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 you first floated "IF sapient = true, THEN life = true".
In my first post I was talking directly to the OP rather than to you.
You then responded to my thoughts, 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 addressed your non-sequitur in that post.
In your next post 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 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.To which I obviously retort that real life has very limited application to fantasy elements of a fictional game.In your next post 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 is directed to Kiirnodel, who got a word in edgewise between us.
As was mine. 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 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 builds on that, theorizing whether contact triggers detect life in the same manner as the Detect Life spell.
Your next post replies to my last, claiming that auras aren't relevant to your argument afterall.
Your post after that re-establishes your argument that since Homunculi have the sapience critter power, that means they're alive.
My reply to that post 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 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 is to ISP, agreeing that the description of homunculi's cognitive limits sound a lot like a drone's.
Your next post is saying both me and ISP are not worth discussing the topic with.
Your post after that 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 you finally acknowledge, when someone else besides me mentions it, that not all living things have the sapience critter power.
I then 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 agrees about the auras, but then executes another non sequitur in invoking "I think therefore I am".
Naturally, I call out the non-sequitur.
Your next post 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.
