Jesus fucking Christ yourself.. Antlers are a type of horn just like squares are a type of rectangle, and vans are a type of automobile.

ok well whatever I'm sure that varies with what dictionary you look it up in. I'm not a linguist so I can only say that biology/wildilfe managment/ecology/range management/mammalogy fields use the definitions I posted above.

How nitpicky must we get? Really their function and form are not the same so must we say they are the same? Indeed logic is lacking in some areas of this discussion..

Because you're not worth the effort.

Never mind.

~J

What other points did Doc lose? [edit] other than the moose antler-shedding thing [/edit]

In this case, he was specifically called out when he (correctly) labeled an antler as a horn. Why is he to blame that the point was unworthy of arguing about?

I guess he referred to the moose antlers not falling bit. But that's just one of a huge list of things that has been discussed here. And frankly, I just don't see why the hell some people get so worked up about this issue.

[Edit]Your Edit Fu is impressive, Fortune. And, before someone asks: No, I don't think I get so worked up so easily in the firearms threads.[/Edit]

Solstice,

I'm actually a little surprised you're unfamiliar with Earthdawn, at least in basic terms, if you're a regular lurker on these boards. In brief, then (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I get any notable points wrong ):

As Shadowrun has established, mana levels rise and fall in cycles, each approximately 5000 years long. Certain types of creature only appear during high-mana cycles; in down-cycles, they appear to exist in an altered "mundane" form. Trolls, dwarves, orcs and elves all exist as humans, juggernauts as armadillos, etc. At a certain saturation of mana, some kind of trigger flips and the latent entity expresses itself physically (eg, goblinisation).

The previous magical cycle before this one (the 4th World - given that SR is the 6th and the 5th is therefore the non-magical cycle) has been shown to be the world of FASA's fantasy game Earthdawn. A number of the major NPCs from that time (mostly elves and dragons) are still alive and plotting in the modern world. Trolls etc were fully existent during that period, which is why comments were made that they had time to evolve.

Horrors: It seems that at those periods when the mana curve is at its peak, the veil between the material and astral worlds becomes sufficiently weak to permit the transit of otherwise astral entities known as Horrors. As a rule, Horrors range from the merely predatory to some quite dizzying heights of malicious evil. This time was known as the Scourge, and the sentient races of Barsaive (as the area was known; somewhere around the Black Sea, I believe) retreated into magically warded fortresses, primarily underground. The game of Earthdawn is set as the mana curve is starting down again, not long after the races have emerged from their isolation. It's well worth checking out, a rich world backed by an unusual but quite decent system (as usual for FASA, the background is significantly better than the system - which is NOT to say that the systems for either SR or ED suck, just that they are far outclassed by their support material).

Hi, thanks for the info. I didn't understand the reference to ED because I thought in SR there had been no metahumans before the first goblinization so I was basing my comments off that. It's a little hard to understand how you can say that a population is evolving when it doesn't exist yet... But I understand the concept of the latent metahumans expressing. That is the reason for my comments. Another reason is the way people frame their comments. When you can't logically defend your argument...stop posting...it irritates me when people belabor irrelevant points in an effort to regain some ground such as the antler/horn thing. Also resorting to personal attacks or mere heresay. I guess it shouldn't bother me but I like a lively discussion as much as the next person and I take quick offense and turn bitter when one of the above three conditions arise.

What's amazing is that the people who created this setting were so innovative and detail oriented that we can even have this discussion about a fanatasy world. It really is very interesting.

While quite alot has already been said on the brain volume/intelligence, the best source I've found on the subject is this:

Mismeasure of Man

It goes through the history of "measuring" intelligence and all the problems associated with it. Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions, it is definately worth a read.

With the disclaimer that I have not read the book:

Seems like another attempt from the (dare I say) Left to belittle the European white male and wheedle on about yet another "aspect of the capitalist society" which he views as "racist" and "sexist". The same thing that has been said for 40 years. It isn't too difficult to pick apart 19th and even 20th century attempts at quantifying intelligence. Another "pick me up" for those that don't want to let the "man" get them down, and make sure eveyone feels "special" in their world of "everyone is exactly the same and we all think on the same level".

Basically seems like your reading what you want to hear...which is exactly what he says people should not do.

