Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Kithanalane Mar 25 2010, 11:12 PM

Does anyone know where they discuss the bounties on sentient animals? More precisely Shape shifters?

Posted by: nezumi Mar 25 2010, 11:20 PM

hrrrrmmmm... Companion? Maybe Paranormal Animals of North America? I believe Shadows of North America specifies where there are NOT bounties on them.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 25 2010, 11:59 PM

probably depends on the nation.

Posted by: Mantis Mar 26 2010, 12:40 AM

I wasn't aware of a bounty on shifters. I know there is on the infected. Running Wild has stuff on bounties for those and also lists which nations are friendly to sapient animals like shifters.

Posted by: nezumi Mar 26 2010, 03:24 PM

CAS and UCAS are in the 'not friendly' category. I don't know if UCAS has a bounty on them, but if my memory of Striper Assassin is correct, CAS does.

Posted by: Kithanalane Mar 26 2010, 05:03 PM

I remember hearing about a bounty on shape shifter in seattle I just can't remember where.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 26 2010, 11:00 PM

probably had something to do with PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals

Posted by: Fatum Mar 27 2010, 07:26 PM

Are you sure? I don't recall anything like that...

Posted by: Red-ROM Mar 28 2010, 02:31 AM

I think theres a mention of it in runners companion in the shape shifter section, but nothing specific.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Mar 28 2010, 02:53 AM

In 1 of the shadowrun novels (Run Hard, Die Fast), the character was talking about how Canada didn't recognize some creatures as sentient. In the Paranormal Animals of North America... the Loup Garou and other creatures were listed as having bounties in some countries and there was flavor text of runner's posting on how hunting some of these things were right/wrong.

Posted by: AngelisStorm Mar 28 2010, 04:32 AM

The Loup Garou is an infected.

Posted by: Rasumichin Mar 28 2010, 04:36 AM

The problem with all of the older sources mentioned is that during the last 10 ingame years, the situation of non-metahuman sapients has changed for the better in a lot of places.
There's also no specific and up-to-date information about shapeshifter bounties anywhere, so it's all guesswork.

For North America, i'd expect the situation to be worst in Quebec and best in the NAN.

Quebec treats all sapient critters like animals, which does not automatically mean they issue bounties, but...Running Wild suggests it's about the least place you want to go as a critter.

There's certainly no bounty in Amazonia, Atztlan and Yakut (Atztlan and Amazonia have offered citizenships to all kinds of sapient critters for decades, Yakut is governed by shifters).
All tribally oriented nations are likely to have a similar stance on the issue, though critters such as centaurs or sasquatches seem to be integrated a lot better (they just seem to be much more curious about metahuman society than shapeshifter are and people will be more used to them).

Seattle would likely fall somewhere in between those extremes.
At least that's what i'd guess based on the sapients chapter in Running Wild.

In the end, the situation could range from everything between being hunted down like a rabid dog and being revered as a part of the local Awakened elite, depending on where you play and what kind of game you're headed for.

In other words : ask your GM to make something up that makes sense and works for your campaign.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 28 2010, 05:40 AM

SEA KITTIES~!

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 28 2010, 05:53 AM

I distinctly remember seeing rules for this, too. I'd check some of the 2nd Edition regional sourcebooks. I bet they can be found in there. I'd take a gander myself, but most of my books are stowed away in the garage.

Posted by: Kithanalane Mar 28 2010, 08:54 AM

Well in this case I am the GM and I have given it a lot of thought and my thinking is this: The Vast Majority of shape shifters are born in animal form and live most of there lives in the wilderness where the law is survival of the fittest. Pair that with the fact that most shifters are also preditors, #1 I don't see alot of shifters wondering into populated areas unless they have major motivation. (ie. the stipper assasin novel) second if they were to venture into populated metahuman areas I don't see them concerning themselve with aclimating themselves into society beyond what would be reqiured of them to survive which would make them very dangerous creatures to have running around a populated city because while they may not necassarily kill for food they would'nt have any qualms about defending themselves to the death especially if there baser instincts get a hold of them which is why in my opinion there would be a bounty. Of course the amount would depend greatly on how common city dwelling shifters are and the frequency of a shifter related death is.

Posted by: GreyBrother Mar 28 2010, 12:46 PM

I actually can see shifters that not only wander into the city and acclimate themselves, but also live there for some generations.

Life in the city has its own hazards but also merits. I read about whole wolf packs living in the suburbs in scandinavia [citation needed], why not a shapeshifter who does learn how to survive in a city enviroment. And maybe this shifter finds a mate and has some children. There is a chance those turn out to be shifters too so you have a second generation there, learning from their parents. Those are more likely to actually adapt and maybe - out of curiosity - try to mimic a human life.
It could be fun to roleplay a shifter who babbles around words because he thinks the human language isn't more complex.

