[Marcus]

I did consider responding to you both. But it's really just not worth my time.

If you guys wanna keep at this by all means, be my guest, and have fun! lol

[Kiirnodel]

Commanding a homunculus is not like commanding a spirit. A spirit is intuitive and intelligent; a homunculus just follows orders and becomes frustrated when the task becomes impossible.

That makes it pretty clear that homunculi don't think.

Now, the real question is:  Which part gets Errata'd out when/if we get the Core book errata?
The fact that homunculi only follow orders and can't think there way out of a cardboard box?
Or the Sapience power?

Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.

If a creature is able to "become frustrated" and are compared to other creatures which are described as "intuitive and intelligent" that tells me that Homunculi are capable of thought, they're just not incredibly bright.


But yeah, I think we've pretty much hit all the major points. I think the only thing left to discuss are the finer sticking points of how we want to define "living" and whether intelligence plays a factor, and by extension, how much intelligence...

Most of those things don't have clear definitions, and definitely not within the SR rules themselves.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Yeah the way they're described they sound like they "think" exactly like a drone's "dog brain".  But yet they have the sapience power.  So, meh.

Drones is a good analogy I think.


I think it’s the best they could do with their rules. They don’t have a almost sapient quality. Heck by the rules until errataed watchers aren’t really sapient as the powers is physical and doesn’t work on the astral. We ignored that rule as we get the intent of the power. They are sapient in the context of a being created from magic who can only follow orders and is a reflection of its creators personalities. They won’t learn skills as they don’t gain karma or have the lifespan to train but it does reflect their ability to remember events and report it to their creator. They can default on skills and aren’t unaware acting in accordance to their personality imprint but not freely or independently as they only follow orders. 

Sapience with their description reflects that they have a limited range of problem solving capabilities when attempting to complete their orders.  They don’t have drone brain as a critter option so you end up with this. Sapient also helps reflect that they do have a personality even if it’s just a reflection of their creators.

End of the day this isn’t hero system where you stat out a toothbrush. And powers, qualities etc aren’t as precise and don’t perfectly fit.

[Cabral]

Commanding a homunculus is not like commanding a spirit. A spirit is intuitive and intelligent; a homunculus just follows orders and becomes frustrated when the task becomes impossible.

That makes it pretty clear that homunculi don't think.

Now, the real question is:  Which part gets Errata'd out when/if we get the Core book errata?
The fact that homunculi only follow orders and can't think there way out of a cardboard box?
Or the Sapience power?

Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.

Neither. "Don't think" is not the same as "not considered an example of intelligent behavior."

In your quote, spirits are described as intelligent. Like when describing people as intelligent, that is saying spirits possess above average or exceptional intelligence (and the same for intuition). Contrasting that with homunculus means that the homunculus is average or less. I think with 1 intuition and logic, it may be the least intelligent non-metahuman with sapience, but that is still in the range of metahumanity.

This means you can tell a spirit to do something and it might figure out unclear instructions, question why it should be cleaning your cat's litter box, or explain to you why your existence is ultimately pointless while it smacks around security guards for you.

A homunculus will not question it's purpose or puzzle out how to work around a problem. It might be dumb, but it has sapience and is not lacking intelligence; it's just not the sharpest tool in the tool shed ... unless you made it from your best axe.

[Marcus]

Your totally correct Cabral, sadly I think several folks in here have already made up their minds and have no real interest in what the rules actually say.

For me this thread inspired me on making some adjustments. To how i see tech and magic interacting. I plan to start a thread on consequences of making AIs and sprites show up in a nonstandard wave length of ascensing. In the mean time I wouldn’t be too concerned anyone reading the rules called out will know what side the rules actually support.

[Kiirnodel]

The part that confuses me is how the intelligence (or lack thereof) would affect whether or not it is alive. Creatures don't even need Sapience to be considered alive.

[Marcus]

The part that confuses me is how the intelligence (or lack thereof) would affect whether or not it is alive. Creatures don't even need Sapience to be considered alive.

