I did quote it SSRD you said you felt the author was wrong.
Since I just called you out for bad faith argument, I'm not letting this one go either.
The entirety of both of our discussion in this thread prior to today:
In your first post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514212#msg514212) you first floated "IF sapient = true, THEN life = true".
In my first post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514215#msg514215) I was talking directly to the OP rather than to you.
You then responded to my thoughts (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514240#msg514240), reiterating "IF sapient = true, THEN life = true". And also for some reason claiming auras have anything to do with sapience rather than with life.
My next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514244#msg514244) addressed your non-sequitur in that post.
In your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514246#msg514246) you refuted my claim that there's no relationship between sapience and auras, and challenged me to prove the negative.
My response to your challenge (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514247#msg514247) ends up being a complex post, as I'm attempting to disprove a null rather than challenging you to just provide proof of your own claim. In short, neither sapience nor auras have any text, in rules or in fluff, that say one is necessarily related to the other.
Then you bring "real life" into a discussion about game rules. (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514250#msg514250)
To which I obviously retort that real life has very limited application to fantasy elements of a fictional game. (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514251#msg514251)
In your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514252#msg514252) you fall back on a circular argument of saying it doesn't matter what real science/philosphy says because the rules say sentient things have auras.
Your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514261#msg514261) is directed to Kiirnodel, who got a word in edgewise between us.
As was mine. (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514266#msg514266) Indeed, while we weren't in agreement, I did come to agree with what he said because his argument was logically sound.
My next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.15) was a new train of thought: pointing out that for the purposes of the Detect Life spell, not everything with an aura registers as "alive". If only for the purposes of that spell. Which is by its very name and nature "detecting life".
My next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514364#msg514364) builds on that, theorizing whether contact triggers detect life in the same manner as the Detect Life spell.
Your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514392#msg514392) replies to my last, claiming that auras aren't relevant to your argument afterall.
Your post after that (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514392#msg514392) re-establishes your argument that since Homunculi have the sapience critter power, that means they're alive.
My reply to that post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514476#msg514476) parses what Shinobi and Kiir were saying from what you're saying. In effect, the fluff describes Homunculi as not being fully sapient, despite the statblock giving them that power. I presume that THIS post is the one that you're mischaracterizing as "me saying the author was wrong?"
Your reply (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514477#msg514477) dimisses the fluff, doubling down that the stat block says what it says, and the sapience critter power says what it says. Without any sign of self-awareness of the irony in that you've been previously dismissing the exact same argument about what the sapience power DOESN'T say (i.e. that the critter is alive).
My next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514483#msg514483) is to ISP, agreeing that the description of homunculi's cognitive limits sound a lot like a drone's.
Your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514484#msg514484) is saying both me and ISP are not worth discussing the topic with.
Your post after that (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514506#msg514506) expresses agreement with Cabral about homunculi's "sapience" being limited in scope, while simultaneously (and again without any sign of your awareness of the irony) repeating how bull headed "certain individuals" are being when we said the same thing.
In your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514511#msg514511) you finally acknowledge, when someone else besides me mentions it, that not all living things have the sapience critter power.
I then (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514512#msg514512) bring up a new topic about contact triggers not going off on ANY aura, because if they did they'd always instantly go off from living microorganisms and yet that's clearly not the intent.
Your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514514#msg514514) agrees about the auras, but then executes another non sequitur in invoking "I think therefore I am".
Naturally, I call out the non-sequitur (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514515#msg514515).
Your next post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29113.msg514517#msg514517) insists again there is no distinction between sapience and being alive.
At that point I gave up arguing with you, as all you do is go in circles and repeat an unsubstantiated, (and imo) disproven claim. Until of course you misused what "RAW" means.
While composing this lengthy post, you slipped me:
RAW means rules as written. The stat line says Homunculi are sapient, and thus it is raw that they are sapient. SSRD If you disagree with that please say so.
As I understand it, the definition of dead precludes something being sapient. Or re-stated something that's dead can no longer be sapient. Life is defined as the binary opposite of Dead, thus sapient things are alive. Which doesn't mean all alive things are sapient. But if something is Sapient then it is alive. Now SSRD you can disagree and that's your choice. But you're then holding a fairly odd piece of logic. Thus my concern about running into sapient dead things in 6e. (I'd usually insert an LOL here but apparently that taken as very insulting by some, so i'll skip it.)
