While that's all good, he's right. A shifter isn't human and that's perhaps the most important point about them... And something too often overlooked. The posters above have had some good examples of this.

I don't hate anyone on these forums... Anymore

or less

The word hybrid is defined as a composite of mixed origin. Part animal, part magic; personally I feel that they must to some very small extent be part human or there would be shapeshifters that do not use a human secondary form as adaptive camoflague.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Please explain how it is counter-intuitive, because I don't see how it is contrary to what common sense would suggest. Many, many species of animal are "on-heat" driven yet have endulge in sexual practices out side of this, I mean, even penguins use prostitution. [/QUOTE] Actually I'd like to see links to support this, only a small handful of animals on earth that procreate for pleasure, mainly humans and dolphins.[/QUOTE]

Care to explain the presence of the mamilian clitoris if it isn't there for fun or the concentration of nerve ending in the penis, which are pretty much the same thing. Have you completely missed the dog shagging legs, etc and the fact that you can get gay dogs? How can a creature be homosexual if sex is not enjoyable and solely driven by male-female procreation urges? Most primates enjoy a quick 5-finger shuffle; the pygmy chimpanze (Bonobo) has a social structure geared entirely around sex. A penguin link

[QUOTE]Allow me to quote the Critters book:
[QUOTE="Critters, pg 42"]Shapeshifters follow the normal habits of their animal form most of the time (which they seem to prefer over their humanoid form)....
[/QUOTE]

Normal habits not all habits, most of the time not all the time, humanoid not human.

[QUOTE]Breeding with your own species is a normal habit of their animal form. Humping other entire species is not.[/QUOTE]

Dolphins, be careful when you say natural or normal, read this first.

That's a very human way of looking at it.

Shapeshifters make for interesting characters. They aren't metahumans in terms of nomenclature simply because they aren't a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. Should they be accorded rights as humans? Only someone from the Sixth World can truly answer that question, but we can extrapolate. I think that Shifters as Metahumans (or Sasquatches or Ghouls or whatever) could make an argument for gaining more rights, but only if they (they meaning the population of Shifters at large) want them. The main push for Ghouls to be accepted among metahumanity despite their dietary requirement is mainly because they, the Ghoul Population as a whole, want those rights. I don't believe there has ever been a canon mention of a Shapeshifter who fights for the rights of Shifters in a similar fashion... it's simply a non-issue for them. And it's that blatant disregard for "human" rights (which is simply from the perspective of being an animal with a beastial nature) that makes giving legal rights a tricky matter.

Can an old Shifter be taught some new tricks? They are intelligent enough. Will they want to? That's a different question.

Why would it have to do this? Familiarity with metahumanity may only breed contempt.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see a wolf shifter who encounters humans and lives with them for a while suddenly saying, "I am smarter than my brothers in the wild, so I have MUCH more in common with humans. Henceforth I shall consider myself to be more like them and less like my original pack." I think it'd be a pretty maladjusted shifter (not that I'm saying it's impossible) to come up with a view like that.

A more likely scenario, in my opinion is, "My wild brothers might not be as smart as me, but they make a lot more sense than these humans. How do any of them figure out who's in charge? And what is the deal with this meat that isn't actually meat? Can't they smell each other? Who the frag does this street belong to, anyway and how do they tell? If it wasn't for [whatever reason] I'd be back in the wild in a heartbeat."

By making the decision to live in metahuman society, it has already taken that first step - and it was the shifters in metahuman society that I was discussing.

Reminds me of a friend's roommate I once knew. Granted, the person walked the Appalachian Trail about once every 3 years or so...

Heh, I was actually thinking about some similar experiences I've had. A trek like that is like prison, or Catholic school. It changes a person.

From a metagaming standpoint, Shifters have to distribute their attribute points between two physical forms and mental attributes. Those with strong emphasis on their mental attributes and their human form probably aren't going to make it in the wild. Conversely, those who grew up with a strong animal form aren't likely to make it in the "big city". It seems reasonable that they would head to the environment in which they have adapted and molded themselves, finding their own territory and niche to fit in.

According to your sig you commited ...

False Cause
Amphiboly
Composition Fallacy
&
Suppressed Evidence

and to a lesser extent ...

Hasty Generalization

I dropped in the line about your sig. because you give a brief non-contextual quote from critters as the definative interpretation of the section on shapeshifters. Whilst the opening paragraph of descriptive text does reference shapeshifters as being able to adopt a human form the remainder of the shapeshifter section refers to humanoid forms both in general and specifically.

You appear to go on to interprete the statement that shapeshifters are not humans who can take on an animal form as meaning that they are animals that take on human form. This is not an exclusively valid propersition as a full understanding of your fallacy sig. link makes clear. There is another alternative, they can take on the form of an animal and a human, but are neither, just shapeshifter. The continual use of "animal form" and "humanoid form" without defining or expanding on the term "form" does not allow you validly support your interpretation without recourse to information that is not contained within Critters.

There is no explicit statement in the shapeshifter section that shapeshifters are animals. The opening paragraph states that they appear as large specimens of their animal form, not that they ARE large specimens of their animal type. Just because a being is in Critters does not automatically mean it is an animal.