Then you have countries like the Czech Republic, who willingly grant them citizenship. I think there could be something akin to a governmental program to actually integrate shifter into the general society.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 28 2010, 02:03 PM

there was a recent history channel show that documented wild dogs that were generations wild living in cities.

Posted by: Dreadlord Mar 28 2010, 03:52 PM

A scientific study of wild foxes showed that a mated pair with a mild tendency to tolerate humans at a closer range than normal would have a litter that was basically domesticated. In a SINGLE GENERATION! So, I think there may be more shifters in the population than people know!

Posted by: Rasumichin Mar 28 2010, 10:29 PM

I see foxes in Cologne all the time.
Strolling across the railroad tracks in broad dailight, hunting below the freeway exits, sneaking through the parks.
Cities have plenty of room for wild animals. Just move a bit into the outskirts. Many European cities also cultivate forests in the vicinity.
There's more and more animals from the wild adapting to a life in human settlements.

Also keep in mind that shifters don't turn into humans just for fun, it gives them specific adavantages over just being the average tough paracritter.
They are perfectly able to interact with society once they've got the basics figured out.
Running Wild mentions a pack of wolfs and wolf shifters, the alpha male having spent some time with humans in his younger years- of course, he teaches them some basic knowledge about metahuman society.

Then there's all those tribal communities living close to nature- they'd be the first metahumans a shifter would run into and would often have less problems with their animalistic nature, which would be a good starting point to acclimatize themselves.

Keep in mind that shifters are as smart as humans (or at least orks).
They could be uncouth and uneducated. but don't have to be.
And while they may have strong animal instincts, they could learn to control them- if it is possible to teach a dog to sit right next to a bowl of meat without gulping it down, a sentient wolf should be able live among humans without becomming a threat to everyone.

If a shapeshifter allready makes it into the shadows out of his own decision, he could behave more like some guy from a rural backwater than a wild animal.

Posted by: AngelisStorm Mar 28 2010, 11:45 PM

Foxes are not wolves. (How do we petition for a "does not equal" symbol on Dumpshock?) They are known for surviving where their bigger cousins don't. (Much like coyotes, but even more so in many places.)

Thumbs! http://www.hookiedookiepanic.com/geist/comic.php?ID=68#

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 29 2010, 12:18 AM

"I will give you both sooooo many dollars to not do either of those things."

Hahah, nice.

(Also: humanthropy, lol)

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 29 2010, 12:24 AM

It's a good thing the game has Fox Shapeshifters then, eh?

There's lots of ways to explain Shapeshifters in an urban environment. Just because the majority of them live in the wild, that doesn't mean all of them do. Characters who become shadowrunners are very often the definition of "outsider" and "outlier." The number of Awakened in the shadows, for instance, greatly exceed the normal population ratio in any given area.

You may as well be complaining that the Human character joining a game isn't roleplaying properly because he's not a Corporate Wage Slave, since a large majority of Humans are!

Posted by: Daylen Mar 29 2010, 02:01 AM

I hear bears love going to cities to do their grocery shopping/foraging. I know Hawks live in many cities feasting on pigeons.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 29 2010, 02:07 AM

I often see bears in circuses that come to town. And ones in city zoos. And every now and again there's a news report of a bear wandering into a populated area, too.

But none of that can be, because bears are wild animals. Thus the invisible, intangible force field surrounding all human habitations prevent them from getting anywhere nearby. Yessir.

Nevermind that Shapeshifters are not wild animals. They're sentient, intelligent, and adapative individuals who have the ability to transform into a metahuman, learn metahuman languages, and blend in with metahuman society. But wait, no. That simply can't be, because they ARE wild animals. Zomgz. Obviously their ability to transform into a metahuman has nothing to do with blending in with society. No, they clearly developed it to, uhm... have an easier time picking berries from a high branch or something? Yeah, that must be it.

Posted by: nezumi Mar 29 2010, 12:07 PM

Shifters are also almost exclusively large carnivores. Large carnivores, a subset of wild animals, do not live well in urban areas, and as a general rule of thumb, are escorted out or shot when found. Plus, as a general rule of thumb, large prey is less common in urban areas than it is in rural areas, begging the question, why would a shifter WANT to live here, where there's less food, more stress, the threat of being shot on sight in its natural form, and the requirement that it might just have to get a real job to sleep at night.

(But again, this doesn't apply to small shifters, like foxes, or shifters like eagles, which can live in space humans don't really use).

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 29 2010, 12:58 PM

You know: bears will eat almost anything.

They also love http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-08-18-beer-bear_x.htm.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 29 2010, 01:07 PM

I hear scavenging and hunting every day in the hope that you might find enough food is also much more preferable to having access to massive grocery stores, restaurants, fast food joints and convenience stores. Metahumanity really got the short end of the stick there.