So the stat line says it's sapient, so to me that means logically it must be alive, and in support I argue the author agrees, they said it's born, they said it has feeling, and all the rest we have gone over many times. I leave the reader to judge, if my argument is more rational then the opposite. You guys may not like something and that's fine. But what the book says is it's sapient and what the book says is RAW. Words have meaning and logical extension into the setting of the game.
I feel I've explained myself in the first part of this post, but I thought I explained myself during the course of the thread as well. So for a third time:
By RAW sapience says exactly this and nothing more than this:
"Sapient critters are self-aware, capable of making
their own choices, and are generally at or above the level
of Homo sapiens. While most critters are considered Unaware
(see p. 131) of any skill they don’t possess, sapient
critters are merely Untrained (see p. 131) and can default
normally. They are also capable of learning new skills if
they so choose.
Most sapient critters are mundane, but they are capable
of Awakening and possessing a Magic attribute.
Awakened sapient critters are capable of learning any
magical task they set their minds to, and follow the same
rules for magic as normal characters. While no sapient
critters are known to have Emerged as technomancers,
the appearance of “technocritters” has led many scientists
to believe that it’s only a matter of time—if it hasn’t
already happened."
It is not RAW to say sapient things are living, because it never actually says that. It's not RAW. Now you CAN argue sapience=being alive by other means, which is what you've been doing, but that's not RAW.
I haven't been disagreeing with you because what you're saying isn't RAW, but because the way you've been defending it doesn't hold water (IMO). In my view, it's absolutely possible to be sentient and not be conventionally "alive". A.I.s, for example. If Shadowrun ever has something truly akin to D&D's intelligent undead (Liches, etc), they'd also be sentient without being alive.
-
And it's a great point. I would have been prepared to argue that the instances on 290 and 304 were more likely to be cases of sloppy technical writing/editing than being truly accurate given how pg 312 establishes what auras and astral forms are, and what sorts of things have them.
So just to clear up two points.
To me the above read as you saying you think the author is wrong. Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?
SSRD as I understand it you're saying Sapient things do not have to be alive to be sapient?
RAW says they are sapient, and if all things that are Sapient are Alive then RAW say they are Alive.
That's not some sort weird fuzzy logic SSDR if one equals the other I could literally quote Euclid axioms at this point.
-
Is Euclid a freelancer I never heard of?
-
SSRD as I understand it you're saying Sapient things do not have to be alive to be sapient?
This is 100% the crux of our disagreement.
-
Is Euclid a freelancer I never heard of?
I don't think he had patron so no. But he's a good read if you get the chance.
-
SSRD as I understand it you're saying Sapient things do not have to be alive to be sapient?
This is 100% the crux of our disagreement.
But I am now still more worried about dead sapient thing in 6e.
-
Friendly reminder to keep the discourse civil and constructive.
SR Mod
-
Rules arguments have very little (and in my personal opinion, truly nothing) to do with editions other than the edition being argued.
-
Friendly reminder to keep the discourse civil and constructive.
SR Mod
I believe I'm being very civil.
Rules arguments have very little (and in my personal opinion, truly nothing) to do with editions other than the edition being argued.
Which is true.
As I understand it, the definition of dead precludes something being sapient. Or re-stated something that's dead can no longer be sapient. Life is defined as the binary opposite of Dead, thus sapient things are alive. Which doesn't mean all alive things are sapient. But if something is Sapient then it is alive.
My issue is I believe the above to be True. You disagree so where am I wrong?
-
p.282 core:
Mana spells: When using mana spells, the magician can only affect living things with auras or astrally active entities (such as spirits or foci) even in the physical world.
Active detection spells involve an Opposed
Test between the caster’s Spellcasting + Magic [Force] and either Willpower + Logic (+ Counterspelling if available) [Mental] for living things with auras, (Force x 2) for magical objects, or the object resistance for mundane objects (p. 295)
If the target is a living being, it must be a tissue sample. Tissue samples, however, decompose eventually and cease to become viable as a material link. (p.297)
Without attempting to read an aura, you can still get an impression of what type of aura it is (spell, ritual, spirit, living creature, foreboding horror from beyond all mortal ken, etc.). p.312f
Based on how the word "living being" is used and in general distinguished from spirits and magical objects, as well as being linked to cellular life (tissue sample), I'd say no, a Homunculus is not a living being as it's generally missing the qualifications for being a living being: Metabolism, growth, reproduction, homeostasis, organization and adaption.
-
I think spirits have enough of a distinction (magically) that they are called out specifically in a lot of instances. I don't think that makes them not living things.