This reviewer put it best I feel:
We can't say that the Milky Way Galaxy doesn't exist only because we can't account for every single star, planet, and satellite in it.

He points out that IQ test scores could be increased with more education but then he totally dismisses IQ as an indicator of how smart we are.

Sub-scholarship from a fifth-rate academic., November 24, 2000
Reviewer: "johnthirdearl" (Lynnwood, WA United States) - See all my reviews

If there's a last place in American academia reserved for pseudo-scientists, it belongs to left-wing Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. After re-reading his "The Mismeasure of Man" for the third time, I concluded that Gould's intention when writing this book was not to refute the legitimacy of hereditarianism, but to keep a firm grip on fantasy. A quarter of the work Gould cites in this book was carried out in the late 19th century (craniometry), and the the rest was carried out in the early 20th century (psychometry). Thus, Gould's cranky rebuke of "racist science" is targeted at "dotty Victorian eccentrics" like Sir Francis Galton, and the anachronistic technology they used to validate their theories. Anyone expecting critiques of the current research being conducted in the fields of behavioral genetics, differential psychology, and psychometrics is setting themselves up for a letdown of the Y2K Bug kind.
First of all, IQ may not be a perfect predictor of one's future success in life or an accurate appraisal of one's intelligence, but it does measure "something" in intelligence, or races wouldn't consistently differ with respect to it. American Indians, on average, enjoy the poorest living conditions and the lowest yearly income in the US, but they constantly outperform American blacks on IQ and SAT tests. University of Ulster psychologist Richard Lynn has found that the IQ scores of whites, blacks, and Asians is the same regardless of which country they're taken in, with whites achieving IQ scores of 100-105, blacks 70-85, and Asians 103-110. Moreover, Lynn and Glayde Whitney have found (based on Interpol data) that the crime levels of these groups are the same regardless of where they reside in the world, with Asians being the most criminally restrained, whites somewhere in the middle, and blacks coming in last (or first, depending on how one ranks it; either way they're going to come in at either ends of a scale or graph of crime data) as the most criminally unrestrained. (Egalitarians counter these plain statistical facts, explaing how the disproportionate amount of crimes that blacks commit are committed because "most people expect them to be criminals." If true, this begs an obvious question--namely, why people would expect that.) Most people accept that women are less prone to crime and violent behavior than men, which is most likely to be explained by testosterone levels. This suggests that not only are IQ tests are a reliable predictor of intelligence and criminal behavior, but that "race" is more than just "skin deep."

Before all the hullabaloo surrounding IQ tests surfaced, the US Department of Labor used them to tell how high one needed to score on one to determine if the profession they sought to enter was compatible with the score they attained. The IQ data Gould uses to support his argument that "it measures nothing," is culled from the primitive tests distributed to the US army in 1917. Gould's crude reasoning here is that "if the IQ tests given to the US army in 1917 produced wayward results, then all subsequent IQ tests must do the same." This is a non sequitur and Gould knows it.

Gould and his environmentalist lackeys at Harvard and abroad think that there's no such thing as "race." Race to them is just a fiction born of sinister racist ideology, "dotty Victorian eccentrics" and IQ tests. The response to this objection is simple: race is simply defined by place of ancestry--some people's ancestors came from Eurasia, N.E. Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. If one objects to this definition of race still, by virute of the interbreeding that has taken place between them, fine. Don't call them "races." Call them A, B, and C; call them Moe, Larry, and Curly--call them whatever you want. The question still lingers: are there hereditary differences between those whose "ancestors" came from Europe, Asia, and Africa? Gould says no, common sense says an unhesitating "Yes."

Contrary to what Gould asserts, race is not skin deep. For example, if you discovered bones from a human skeleton in your backyard and alerted the authorities, they would have a forensic anthropologist come in and determine what the race of the skeleton was, based on the structure of its bones. Recent research in the field of neurology has shown that the brains of intelligent people metabolize glucose slower. Also, recent discoveries using MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which displays a three-dimensional image of the human brain, has shown a close correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (J. Philippe Rushton & Ankney, 1996). All of which is "recent" data, meaning that Gould avoids it like the truth.

Gould thinks that everybody is "already" the same, except that some people were "lucky" enough to have been born "by chance" into wealthy families (in effect, claiming that wealth just "happens," totally disregarding human ingenuity). This is clearly false. If you want to read what the "other side" has to say about this mega-taboo subject, don't get "The Bell Curve." Get J. Philippe Rushton's "Race, Evolution, and Behavior."