Posted by: Kithanalane Mar 29 2010, 01:48 PM

I see your point about small preditors moving into the city but most preditors big or small that move into the city do so simply because they have found more food acvailable there than in there natural habitat. Generally because metahuman population has encraoched enough into the territory that they don't have much of a choice and even bears roaming into cities present a danger to metahumans also looking at the geography in seattle which is surrounded by the salish shide which, I imagine, form the books is been returned to largely wilderness giving the indians revere for nature. I'm sure any large preditors would prefer to stay in the comfort zone. Of course with sentient animals there is no reason for them not to have sentient curiosity either. So the question is how aclimated would a "wild" shifter become to metahuman society versus a shifter born and raised in said society. Plus how many second or even third generation shifter are there in metahuman society as opposed to those who just wondered in for what ever reason. And you have to remember shifters are animals first and metahumans second. Though I do understand that just because they are in animal form does not mean that they have animal intelligence but just like there ability to shift there shape into two different forms I would think there mental capacity would be a combination of there to species. A high intelligence with a strong instinct where we as humans have evolve to almost completely suppress our baser instincts.

Posted by: fistandantilus4.0 Mar 29 2010, 02:11 PM

Man, ouch, break up your paragraphs a little please.

Posted by: GreyBrother Mar 29 2010, 04:04 PM

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/voytek.html

Posted by: nezumi Mar 29 2010, 05:22 PM

You forget all the context that comes with it.

Would an ANIMAL prefer to steal or fake having a SIN so it can work 10-12 hours a day to earn a paycheck to order synthetic, artificial food and answer to a drek-hole of a boss...

Or spend maybe 5 hours a day actively hunting and the rest napping, hanging out, whatever, eating natural, healthy food, with no mortgage, no rent, no boss, no taxes and, hey, lady shifters.

(This is all assuming the shifter would prefer not to live in the barrens, where the bottom of humanity struggles to make enough to stay alive.)

By and large, animals enjoy more leisure time and more autonomy than humans do. Given the choice, I doubt they'd give that up.


HOWEVER, there are exceptions which might drive long-term habitation.
Lack of natural resources in the area (not an issue for Seattle, but for other cities, especially cities with more sprawl).
Fear of other predators.
Pursuit of mates.
Perhaps some sort of religious or spiritual inclination (they are sentient beings, so I could understand this).

I'm sure you can think of more, but these would largely be the exception, not the rule.

Also worth noting, the single most dangerous predator for shifter is humans. In cities like Seattle, shifters may be either shot on sight, or collected for magical experiments. 1% of the population can recognize shifters, in animal or human form, on sight. Seattle has a LOT of people. Would a shifter really rather live in Seattle, where the predators are, rather than the NAN, where the prey is?

Posted by: Walpurgisborn Mar 29 2010, 05:37 PM

Not quite, the Fox Farm experiment was 40 generations, although domestication was fully apparent in some as early as the 12th or 13th generation.

Still a huge jump, since previously the most common theory stated domestication was a long slow process, over a hundred or more generations..

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 29 2010, 05:43 PM

http://therithere.comicgenesis.com/d/20080105.html.

Posted by: nezumi Mar 29 2010, 08:39 PM

Weres do not form packs (they don't breed fast enough). However, they may travel with packs of normal animals - almost always as the pack leader. It's good to be king.

Studies show that human leisure time dived when transitioning from hunter-gathering to an agragarian lifestyle. The advantage of agragarian is not health, free time or even food security - it's the population boom that came with it. Neil Diamond discussed this at length in his books. Agragarian lifestyle is not good for the individual, it's good for the society, and weres are in too small numbers to be a society.

One might argue we have more leisure time in Shadowrun. That forgets:
1) Shadowrun is a dystopia, so thematically, that should not be true.
2) That is generally true for the top dogs in society. Our weres and transitioning from being pack leaders, to being undocumented, uneducated, unskilled laborers - wanted more for their value to medical science than because of anything they can do.

An alcoholic bear shifter might find that transition favorable. Most others will not.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 29 2010, 09:16 PM

Once again: Shadowrunners are the outliers of society. They're not a typical specimen of their race or their culture. By any stretch of the imagination. A shapeshifter that becomes a shadowrunner is just as likely as a human becoming one. There just happens to be a lot more humans running around.

Also, shapeshifters are not wild animals. They're thinking, resourceful, sapient beings who are every bit as intelligent, rational, and creative as other metahumans. More so than many, in fact. They just happen to also get along equally as well with the types of animals with which they also share a bond. They are no more one than the other. They're their own, unique entity and can blend in with both equally well should they choose to do so. And, like any other character that becomes a shadowrunnner, that's not an easy choice to make and one typically dictated by necessity more than desire.

And if having to forsake clothing, tools, and every other technology created and used by mankind makes for such a better, cushier, long-lasting life, there'd be a lot more people doing precisely that. So hippies like Neil frickin' Diamond can suck it and they can suck it hard.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 29 2010, 11:17 PM

As a wild animal I resent the implication that wild animals are not sapient, intelligent, rational or creative.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 29 2010, 11:33 PM

There are numerous things I could infer from that, but I'm curious as to which is correct.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 30 2010, 12:15 AM

a bit of a wide range of possibilities eh?