For example, when a spirit resists a spell, they use their attributes (Willpower, Logic, Intuition, etc) to resist, just like a living thing. They aren't objects after all.
The reference to tissue samples is a bit of a mismatch since taking a sample off of a spirit would be like trying to take an air sample from a tornado.
One thought I've been having, can anyone give an example of a critter that isn't alive (explicitly)? I'd be tempted to say the rules are quiet on defining "living beings" because thats just what critters are...
-
That's why spirits are called out as a distinct class, just like magical objects.
Shedim within a corpse are not living beings - they don't have a metabolism (need to eat and breath), reproduce or grow. A homunculus falls in the same cathegory: It's an animating force within a non-living object - which is not the same as a living being.
-
One thought I've been having, can anyone give an example of a critter that isn't alive (explicitly)? I'd be tempted to say the rules are quiet on defining "living beings" because thats just what critters are...
AIs, Sprites and Technocritters?
-
One thought I've been having, can anyone give an example of a critter that isn't alive (explicitly)? I'd be tempted to say the rules are quiet on defining "living beings" because thats just what critters are...
AIs, Sprites and Technocritters?
Technocritters are usually resonant animals, but Protosapients have no bodies.
-
SSRD as I understand it you're saying Sapient things do not have to be alive to be sapient?
This is 100% the crux of our disagreement.
But I am now still more worried about dead sapient thing in 6e.
I’m not sure why that is hard to accept. A AI would be a quick easy example. It’s not alive. It may be deserving of all the rights of a living being, but it’s not technically alive. As mentioned earlier a shedeim in a body, the spirit might be considered alive but is the moving corpse alive. Also since by the rules sapience is an ability set, something that faked those abilities perfectly would get the tag sapient whether in real world terms it was or not.
-
Jack your model and argument works fine for things with biology. But we know things can be alive without biology in the setting. But going back to One of original questions. Does it trigger a contract trigger? As far as I know a spirit does.
As I understand it, the definition of dead precludes something being sapient. Or re-stated something that's dead can no longer be sapient. Life is defined as the binary opposite of Dead, thus sapient things are alive. Which doesn't mean all alive things are sapient. But if something is Sapient then it is alive.
My issue remains is I believe the above to be True. You disagree so where am I wrong? If I’m wrong I’m wrong. Been wrong before will be again. But I think what I reasoned is true.
-
Alive and "living being" are two different things. An E-Ghost is alive but it is no living being. A spirit is alive but it also does not fall under the cathegory "living being", which is what the text passages I quoted should make pretty clear.
Do you have a text passage, that would support your assertion that spirits auras cause triggers to respond? I'd think that you need the advanced version from Street Grimoire p.219 for that.
-
Jack, "living" is synonymous with "alive" and "being" just means it exists. So by that structure at best you could claim that spirits and other entities wouldn't qualify as a "living creature." I mean, they definitely exist (in setting), and you just said that they are alive.
As I mentioned earlier, spirits aren't "magical objects" so they use the living thing entry of your detection spell quote. And I already mentioned that the material link example wasn't good. I went ahead and took a look anyway to confirm, and that one uses a strict binary, inanimate object or living being. Since spirits aren't inanimate objects, all that that proves is that you can't create get a material link for a spirit (since they don't have flesh to take a sample of).
-
Jack, "living" is synonymous with "alive" and "being" just means it exists. So by that structure at best you could claim that spirits and other entities wouldn't qualify as a "living creature." I mean, they definitely exist (in setting), and you just said that they are alive.
As I mentioned earlier, spirits aren't "magical objects" so they use the living thing entry of your detection spell quote. And I already mentioned that the material link example wasn't good. I went ahead and took a look anyway to confirm, and that one uses a strict binary, inanimate object or living being. Since spirits aren't inanimate objects, all that that proves is that you can't create get a material link for a spirit (since they don't have flesh to take a sample of).
There seems to be some tricky definitions here (in this thread).
You say "being" just means it exists". That is true as a verb but not as a noun.
There is a difference between something that is living (a tree) or a living being (a person/creature).
As I was saying in my long earlier post, it seems from various (online) definitions a "living being" most likely requires sapience. Therefore if it is not sapient it is not a "living being" which accords well with trees not being "living beings".
And I don't think that in the SR context sapience equates to "living" since in SR we have AI's that are almost certainly NOT living but are sapient. AI's are sapient "beings" but really don't seem to meet the criteria for being "living" as is generally defined. And they are not "dead". Theses two labels simply don't apply to them.
