No. There's been plenty of valid and reasonable counterarguments. The base arguments all rely on mental retardation in one form or another to explain it.

Look at it from another point of view. Say you're a Human (a stretch for most posters here, myself included). Now thanks to a sheltered upbringing let's assume that not a day in your life have you ever seen or even heard of someone using their hands to communicate with. Then, suddenly, you one day find yourself in Sasquatchopia and everyone around you is communicating with sign language. Now your hands are very dexterous. You can make every single gesture they're making. But because your primary mode of communication is speech, it is completely and 100% impossible for you to learn this or any other form of sign language. I mean, you're already older than 13, so your ability to learn anything is completely and utterly destroyed, and whatever other silly comments have been made in this thread in that regard. And there's doubtlessly plenty of examples of Humans who were born with a deforminity in their hands, had them cut off, or suffered some rare nerve disorder as they matured. So, clearly, it makes perfect sense that neither you nor any other Human in the entirity of existance can learn a sign language. Even though you have the physical ability to do so, the mental capacity to learn what those symbols mean, the mental capacity to associate them with concepts, and the intuition to learn when and how to use it. But you can't. Even if you were born and raised in Sasquatchopia simple because of that one Sasquatch that one time who was born with a clubbed hand, thus proving that even a Sasquatch couldn't learn to communicate through hand gestures. And here's the best reason of all: Because that's just the way it is.

That's how absolutely ridiculous most if not all of the arguments have been.

Magic. You win. They don't get to argue, why? Cause, you wrote it, they can't do it.

You can argue too. I am an equal-opportunity executioner.


This is, in fact, the crux of the issue we've been arguing about.

What are those Sasquatch Logic, Charisma, and Intuition minimum/maximums again? And what's that one silly (non-)critter power they have that starts with an S and rhymes with Hapience? And that other one that starts with an M and rhymes with Fimicry? I just can't seem to remember...

As mentioned before, at least Naga have a genuine physical handicap to explain why they can't learn a sign language (nevermind that there's no mention that they can't learn a sign language which makes the whole Sasquatch restriction even more asinine).

And again, if they lack the ability to associate sounds with concepts, what exactly can they use Mimicry for? Absolutely nothing but being a random noise generator.

How about this Funk. Sasquatch brains are weird, in that they seem to have all the reasoning and such of a normal metahuman, but NO MATTER what tests/trials have been done, can't be made to communicate via speech.

Or written language, apparently. So they can't associate symbols with concepts, either. Unless they're hand gestures. They have no problem with symbols made out of hands. Just everything else? Sorry, my suspension of disbelief doesn't go that far even in a science fantasy game.

Ok, so magical dragons that are extremely old and powerful and magical who can be smarter than the smartest man, yet can't speak are ok. But bigfoot not being able to figure it out isn't?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooook.

AH has already said that he'll gladly support any stupidity that exists in the current tuleset and make sure it stays thee at least until the next edition. We'll never get past his 'mental retardation' as he calls it for sasquatch - he just can't follow our language and instead just 'apes' it on the keyboard randomly.

More of his crap makes sense seen that way...

What the hell? You're bitching because I'm trying to keep a coherent ruleset and setting?

So, just to clarify, they could use a linguasoft and DNI/simmodule interface to be able to seem as if they can speak? Even if they're mentally signing to the soft and mimicing out what it plays for them, and then watching the softs signing translation from what they hear?

Keeping something that is poorly thought out just because it was there from earlier editions - or even in the 'early SR4' materials - is not a boon.

They can't speak for physical reasons. They can still communicate, including reading/writing, just fine. And guess what, they do it through a critter power (much like what Mimicry is). There's also no actual rule saying that a dragon who assumes a metahuman shape is restricted from learning a spoken language (and if there were, it'd be just as stupid as this sasquatch one is). Most if not all simply don't (telepathy > speech > sign language) because they don't need or want to.

It'd also be kind of easy to find a dragon in metahuman form if they weren't able to speak. Unless they're just truly fantastic mimes.

Like I said early in the thread, IF a sasquatch had a legitimate reason for not being able to speak a language, I wouldn't have an issue with it. But they don't.

They're magic. Give me a legitimate reason for dragons to have telepathy.

A Naga could, potentially, get a drone with hands, or a pair of drone hands, with which they could use sign language.

That's why they piss high-grade petrol too, right. Handwavium for the win...

At this point I'm practically willing to keep it just to spite you. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't reasonable or realistic in the context of the game. With current technology it isn't even a severe character flaw - you're much more likely to be Shot While Bring Meta by your local Lonestar officer than be without your commlink in SR4.

I hate to point this out, actually I love to point this out, but reading is not associating symbols with concepts. Reading is associating groups of symbols with words. The difference is astounding.

It is possible to lose the ability to read words while retaining the ability to understand gross symbols.

Reading, writing, speaking, and understanding spoken words are processes that use areas of the brain which are totally different from those areas involved in singing and route repetition, so the mimicry power can be totally severed from the ability to speak.





I would also like to point out that retardation has a very specific meaning within the mental health field which is very different from aphasia, which is what a person who is physically incapable of using or understanding language but is otherwise perfectly normal and intelligent would be suffering from

Can we get an Admin in here?

Or some adult supervision? Because this arguement just appears to be starting to get childish.

Is it so amazing that they cannot learn a language? And, if so, why has this arguement not been made way back in First/Second Edition when they were introduced?

And why aren't we putting our energies towards more important things? Like where Maria Mercurial is in 4th Edition?

I don't see anything in the above that says such an individual is capable of using sign language, let alone knowing when, how, and where to exactly duplicate words and phrases without... uhm, knowing when, how, or where to exactly duplicate words and phrases.

Childish? Hyz made a great post I think. Dumpshock is fairly self-policing, we don't need to go crying for an admin just because someone is being stubborn.

OK, just felt that it was going a bit far. I shall sit corrected, and apologise.

*Grumbles* Still want to know where Maria Mercurial is.

I don't see anything in the above that says they can't use sign language. It all references speech and written communication. So its equally valid to argue that they could or could not sign.

There was no indication they were taught or even attempted to use sign language to get around it. It's an impairment of "both understanding and expression of language." Not "...of spoken language."

Nothing says they can't walk, have difficulty moving, or anything else. I would be surprised if they could sign, but the wording doesn't support it either way.

http://deafness.about.com/b/2007/06/03/sig...and-aphasia.htm
http://deafness.about.com/cs/signfeats1/a/nonverbal.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptive_aphasia