Posted by: Rasumichin Mar 30 2010, 01:44 AM

The issue why fluff always mentions mixed packs of shifters and their predecessor species is that shifters do not always breed true. Their offspring are likely to be shifters, but more than half of the cubs will be mundane.

I do not recall them breeding slower. Do you have a source for that?



Except for Yakut.
Which is not really agrarian, of course, but a civil war economy run by werebear warlords.



There's a couple of societies where shifters have good career opportunities. Atztlan, Amazonia, Azania, the NAN, the Czech Republic, maybe other places in Europe as well and most of all, Yakut.
Atztlan employs jaguar shifters among it's border patrols and secret service, for example. Amazonia has some of them in the upper echelons as well.
Any magically active, sapient critter could easily become one of the top employees in a critter-friendly corporation like EVO or Horizon.
Plus, there's all this merc and shadowrunning business that might look more appealing to someone who's used to fighting for survival anyway.

The thing about all the races from RC is that they are not automatically outlaws- their status as a citizen is under debate.
A debate which has been more and more turning in their favor over the last 20 ingame years, and which they have won in a couple of countries.

Posted by: Kithanalane Mar 30 2010, 05:13 AM

Well after some thought and reading throught this forum discussion I came to the desision that the bounty would be a black market bounty. Such a rare and unique species of sentient animal would be highly prized.

Especially if one could get there hands on a cub which could be trained and molded into the perfect body gaurd or even soldier.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Mar 30 2010, 06:42 AM

If a person could turn into a tiger, do you not think that said person would be curious as to the nature of tigers and how they live?

If a tiger could turn into a person, do you not think that said tiger would be curious as to the nature of people and how they live?


Don't forget black market demand on shifter organs for reagents. Also captured shifters don't really need to be nabbed young.
Just apply Programmable ASIST Biofeedback conditioning and you've got a wicked new pet.

Posted by: KCKitsune Mar 30 2010, 07:10 AM

Does anyone know the status of Sapient Critters rights in the UCAS? Just curious.

@ Sithney: You would first have to have a trode net that would work on the animal in question.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Mar 30 2010, 08:20 AM

Ah yeah, the old "Silly Rabbit," 'Trix clause.
I suppose that's why they pay top dollar for research subjects.

Posted by: toturi Mar 30 2010, 08:58 AM

I wish someone would change the poster to: Bear Shadowrunners: Yeah. You are pretty much fucked.

Posted by: nezumi Mar 30 2010, 10:47 AM

This is true. In fact, I'd argue if a shifter were to try and enter society, it would be far more likely to become a runner or some similar career (or research specimen) than it would to follow any other profession. However, that still doesn't answer the question of why a shifter would choose to live a long time in the city ('enjoying being a runner' is a valid answer).



They are wild animals, per the books. Don't force me to crack open the Companion and find a quote for you. They are wolves/tigers/foxes/whatever first, and humans second.

However, there is no shortage of wild animals who are also thinking, resourceful, and yes, even sapient (and by and large, those animals prefer to avoid cities, because in the wild they're pretty high on the food chain, and in the city, well, they're not).



Actually, there wouldn't, because in order to afford the huge amount of space to live like that, you'd have to have already accumulated a significant amount of material wealth (which most of us don't have). And of course, you're comparing modern day man to ancient man. At this point in history, our agragarian lifestyle (in the west) has surpassed the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in most statistics you'd care to name.

If you move out of the west and into the rest of the world, hunter-gatherers are common in places with enough land to permit them to exist. They are, however, being encroached upon by farmers and ranchers, and are still facing the same pressures of being on the wrong side of the equation as before (which translates into being starved into submission as their watering holes are claimed for farming, or being shot).

But we aren't talking about the modern world, we're talking about Shadowrun - where all those statistics have gone down again, and the average man is living in misery, however there are large swathes of empty, wild land. The equation has changed.




The books on Striper Assassin indicated that shifters have a single child, and only when they can find a shifter mate (which is rare).



I've never heard of this, nor am I aware of any 'critter-friendly' corporations (outside of SR4).

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 30 2010, 10:59 AM

Feel free to crack open your books, because you're wrong. Runner's Companion, p. 86, informs us that they're animals (note the lack of the word 'wild'), and then solely to point out that spells that specifically target humans will not work on them. The same section goes on to say that many of them have been raised in the wilds or on the fringes of metahuman society (ie, places like the NAN or Barrens or other similar areas). And that's only 'many' of them, not all of them. Other than that, the only significant difference between them and metahumans is that they're more prone to violence if scared or provoked. As an aside, lion and wolf shapeshifters, as per Running Wild, are particularly adept at joining metahumanity whereas jaguars have a bit more difficulty.