Spirits seem to also fall into this category (I'm not versed enough in all the literature to argue this one).
So I would think homunculi are in this category as well. They are not "living" but as discussed do have sapience. Therefore NOT "living beings". Therefore cannot trigger.
-
See, I would disagree with the statement that AI aren't alive. So fundamentally there is a disconnect there. The setting (and rules) never give a distinct definition for what could be considered "living" people are just throwing out impressions that they have and implications from lists that aren't extensive.
Yes, we can't apply the biological definition of life to these categories, but we're literally talking about magic. Spirits are made of nothing except magic. We have to use the magical definition of life here.
-
@Kiirnodel
You ignore the fact that living thing, spirit and magic object are all distinct cathegories. There is no binary, black-or-white situation here.
Also as mentioned: Alive and living being are not the same in this context. If an AI were a living being it would be subject to a mana ball.
The clear link between "living beings are made vom living material which is defined by its ability to decay" (paraphrasing) might be inconvenient for your argument, but it's not a bad example.
-
So category is one way to say it another is subset. For example the subset of astral beings, or plants, or humanoids, or living in the matrix. That doesn’t mean all of those don’t also belong to bigger set of things that are alive. From the standard of alive there isn’t really a difference. As we can and have defined alive as not dead.
-
@Jack
They are categories, but that doesn't make them mutually exclusive. Semi-automatics is a category of Pistols, so is Heavy Pistols.
I think an AI could possibly be subject to a mana ball, if you had any way to target its body. Since they don't have one, or technically exist anywhere in the physical realm, good luck.
You made the "clear link" between living beings needing to be made of material using a false analogy. I'm assuming you are talking about the section from Material Link there, right? All it says is to have a material link for a "living being, it must be a tissue sample." (not paraphrasing) All that means, is that if you can't get a tissue sample, you can't have a material link. So, you can't get a material link for a spirit. The rules for material links doesn't call out spirits separately.
Also, to clarify my thoughts on the other sections you quoted:
* In the rules for Active Detection Spells that you quoted, spirits are living things. They resist with their attributes, not following the rules for magical objects. Spirits are not objects.
* The list of what type of aura it is also lists "foreboding horror from beyond all mortal ken" I don't think that is listing unique and distinct classifications.
P.S. Fun Fact: If you want to claim that Homunculi aren't living, since they don't have an astral form and aren't dual natured, they aren't active on the astral either. So they wouldn't be targetable with Mana spells.
-
@Kiirnodel
An AI in a drone body with wireless off is still not subject to a manaball
Spirits are a distinct cathegory from living beings - they are immortal without a biological body. You can get a ritual link to a spirit through its true name unlike with a real living being which you can link to through a tissue sample
But you will admit, that those things have distinctly different auras, don't you? So a preparation that explicitly reacts to the aura of a living being does not have to be activated by the aura of a spirit.
P.S. What does that have to do with anything? Homunculi have assensing and astral combat - they are as dual natured as an active focus and those can be targeted by mana spells just fine.
-
Well, I don't accept the idea of "living being isn't the same as a being that is alive," since that is just not how grammar works. A spirit is a thing that exists, it IS, (also known as a state of being). A spirit is not dead, it is animate, even immortal means cannot die, so it is alive, it is living. Ergo, it is a living being.
AI: You can target the drone, but you still can't target the matrix or what the AI operates through. Same way you can't target a rigger through a drone they are piloting. Even if you destroy the drone while the wireless is turned off, the AI doesn't cease to exist. If I remember those rules, the AI reappears on the matrix somewhere after a time.
Foci have an Astral Form while active, Homunculli don't. So no, they aren't the same as an active focus.
-
A spirit is not dead, it is animate, even immortal means cannot die, so it is alive, it is living. Ergo, it is a living being.
Spoken like a Shaman. :P
-
We are talking about rules text in an RPG. The sum is more than its parts, alive is not the same as living in the SR universe (e.g. E-ghosts)
And no, if an AI is trapped on a device it only exists there. That's how you capture or destroy AI.
Where are you getting that Homunculi don't have an astral form? How else would they assense? For a corporal being dual nature is prerequisite for using the assensing skill.
-
The stat block.
-
See, I would disagree with the statement that AI aren't alive. So fundamentally there is a disconnect there. The setting (and rules) never give a distinct definition for what could be considered "living" people are just throwing out impressions that they have and implications from lists that aren't extensive.