In regard to normal habits and how they affect the behaviour of a shapeshifter you again contracted the available information to give the impression that Critters states that they are animalistic by default and make a special effort to function as a human look-a-like. My reading of that section is that they behave and exhibit behaviour that is suitable to the form they are in and tend to prefer an environment that is suitable to their animal form. Whilst it is directly implied that they are not fully confortable with human society, there is nothing to support that they are well integrated into their animal form's social groups. The nature of the societal organisation of the 'shifters base animal fall into main categories, alpha-pack and individual parental units. For a 'shifter to be outside of this they are either rogue or disinterested in groupings larger than a single family unit.

Yes, the extracts I used from Critters were brief, but they were not taken out of context but rather used as place markers for those interested in reading the section. BitBasher, you yourself have read that section and should be capable of using my reply to your ascertions to re-evaluate both of our interpretations of that section using the full reference material. Short of posting the entire section in this thread most quotes will be called "out-of-context", whether they are or not.

This is the start.

As an aside remeber humans are animals too. Animals that are sentient. Similar to anything else?

Woo, time to address the issues!

No, I gave a brief non-contextual quote from critters as my interpretation of shapeshifters. SR is not set in stone, nor do I believe it should be, Many things in SR are open to multiple interpretations, and this is merely mine. It's not intended to be the only way to interpret, it's just my way.

Yes, and as humanoid refers to a shape, not a race (which is human or metahuman) I fail to see the relevance.

You're right those two things are not exclusive in and of themselves in a vaccuum. However, Generally speaking all mammals are animals, as (and you noted below) are humans. Since shapeshifters are explicitly not human, and they are by definition animals I don't see how this statement is untrue in this case. Technically humans and shapeshifters are both animals, but that doesn;t make the shapeshifter human.

This is ignoring that their natural form is in fact the animal, which has been expounded on in multiple sources in SR canon. My arguments based on shifters are not wholly limited to the critters book, and I never claimed I was limiting myself to solely the critters book.

Do you mean other than:

1) Shapeshifters are specifically referred to as a creature in their description in the first paragraph.

2) Shapeshifters are listed specifically as large versions of their animal form with the innate magical ability to change to a human form. They are not listed as having two basic nonmagical forms, it's explicitly stated the change to human form is an innate magical effect. Also in the first paragraph.

3) Viewing the shapeshifter astrally automatically reveals it's true form, which refers to its animal form. This is backed up in at least one canon module IIRC.

I said this because it specifically stated they prefer their animal forma, and the animal form is specifically listed an innate magical ability. Since the human form is the effect of magic, and because of information from other SR books, the animal form is in fact presented as the default.

No argument here

I dont remember anything from any canon source that addresses this at all. Page number or book reference for shapeshifter scocietal organization please?

Actually in a general sense both interpretations could be allowed by the text, alshout I feel your interpretation is a serious reach of the material, and can only really be valid allowing the other sources in SR where shapeshifters have appeared.

Yes, but in SR where there are several, or many species that meets that description it means very little.

They aren't? Where are you getting this? Perhaps in certain social subsets of animals, but I don't think it's a general rule that mutants are ostracized by animals.

So far you have only cited Critters as direct source material (other than nebulous novels) and yet feel that it contains enough information to state ...

This information is not in Critters, if you could quote the book and pages references, that would move the discussion on.

Well, it specifically states that they can only transform into an almost-human appearance and continues from that point onwards to describe their appearance as humanoid, not human. How can metahuman be defined as a specific race? It is the same type of catch-group term as humanoid is. We can only say it looks somewhat like a human, so do orks, dwarves, and elves. Tall, thin, pointy ears, bit odd around the eyes; fox 'shifter or elf, from that description alone?

That is terrible logic to justify you prior points. You have taken that, because it is not human, it must be the base animal type with some magic and brains. By removing the word animal and using specifically the term fox we should be able to clarify a bit.

a) It is not a human which turns into a fox
b) It can appear as a humanoid
c) It can appear as a large, healthy fox

So, not a human, but neither is it definiatively a fox. Animal yes, but not an member of the 'shifter base "animal form", just "appears to be a large, well-formed" fox. There is nothing in the Venn grouping that would allow you to apply consistent interpretational logic to that section of critters in the way you have.

By castigating thread replies that do not contain book references and page numbers, and by only citing Critters as reference you did limit the information under discussion to only Critters or committed a argumentative fallacy. Nowhere in that section does it say that a fox shapeshifter is a fox, merely that it can appear as a fox and as a humanoid. It goes on to expressly state that the "humanoid form" is not human, without stating that the "animal form" is the actual animal in question. This is very important when decrying shapeshifter culture/habits.

This is not SR knowledge, so no page numbers can be referenced. To deny Where'dhego his 'shifter sub-cultures because they are only genetic abherrations on a base animal species, you must first understand what and how their societal organization functions. 'Shifters by their very being would find it equally hard to immerse themselves in the social groupings of either form.

I would like to know why shapeshifters cannot breed with humans, will not have sex with humans, cannot have their own cultures, do not form communities of 'shifters, or be able to immitate metahumans. If you could provide book names and page numbers I would like combine this additional information with those cited from Critters to build the whole picture portrayed by yourself.

*sighs* I'm tempted to play Earthdawn again, after this long-winded thread. The term "Namegiver" comes to mind, and was pretty unambiguous.

Shapeshifters are no more metahuman (no Human DNA) than Sasquatches. I think Metahuman only applies to a subset of beings who can all breed with each other in the Homo Sapiens species.