Then you have the fact that some countries go out of their way to hire shapeshifters in the Intelligence communities as well as other high-profile, highly-social fields. Amazonia, for instance, actually seeks out jaguar shapeshifters (you know, the one species that actually does have a little trouble with blending in with society) for just such purposes. And as mentioned earlier, other countries like the NAN and Aztlan have particularly high populations of shapeshifters.

So you're wrong on just about every account.

Posted by: GreyBrother Mar 30 2010, 12:34 PM

It's a blurry line, because (in my opinion) most people compare animal intelligence to dumb or not as adaptable as human intellect.
The problem is, we can't communicate with, say, a dog or an eagle about what he thinks. We can watch it's behavior and guess how it feels, but we can't find out if they actually create some kind of etiquette or maybe even religious/spiritual thoughts.

I advice most gaming groups to discuss this issue before they encounter a shifter in any context, simply because the novels don't help much.
And i look specifically at Striper here, nothing wrong with the book etc, but her "integration" isn't an issue in the novel, quite the opposite. And i wouldn't take information from a novel into a canon discussion. It's a bad thing. The spirits kill kittens because of it.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 30 2010, 02:12 PM

Reminds me of Bear Who Digs Through walls. The player picked up Pacifist for him because Bear really was not a fighter. Oh, he'd scare the crap out of people, but he was extremely laid back and calm about things. Much like a typical bear (when they're not interested in ripping your head from your shoulders--which is rare). The only reason he's in the city at all is because he was tranquilized and hauled in by the request of some Renraku scientist (it was only after they had him in storage that did it come to light that no one knew why he was there as no one wanted him).

Given that the campaign is the Renraku Shutdown, it was a good intro for the character.

Posted by: Dread Moores Mar 30 2010, 02:36 PM

Running Wild seems to contradict that. As the more current source of information (and being an actual sourcebook, rather than a fiction novel), I'd be more willing to go with that.

Posted by: Rasumichin Mar 30 2010, 02:47 PM

Running Wild describes a pair of wolf shifters that have a normal-sized litter of both mundane wolves and shapeshifters, so that seems to have been retconned by now.

My guess would be that the number of offspring would equal the progenitor species- bear or tiger shifters would have two young, wolves would have a small litter of about 6 and so on.
And not all of them would be shifters themselves, of course.



SR4 is what's relevant here, though.
EVO is run by a free spirit and promotes the rights of non-metahuman sapients whereever possible, Horizon, Wuxing and SK (and several AA corps, see RW) don't mind employing infected, so i could imagine that they'd offer corporate citizenship to shapeshifters as well.

Besides that, RC states that Atztlan, Amazonia, Azania and the NAN states offer SINs to shapeshifters if they come in from the wild, that several corporations employ them (though it does not mention which ones, but EVO, SK and Horizon seem like a good guess for employment besides "we've captured and brainwashed them for our supersoldier program").
All the relevant information is on p. 66 of RC, BTW.
It also says there that shifters "are uncommon but not rare and many choose to mingle with metahuman society particularly in Awakened nations".

Regarding older sources, Atztechnology/Atztlan have been described as issuing full citizenships to about anything since SR2.
Atztlan sourcebook describes that they give SINs to free spirits, shifters, dracoforms, whatever.
The shadowtalk of this book also includes posts by two feline shifters.
One of them is an Amazonian jaguar shifter with very close ties to the government, the other an Azanian (presumably a lion shifter) who's also some kind of bigwig used to the company of IEs and great dragons.

On the issue of bounties, RC claims that "many nations who are not members of the United Nations" offer them.
So i'd say that the UCAS issues neither SINs nor regular bounties.
But the idea of a black market for shifters seems reasonable- and with their legal status in Seattle, it would rather be a grey market.
Besides that, a shifter acting violently would legally be treated like an animal, as he is not eligible for citizenship and not officially recognized as sapient.
Bounties in individual cases are certainly not out of the question, but i don't think Seattle offers them for all shapeshifters.
Of course, metahuman rights groups would also be likely to adopt the cause of a shifter who is held captive if they learned about this.
The 2070s are a time of heated debate about who qualifies as sapient and how to treat several awakened species.

Another important question is how authorities in Seattle would react to a shifter who has a valid SS-Council SIN and walks into customs.
Quebec doesn't give a damn about that ("animals have to fly in the cargo bay, even if they are cops in the NAN", see Running Wild), but Seattle seems to be at least a bit more liberal on the issue.

Posted by: nezumi Mar 30 2010, 03:33 PM

Sorry about your book being broken, Doc. Mine says, quite clearly, on page 34:

"Shapeshifters are Awakened animals who have the ability to assume human form. In general, though some shapeshifters mingle with metahuman society and even work as shadowrunners, most shapeshifters prefers to live in wilderness areas, apart from civilization."

One of their disadvantages is listed as "bestial nature", described on p. 35:

"Bestial Nature
Though shapeshifters can assume human form, they are animals at heart. Consequently, powerful animal insticts and emotions drive all shapeshifter characters. Even those who have learned to speak metahuman languages and have assimilated into civilized culture remain beasts at their core..."