Yes, we can't apply the biological definition of life to these categories, but we're literally talking about magic. Spirits are made of nothing except magic. We have to use the magical definition of life here.
According to what I previously quoted.. living things have auras.. AI's don't have auras so although that magical definition may apply to spirits what definition applies to AI's?
If you just keep making new definitions of what is "living" to include things you think are "living" then the definitions have no meaning.
-
See, I would disagree with the statement that AI aren't alive. So fundamentally there is a disconnect there. The setting (and rules) never give a distinct definition for what could be considered "living" people are just throwing out impressions that they have and implications from lists that aren't extensive.
Yes, we can't apply the biological definition of life to these categories, but we're literally talking about magic. Spirits are made of nothing except magic. We have to use the magical definition of life here.
According to what I previously quoted.. living things have auras.. AI's don't have auras so although that magical definition may apply to spirits what definition applies to AI's?
If you just keep making new definitions of what is "living" to include things you think are "living" then the definitions have no meaning.
I'll certainly agree there is something of consistency problem there in. Though not a huge one, there lots ways to explore that question. For my game, i'm gonna make the computer that AI live in or the place sprites are have an aura that simply shows up under a different astral "spectrum". But of course that's a house rule. I think AI's are alive, and I'm not alone in that opinion. At some point it does simply become philosophy. But the point being AI can die to me that means they are alive.
That doesn't change the case I have put forward concerning creatures with Sapient power, and as yet no one has put forward something to contradict that logic.
-
Well, AI's don't have auras, because they have no mass. They are a collection of electronic Ones and Zeros.... Kinda hard to have an aura when you have no actual body, or even molecules - just a collection of electrons..
(Which leads back to the old questions of: "Are AIs truly alive" and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", and does nothing for the question of if a Homunculus is alive)
-
See, I would disagree with the statement that AI aren't alive. So fundamentally there is a disconnect there. The setting (and rules) never give a distinct definition for what could be considered "living" people are just throwing out impressions that they have and implications from lists that aren't extensive.
Yes, we can't apply the biological definition of life to these categories, but we're literally talking about magic. Spirits are made of nothing except magic. We have to use the magical definition of life here.
According to what I previously quoted.. living things have auras.. AI's don't have auras so although that magical definition may apply to spirits what definition applies to AI's?
If you just keep making new definitions of what is "living" to include things you think are "living" then the definitions have no meaning.
That is essentially the scientific method. When you find something outside of your current definition, revise the definition.
-
p.282 core:
If the target is a living being, it must be a tissue sample. Tissue samples, however, decompose eventually and cease to become viable as a material link. (p.297)
This is a poor example, since the passage explicitly deals with targets as either "living beings" or "inanimate objects." No other targets are described.
By that logic, I can use Fling to launch Spirits, Homunculi, and Watchers, because they are not living beings with tissue samples so they must be inanimate objects. Do I get a bonus to the damage value if I am Flinging a fire spirit back at the summoner?
Without attempting to read an aura, you can still get an impression of what type of aura it is (spell, ritual, spirit, living creature, foreboding horror from beyond all mortal ken, etc.). p.312f
Based on how the word "living being" is used and in general distinguished from spirits and magical objects, as well as being linked to cellular life (tissue sample), I'd say no, a Homunculus is not a living being as it's generally missing the qualifications for being a living being: Metabolism, growth, reproduction, homeostasis, organization and adaption.
In the case of reading a homunculus's aura, what type of aura would you say it is?
Can I affect spirits with Control Thoughts ("affects a single target", but not Mob Mind "affects any living targets with the area of effect"?
Now, it may be best to follow the advice at the end of the third paragraph on page 302 under Spirit Basics, "it might be best to stop trying to know the unknowable..."
Decide what you want for your game, but if you need a RAW answer, the best you will probably get is rest of the same sentence: "Spirits live on a metaplane...."
-
Changing the scientific definition doesn’t change the reality. Also flinging a homonculous seems reasonable to me. Spirits not so sure, I’d assume most when manifested are in a form that would make it impossible anyways due to weight. But neither homonculous nor watchers are spirits. They are forces created by magic. Whether a animating force created by magic with a reflection of its creators personality is alive I’m not sure. But if it’s animating a shoe, you are flinging the shoe not the homonculous imo. Id let someone fling a rock whether it has moss on it or not. There is likely bacteria etc on the object you’d fling. I don’t find a animating force alive or not in it substantively different than a living force on it.