[AJCarrington]

Friendly reminder to keep the discourse civil and constructive.

SR Mod

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Rules arguments have very little (and in my personal opinion, truly nothing) to do with editions other than the edition being argued.

[Marcus]

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?

[Jack_Spade]

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.

[Kiirnodel]

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...

[Jack_Spade]

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.

[Hobbes]

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?

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Marcus]

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.

[Jack_Spade]

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.

[Kiirnodel]

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).

[Overbyte]

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.

[Kiirnodel]

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.

[Jack_Spade]

@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.