It says the UCAS, CAS and California do not recognize shifters as metahumans, only as animals. The NAN gives them more rights, but not as full citizens "because of their inability to adhere to metahuman rules and social mores."

No mention of bounties.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 30 2010, 03:40 PM

Also, IIRC, the Corporate Court declared shifters as "people" (so that killing one is a murder charge...on corporate property at least).

Posted by: Dread Moores Mar 30 2010, 04:08 PM

I haven't seen anything regarding shifters, unless I missed it in previous materials. I thought they were still under the "whatever each nation decided" umbrella.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 30 2010, 06:40 PM

Ah, my mistake. I recalled they did something about sapient critters, but not who was included/excluded.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 30 2010, 08:41 PM

Gosh golly gee wilikers, Nezumi, that quote seems to slap you upside the head with the fact that "some shapeshifters mingle with metahuman society and even work as shadowrunners." Having issues with selective reading or something?


Yes, they are animals that can turn into metahumans. What a shocking reveal that they have traits of both of their halves! Yet, oddly enough, nothing there says they're all wild, untamed beasts who never ever ever ever EVER "mingle with metahuman society [or] even work as shadowrunners."

Apparently it's not the books that are broken. It's your personal bias blinding you to the bloody obvious even when you quote the damned text that confirms it.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 30 2010, 11:58 PM

so are most or all of you ignorant of the fact that humans are in kingdom Animalia, and not.. I guess Humania. Thus humans are animals.

The internet seems to think wild means:in a natural state; not tamed or domesticated or cultivated. So unless shapeshifters are tamed or domesticated they are wild. oh and in case anyone is unfamiliar with domesticate: make fit for cultivation, domestic life, and service to humans. So unless a shapeshifter has been made fit for service to humans (as was suggested might be happening on the black market) shapeshifters are by definition I think wild animals.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 31 2010, 12:06 AM

No, we're not ignorant. We're just reading in context. Well, most of us are. And in this context, "wild" means "unable to live alongside metahumans in society."

Posted by: Daylen Mar 31 2010, 12:08 AM

I might be behind on ASIST, but I thought it required cyberware to do such a thing. If so this would not work because cyberware is said to be violently rejected by a shapeshifter's body. My source is Runner's Companion 3rd ed.

besides that though. remember they are not domesticated dogs that can turn to human form. One might be able to raise one from a pup and get it to respect or love you, but I'd be wary of thinking I could train one. and If I was GM and a player tried that one false move and I'd have the shifter eat em alive.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 31 2010, 12:11 AM

its a bad habit to change the meaning of words. It leads to silly arguments over definitions, oh wait I think that just happened...

Why not just argue over whether undomesticated nonhumans (or wild animals and use a real definition) can live close to humans?

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 31 2010, 12:13 AM

So I guess you won't allow naga, sasquatches, pixies, or any of the other sapient animals in the game, either? Because it's all the same damn thing. They're all Sapient (ie, self-aware and in possession of a choice-making consciousness), fully intelligent, rational, thinking individuals. They are not ruled by their instincts.

And if the brunt of your last few posts is your entire argument, you may as well just give up now because it's pretty fucking weak.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 31 2010, 12:16 AM

this had me confused. I wasn't sure if you knew what humans and animals. heck I was confused as to if you had read about shapeshifters since the book (at least in sr3) says they are animals (with the book implying that by being an animal means they are not human, which does irritate me).

Posted by: Daylen Mar 31 2010, 12:21 AM

this @me? I could be confused again

if it is at me where did I say shapeshifters should not be in the game? I hope I have not said anything towards that end. I rather enjoy shapeshifters and have enjoyed playing them a couple times. There is a fair amount of evidence that wild animals do live in human cities. Why not, they are full of resources for the taking.

Posted by: Dread Moores Mar 31 2010, 01:02 AM

I'll guess you might be talking about this, from the journal of a centaur cop in the PCC:


And later on the next page...


Seems like naga and the rest are okay, but shifters got shafted. Can't say I'm surprised.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Mar 31 2010, 01:04 AM

There's actually a bit of research on this topic. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text is a pretty accessible article on studies into animal cognition. The basic thesis of it is that as we discover more and more about how non-human animals think, we have to continually narrow our definition of sentience just to keep them excluded. If you're really masochistic, er.. I mean interested, you might consider a classic work, Charles Darwin's http://books.google.com/books?id=GI8dJOG8kHsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Expression+of+the+Emotions+in+Man+and+Animals&source=bl&ots=7bfdubH26a&sig=6vWkKWVw55aw0ZR-znd9kD-ixI4&hl=en&ei=dJeyS-nbLoTysgOx7M3KAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false.