Ok, the instant "left wing" became a factor the reviewer lost any shred of credibility they may have had.

~J

...

Cripes. I just hope I don't sound that insane when I lose it and start to rant. I mean... cripes.

I especially like it when he says "IQ tests are a reliable predictor of intelligence and criminal behavior" because average scores on many IQ test types vary between races, and because there is a correlation between crime rates and the average IQ test scores of those chosen races. w00t. So this is the piece of proof KKK and other morons have always been waiting for to show that blacks are more stupid and have a natural tendency to crime. In no way can social factors and education explain these statistics, nuh-uh!

I loved it when the father of our Prime Minister wrote an article in a magazine about how the IQ test scores of Africans, Asians and Europeans, for example, "prove" that IQ is what brings economical success to both the individual and the region, and these tests show the superiority of people of European descent. And then all major media proceeded to rip that fucker apart, and our PM basically had to apologize for the idiocy of his father...

It's damn pathetic that this thread is still going strong.

With all of this talk of evolution and biology everyone is missing a fairly important point. Creationism can perfectly explain why trolls have biger skulls but lower intelligence.
Normally, I find any theory that is rooted in religious doctrine to be flawed, but this is a fictional universe. All namegivers were created by an powerful dragon-like Horror according to his will. Trolls are simply designed the way Nightslayer wanted them to be.

I agree with hyzmarca completely. Ancient Pseudo-dragon says " I want trolls to be big and dumb," concentrates for a few seconds, and BAM!! Out pops a big dumb troll. Unfortunately, magic in SR works on fairly scientific principles. If magic makes something work one way, it makes it work that way acording to science.

I forgot where I was going with this. Lets just say trolls are dumb because their brains are less wrinkley.

The nice thing about Shadowrun is that both theories could be true. Humans evolved naturally, and via the Awakening, all the other races were "created." This was demonstrated pretty clearly starting sometime around Christmas of 2011.

Might be a throwback to 2nd Ed., but I like the way it sounds.

Because Trolls have a mouthfull of teeth (moreso than any other metahuman), they sound dumber. As a result, they get a -2 to Int.

Granted, this doesn't explain in any way why they don't get so many knowledge skill points, but it's something to work off of. Maybe the tusks nick the brain in some way and impede intellectual growth?

That was part of the explanation for their charisma hit, not for the INT itself IIRC.

~J

That would delve into their appearance, however. It could be part of an explination for both.

I was referring to the mouthful of teeth and sounding dumber.

~J

I realize. But sounding dumb doesn't always mean you're less Charismatic. (Yes, yes, the almighty "doesn't always" clause.)

I would say that someone who sounds dumb is, all else being equal, always less charismatic than someone who doesn't.

Though then we get into the myriad applications of charisma. Fast Talk can be much more effective sometimes if you sound dumb, but Leadership never will.

~J, going for the most-edits prize

Then you have problems with things like the Matrix where that -2 hit to Charisma still applies as it does when using Conjuring or astrally projecting, thus implying that it has nothing at all to do with physical appearaces or handicaps. Then you have things like the Improved Looks surgical option (+1 Charisma when dealing with people face to face only) that proves that the game does know the difference between a physical change in appearance and applications of Charisma.

My opinion is that your physical attraction to people highly influences the non-physical aspects of their likeability or likeableness or likeihood oh fuck I don't know how to use words....lol.

So in other words you could be witty and smart but people suffer pain by looking at you so it goes unnoticed.

I've always rationalized the Intelligence and Charisma hits for orks and trolls as being caused by brain damage via the goblinization process (whether it's done at puberty or while in the womb, it doesn't matter). That's really the only rational explanation I've been able to figure out considering all the applications of the two attributes.

True enough, which is one of the major theories I subscribe to (or whatever the hell the term is, I don't care).

How people react to an individual often shapes quite a bit about them. I must add, though, that I'm not actually suggesting that even so much as a point of that would be due to such causes, merely that it is not unreasonable to consider it a factor (and rather more of one for Charisma than Intelligence).

