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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

There's actually a bit of research on this topic. Here 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 The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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".

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

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.

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.

Yay, Dr. Funk. You win. Whatever.

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

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

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.

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.