Basically, we haven't evolved emotionally since the Stone Age. At heart we're that same near-wild creature. I mean, just look at our entertainment.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 31 2010, 01:15 AM

only differences I've seen in humans and other animals is:

intelligence: we are much more potent in higher order thinking. Philosophy basically.

communication and social order I'm not so sure about so I'll hold off on comment.

tool building/tactile skills: we make much better machinists than any other animal can hope to. the level of detail we can put into things by hand is borderline ridiculous.

learning: this is kinda an emphasis of the other two. Our potential to learn skills is far far beyond most other creatures. Even critters that can learn amazing stunts can basically do something darn similar with no learning.

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 31 2010, 01:55 AM

I don't have Running Wild, so...

Posted by: Dread Moores Mar 31 2010, 04:16 AM

Well, clearly then, I'm full of something that smells unpleasant.

Posted by: nezumi Mar 31 2010, 11:11 AM

Doc, I never said that shifters don't mingle with human society. I know you're upset that you're wrong, or that you spent money on a broken book, but please, try to direct that anger. I'm the one fixing your book for free, remember?

Going through my posts, I said:

"Shifters are also almost exclusively large carnivores. Large carnivores, a subset of wild animals, do not live well in urban areas, and as a general rule of thumb, are escorted out or shot when found."

Which is true.

I asked:

"why would a shifter WANT to live here, where there's less food, more stress, the threat of being shot on sight in its natural form, and the requirement that it might just have to get a real job to sleep at night."

Which is a valid question. And I even specified:

"(But again, this doesn't apply to small shifters, like foxes, or shifters like eagles, which can live in space humans don't really use)."


So, I asked, "why would a shifter live for long-term in a city", and immediately specified exceptions.

(And for clarification, living long-term in the city is not the only form of "mingle". The book could means that shifters only come by to take pictures and buy jeans.)


I went on to answer my own question:

"HOWEVER, there are exceptions which might drive long-term habitation.
Lack of natural resources in the area (not an issue for Seattle, but for other cities, especially cities with more sprawl).
Fear of other predators.
Pursuit of mates.
Perhaps some sort of religious or spiritual inclination (they are sentient beings, so I could understand this).

I'm sure you can think of more, but these would largely be the exception, not the rule."



So, in summary, I did not say shifters would not mingle. I DID say that, shifters spending lots of time in the city would be the exception, and would only do so if they had a reason. I posited that a shifter will almost never choose a 9-5 or living in the barrens over living in the wild. I also agreed with you that a shifter may find a career like a shadowrunner or other security professional to be sufficiently rewarding to entice it to stay.


Next point of clarification:

You said

"Also, shapeshifters are not wild animals. They're thinking, resourceful, sapient beings who are every bit as intelligent, rational, and creative as other metahumans."

I clarified, they are wild animals, using the quote from the book, above:
"Shapeshifters are Awakened animals who have the ability to assume human form." And going on to mention "Bestial nature", which is a trait shifters have, and humans don't.

(Second point of clarification - yes, humans are animals, scientifically speaking. However, the word "animal" has a veeery long history before anyone came along and classified us among them. Unfortunately, people are now expanding the definitions of words and it's making things confusing. Given the context of the quotes, I think it's pretty clear to everyone, that the word "animal" here refers to:

2 a : one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings)

So yes, shifters are:
1) Wild, "bestial" animals, driven by "powerful animal instincts and emotions".

These are the book's words, not mine. If you'd like to argue it, I understand Adam and AH both have a lot more time on their hands, so you're welcome to go chat them up.

I clarified, however:
"However, there is no shortage of wild animals who are also thinking, resourceful, and yes, even sapient"

so no one is unclear.



Finally, you say:
"Yet, oddly enough, nothing there says they're all wild, untamed beasts who never ever ever ever EVER "mingle with metahuman society [or] even work as shadowrunners.""

Yes, it does say they're wild, untamed beasts. See above.

However, no one, myself included, has said that they would never mingle with metahuman society. I specifically AGREED they may work as shadowrunners. I simply pointed out, they would need a reason to do so (unlike humans, whose reason is generally 'I was born here'). It is not their natural habitat.

(And for your convenience, I have reviewed all of my posts in this thread, and extracted the relevant bits, above, for you, so you don't even need to page back to realize your mistakes.)


I don't know what you're talking about with anything that follows. It just seems like aimless frothing, with no intended target. If you'd like to clarify, I'm happy to correct any misunderstandings you may have had.

edit: Figured out one.

No, wild does not mean "unable to live alongside humans". I don't know where you got that from. The dictionary is indeed pretty clear.

All of which is true with shifters (and was ultimately the point I was arguing from - a shifter is unlikely to tolerate human subjugation voluntarily, hence, no 9-5).

Also:



Which translates nicely to the "bestial nature" flaw already mentioned.

In case your dictionary is ALSO broken, you may get a passable one, for free, at www.m-w.com, which I used (for these definitions, and also "animal", above).