Also very true, further life span also has no bearing on if something is alive as well. May flies only live a day, and they are most certainly alive.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

And since any contact trigger is constantly in contact with living microorganisms in the atmosphere and yet it doesn't go off, clearly what the real world has to say about what is or is not living has little relevance on what counts as living for the purposes of a contact trigger.  So, that's a dead end argument.

OTOH your (and I dare say others who agree with you) argument has been "if something has sapience, it must be alive".  Which is unsupported by the rules.  Sapience says it can think, default on skills, learn new skills, etc.  Not a word on whether or not it "is living".

[Marcus]

And since any contact trigger is constantly in contact with living microorganisms in the atmosphere and yet it doesn't go off, clearly what the real world has to say about what is or is not living has little relevance on what counts as living for the purposes of a contact trigger.  So, that's a dead end argument.

OTOH your (and I dare say others who agree with you) argument has been "if something has sapience, it must be alive".  Which is unsupported by the rules.  Sapience says it can think, default on skills, learn new skills, etc.  Not a word on whether or not it "is living".

Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.

As to the the last. I think therefor I am has been considered philosophically a sound basis for proof for living sense a certain bath tub scene.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

As to the the last. I think therefor I am has been considered philosophically a sound basis for proof for living sense a certain bath tub scene.

Thinking does not equate to living.

You've started another thread to this effect, so all I'll say on this topic in this thread is A.I.s are fully "living", and they don't have auras. Ergo, it's possible to be sapient without being living.  So the argument of "Homunculi are sapient, therefore they're living" is a non-sequitur fallacy.

[Marcus]

As to the the last. I think therefor I am has been considered philosophically a sound basis for proof for living sense a certain bath tub scene.

Thinking does not equate to living.

You've started another thread to this effect, so all I'll say on this topic in this thread is A.I.s are fully "living", and they don't have auras. Ergo, it's possible to be sapient without being living.  So the argument of "Homunculi are sapient, therefore they're living" is a non-sequitur fallacy.

You ever met something that thought that wasn't alive? I think Sapient does equate to living and philosophy pretty well agrees with me.

You can say that by formal logic that it's fallacious, but I don't need a formal logic proof of it. I'm working a fun game not a tautology. A fact that I think you lose sight of very easily SSRD.

[Cabral]

Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.

Fluorescing Astral Bacteria (FAB) has an aura. Perhaps there is an unspoken mass requirement?

[Marcus]

Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.

Fluorescing Astral Bacteria (FAB) has an aura. Perhaps there is an unspoken mass requirement?

Hmm that's a very Good Point. Maybe? I don't want to bend over backwards to make it fit. But the aura things has worked very well.

Maybe the aura area generated has some proportion to the mass of the beings? And you need a certain "Volume" of aura? Eh that's basically the same a mass requirement. Hmmm.

[Reaver]

Bacteria don't have aura i guess? but that does mean i need to specify my thread more carefully.

Fluorescing Astral Bacteria (FAB) has an aura. Perhaps there is an unspoken mass requirement?

Hmm that's a very Good Point. Maybe? I don't want to bend over backwards to make it fit. But the aura things has worked very well.

Maybe the aura area generated has some proportion to the mass of the beings? And you need a certain "Volume" of aura? Eh that's basically the same a mass requirement. Hmmm.

I think its a "concentration" level of bacteria that matters.

For example:

A mage can astrally travel through the air, because the air (while not empty) may contain natural bacteria, but your aura can easily push them out of the way..
A mage can astrally travel through water, but at a much lower speed. Water is filled with bacteria, and microscopic life, thus offers more resistance to travel.
A mage can NOT astrally travel through the ground however. This is because the dirt contains massive amounts of bacteria and microscopic life which impedes the mage's astral travel.   

[Shinobi Killfist]

Will this question be answered in 6e. Does 6e have a homonculous.

Will the toy master concept live on with alchemical infused homonculous toys attacking targets.