~J

Some of the ugiliest and even some of the most dispised people in history had an exceptionally high Charisma. Churchill and Hitler for instance. Their appearance through life didn't seem to stunt their charisma all that much. Their views of the world and the people therein? Most definitely. But not their actual Charisma.

But I don't remember either of them having any sorts of speech problems.

Time to think this over some more, though.

~J

Considering they're two of the most charismatic people in history, I kinda doubt they could be significantly more charismatic.

But there have been times where Charisma and looks have played a big role. Take the big debate between JFK and Nixon. Most people who listened to the debate on the radio were convinced that Nixon won, whereas those who watched it leaned towards JFK.

Then again, this only goes to prove that appearance has its own influences and should affect Charisma-oriented tests (such as with the Good Looking and Ugly edges/flaws), but not affect Charisma in its own right. If it did, Nixon should have lost in the minds of the radio listeners, too.

Horns or antlers shouldn't fall off easily and they don't in healthy animals, some antlers (sub-set of horns) are periodically grown and shed; shedding is different to falling off, some of you should know better and I should have used a word more clearly related to poor attachment and breakage.

[/QUOTE]Wow I'm really suprised someone knew this but I'm glad you mentioned it. It's absolutely correct. They lacked the ability for abstract thought (which meant they could not understand that they must store food for winter). So regardless of their larger braincase they were NOT more intelligent. [QUOTE]

Please tell me how I got it wrong or read it the wrong way, it didn't even have a smiley. Making a statement like that and then bigging-up your knowledge starts the rub, no? If you had picked up on the ED links or even asked me why I was trying to fit millenia into decades this wouldn't have happened in quite the same way.

I would like trolls to be biologically defensible in SR, but this does not be mean they have to be evolutionary OR creationist, just that it happened in pre-history and is now stable. This current one was why do trolls with relatively massive heads have the lowest intelligence. The lack of difference between a 1kg and 2kg brain in humans does not debatibly effect intelligence, but it cannot be the full answer. Development of the brain in areas related to senses would increase brain mass without increasing the parts associated with intelligence (communication, etc). Thicker skulls, horn anchor points, increased jaw muscles increase the size the head without increasing brain volume. Increased resilience to and recovery from brain damage give flavour to a combat modified species without impacting on game balance.

Genetic defects in troll brains shouldn't IMHO be used as an explanation as available genetech could and would be used to boost troll intelligence and significantly upset game balance.

For all we profess to know of the SR world the four "meta-humans" could be aliens who cross-bred with humans or humans are what you get when 4 seperate awakened races combine to make one which can survive no mana. Trolls could have been created to be guards, but why they would want stupid guards is beyond me, unless IEs, drakes, and trolls are marks one thru three (in no particular order). Maybe mana never used to be cyclic, the races evolved and after millenia mana levels were boosted to point at which The Horrors could break through and their presense knocks mana onto a downwards cycle. Who knows, but SR is a concentual reality and it is only are combined opinion that makes it all work. I for one would like it be "realistic" across the board, not just the most popular bits.

Wouldn't a poorer self image result in a WIL penalty. CHA penalty would be better explained as speech problems, appearance and out of whack body language. Words constitute suprisingly little in person to person commuication.

Churchill doesn't seem to have speech problem in that new documentary film "Churchill - The Hollywood Years".

Actually a person with low self esteem can still be very willful. They willfully hang on to that flawed image of themselves for a very long time even when confornted with the truth.

But still, why would any of that affect their ability to deal with people on the Matrix, or their ability to damage an opponent in astral combat, or even their ability to summon a spirit?

Teasing through youth and a poor self image due to below average looks could result in a lack of confidence, which would apply in all of those situations.

Then again, the mind is terrible complicated, and there's an explanation for everything that makes sense... doesn't mean those explanations are right.

JaronK

Then we get into the question of whether Hitler would have come across as charismatic on the Matrix, or if Churchill could have summoned spirits effectively.

~J

To the second, absolutely. Churchill summons the spirit... the spirit's in it's home plane, thinking "Oh man, I was just about to watch Lucielle Ball, do I really want to go to the material plane?" But then it sees who's summoning him and says "Hey, sweet, Winston Churchill! I'm totally getting an autograph. Honey, tape this for me, would you?"

And as he fades into the material realm, the faintest call behind him is heard "tape it yourself you lazy..."

JaronK

That begs the question, can spirits summon spirits?