Posted by: Rasumichin Mar 31 2010, 01:43 PM

Read up on Running Wild again yesterday and Quebec definitely has bounties for shifters.
Although the book doesn't say how high they are.
I'd guess that they are somewhere near the bounties for vampires, as shifters can become pretty powerful opponents.
The shifter situation is actually worse than i expected when this thread started.

In general, it seems that they are more bestial and violent than the other sapients.
This can change easily for the individual shifter, as they seem to be extremely quick learners, especially in their younger years.
I'd have no problem with a shifter character portrayed as civilized, well-mannered and peaceful.
In fact, i'd be surprised if a shifter venturing into metahuman lands would not learn how to adapt to the customs there in some way after being exposed to metahuman culture for a while.
But shifters in general seem to have a more isolationist and savage outlook on life than sasquatches (probably the most well-integrated sapients around), nagas or centaurs.

This may be the reason why they are not widely acknowledged as sentient.
Another reason why they where excluded in the CC decision could simply be the commercial interest corps take in them.
According to RC, such interests are the reason why japanacorps oppose the recognition of AIs as sentient.
As long as they are treated as objects, corps can claim ownership to them.

Being a shifter outside of the NAN, Amazonia, Azania, Atztlan and Yakut means that you can be captured and sold on the open market, that people can legally hunt you down for telesmae, use you for experiments without your consent and so on.
If such a case became publicly known, there would of course be sapient rights groups protesting.
People in the know would sympathize with your cause and recognize how abhorrent such practices are.
But you would not have a legal handle against it.

I still wouldn't expect bounties on shifters in any North American country except Quebec, though.
"Not recognized as people" is still different than "government tries to actively exterminate you".

Posted by: Draco18s Mar 31 2010, 02:19 PM

No. What I'd meant was that I'd read/heard about the CC decision somewhere else.

Posted by: GreyBrother Mar 31 2010, 03:48 PM

You are truly a Saint, good sir.
Links are saved for later reading!


Just for thinking: Wouldn't a being that is sentient ask itself why something happens. Because, that's basically philosophy.


There are animals with more social complex orders. Heck, from what i observed in my life, we aren't that much different from a wolf pack or a herd of zebras.


Can't add anything useful, but i think amobea go WAY MORE into detail


Watch out. This potential may have nothing to do with the capacity of our brain or consciousness but with the fact, that we don't have to put that much time into simple surviving the hazards of the world. I've seen dogs learning things they are never explicitly shown, like opening a door. There was no external pressure for it to do it. Maybe it was curious if it could do it or what was behind the door.
Given the proper anatomy - and i am sure that this is the actual reason for the.... "underdevelopment"... of many animals - they could surely surpass us in many ways.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 31 2010, 04:13 PM

No. Anyone with half a brain cell can simply read the context of your posts and see exactly what you were arguing -- that no shapeshifter would want to live as a metahuman. No amount of backpeddling will change that fact. While my entire argument from the beginning is that there are shapeshifters who would have little to no trouble doing so. The books even go into that in detail, particularly with wolf and lion 'shifters as per Running Wild. But then you continued foaming at the mouth about how "wild" they were -- a word the books never once use in relation to 'shifters -- and imply that none would ever in a million, billion years want to live as a metahuman, citing all kinds of ridiculous shit. It gets even more hilarious when you quote a passage that directly tells you that there are some who do so.

Translation: Whatever, kid. You're wrong. Deal with it.

Posted by: Dreadlord Mar 31 2010, 04:39 PM

Yay, Dr. Funk. You win. Whatever.

Now stop jacking the OP's thread, and take a Xanex. It's a game, dude.

Posted by: Dr. Funkenstein Mar 31 2010, 04:42 PM

Tell that to Nezumi. He's the one ranting and raving.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Mar 31 2010, 08:44 PM

I think the stats as listed do a pretty good job of showing how shifters specifically can surpass metas in a lot of ways. But, as to the over-reaching discussion here of why shifters would choose to interact with humans and how societies would view them when they did, what the work I referenced supports is the idea that we have far more in common with animals, in terms of motivations and outlook, than we have different from them. The main difference, as I see it, would have to be those cultural mores we impose upon each other and ourselves. Still, self control and discipline are both conditioned, not innate, and it wouldn't take much to learn to reign in their impulses if their curiosity caused them to seek out human company. As to those who don't see too many shifters wandering into the desperate kind of situation that a SINless barrens dweller knows, well, the urban wilderness is probably a lot more bountiful than the actual wilderness in some places. I mean, sleeping in an abandoned house and eating scraps out of the garbage? That's like living in a cave and foraging for what's around. What kind of animal would choose that life? It's like those bears who start eating from garbage cans and landfills. They will never go back to foraging in the wild again.

Posted by: Daylen Mar 31 2010, 09:48 PM

nope. even if you consider what microbes do as building instead of growing. Current tech has built stuff and etched things on a scale that is far more smaller than what single celled organisms can accomplish. also amoeba's are not in our kingdom.