Forums of the Megaverse®

So this came up else where and I find myself curious. Personally, in Rifts I just see mutant animals as animals. After all they are genetically modified animals, unlike Wolven which evolved on their own. Not out to change any minds, just curious to see what other people think.

I remember seeing a joke not too long ago

Gorrilla Grodd unleashes his virus that turns all humans into "incredibly intellegent apes" ... nothing happens ... the Flash then informs him "Ummm, Human kinda are incredibly intellegent apes"

It's an interesting philosophical question. I guess I think of them as people, of course I don't think that highly of people

I don't see why animals cant also be people.
Or to be more specific I would say that personhood is when you are "Intelligent, self aware, and self willed". WHAT is being Intelligent, self aware, and self willed is not important. Animal, Plant, Rock, Toaster, Computer Program, Spell, what ever....as long as fits the 3, then philosophically and morally it is a person as far as I am concerned.

Well that is how the C.S. views them. You might want to watch some TMNT shows to get a better grasp of the concept as far as how they go. Or also read the After the Bomb setting book.

Now I will admit that there are various levels of mutant animals. You could just gene splice them to make then better by adding some stat bonuses or hybridization with completely different animal DNA. That would be a mutant and still be on the animal level of intelligence. Only basic instinct reactions and the like.

But once you start increasing its IQ and give it human level of emotional development, human level intelligence, and the capacity to understand concepts of individual sell, morality, self concept, and understanding that it will one day die. You are at the level of sapience that makes them a person.

If you ask it if it would like to be killed and eaten and it can say no, I don't think I would like that. Its not a simple animal anymore its a humanized animal. Or since humans are just another animal I would better say its a fully sentient and sapient being. Ethically its on the same level as humans.

Personhood is a huge philosophical question. Without getting into more of a debate than a fictional example is worth, I have a hard time not considering mutant animals people. They have intellect, self-awareness, hopes and dreams. That's more than I can say for some humans.

Depends on the individual mutant animal. some may be only intelligent animals and some would be the same as a person. Example Dog boys tend to be the same as a person while the mutant roaches in space tend to be intelligent animals.

Out of game, as a role player. We know that mutant animals (Dog boys, etc) are sentient beings. Thus would be considered "People".

That said. "In game" or "in world" The CS sees them as a highly trained 'animal'. Like a really good military or police dog, or a chimp that knows sign language.

In game, and out of game are different things.

Humans in the end are just intelligent animals as well, there's nothing special about a human compared to a dog boy with regards to being intelligent, self-aware, and otherwise being due the treatment a sentient living being deserves. Whether you get their from natural mutation (i.e. evolution) or genetically engineered that way doesn't matter, all that matters is what you are after all that not how you got there. Since again humans are in the end just animals as well, and mutant animals in getting to where they are from where their ancestors started.

I think that, before we get too deep, we should have a defined defintion.

"Yes" people are just clever apes when you get down to it.

That said, defining personhood is different. Before we try and split the difference if we could get a defintion for THIS Thread, we could be more precise.

Within the PB megaverse 'Mutant Animal' has a particular definition.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:I think that, before we get too deep, we should have a defined defintion.

"Yes" people are just clever apes when you get down to it.

That said, defining personhood is different. Before we try and split the difference if we could get a defintion for THIS Thread, we could be more precise.

It would seem a good idea to all be on the same page as to a definition. The definition I am aware of differentiates between humans, animals, and things. Though this can be a problem if you consider humans are still just animals. But I eagerly await a definition.

Much like Incriptus said, I also tend to have a low opinion of people in general. Much prefer animals over people. And mutant animals, well that's just gravy.

As I've said, not out to change anyone's mind, just curious how other people view the mutant animals. Granted I may very well view the mutants in After the Bomb differently, though I own the books I've never gotten around to reading them. As for TMNT, well never been into them so it is unlikely I would ever watch a show. Now in a world of furries, I would very likely consider them people, though they also likely evolved that way. Taking an animal and tweaking it's genes, well that's a grey area. I would hope mutant animals would avoid many human faults.

Definitely some interesting ideas and views being tossed around, definetly a lot to think about.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Within the PB megaverse 'Mutant Animal' has a particular definition.

Not as pertaining to this conversation. Mutant animal is very broad. It could be a mouse the size of a house, but with no sentience or human IQ, or it could be a mouse the size of a mouse with super high IQ, and psionics, or it could be the TMNT. And everything in between those different extremes.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Within the PB megaverse 'Mutant Animal' has a particular definition.

Not as pertaining to this conversation. Mutant animal is very broad. It could be a mouse the size of a house, but with no sentience or human IQ, or it could be a mouse the size of a mouse with super high IQ, and psionics, or it could be the TMNT. And everything in between those different extremes.

*looks at who's BBS this is, where this forum is* My saying that in the Palladiumbooks Lexicon "mutant animals' has a particular definition is VERY RELEVANT!!!!!!
It does mean a Sentient being that had been ether genitally altered to be human-like or because of a mutagenic event they became human-like.

Thus the mutant animals created via the TMNT text and via the Mutant animal power cat and those made via the ATB text and Dogboys and kill cats and the psionic RCC's in RSA2 are all mutant animals as per the char creation rules.

Non-sentient mutated animals do not fall into the 'mutant animals' category according to the PBL.
As such they are just 'mutated animals' or 'monsters.'

Pepsi Jedi wrote:I think that, before we get too deep, we should have a defined defintion.
...snip

There I gave you the definitions you asked for.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Within the PB megaverse 'Mutant Animal' has a particular definition.

Not as pertaining to this conversation. Mutant animal is very broad. It could be a mouse the size of a house, but with no sentience or human IQ, or it could be a mouse the size of a mouse with super high IQ, and psionics, or it could be the TMNT. And everything in between those different extremes.

*looks at who's BBS this is, where this forum is* My saying that in the Palladiumbooks Lexicon "mutant animals' has a particular definition is VERY RELEVANT!!!!!!
It does mean a Sentient being that had been ether genitally altered to be human-like or because of a mutagenic event they became human-like.

Thus the mutant animals created via the TMNT text and via the Mutant animal power cat and those made via the ATB text and Dogboys and kill cats and the psionic RCC's in RSA2 are all mutant animals as per the char creation rules.

Non-sentient mutated animals do not fall into the 'mutant animals' category according to the PBL.
As such they are just 'mutated animals' or 'monsters.'

Pepsi Jedi wrote:I think that, before we get too deep, we should have a defined defintion.
...snip

There I gave you the definitions you asked for.

Your assumptions are simply not correct. Via the Palladium rules you can build both, intelligent and sentient mutant animals and non intelligent mutant animals.

An animal with Full human looks, speech, biped, hands, and fully intelligent, looking more or less 'Human' even if it's base is a rodent or feline, is a mutant animal (And it should note, might still have the mind of a mouse and lack sapience)
So is a mouse the size of a house but no human intelligence, no hands, no biped. Just all of it's BIO-E poured into size levels, and reduction in IQ due to it, or simply not sapient and with out IQ to start with is also a Mutant Animal. (Though it should be noted that the same animal may very well be sapient even with zero human looks, hands, or anything)

You can build any of those options and indeed there are examples of them all.

It's assumed that most player characters will be sapient beings. That doesn't mean all mutant animals are. It's a 'Square/rectangle' thing. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares."

In the above, both sapient and non sapient mutated animals are... "Mutant animals" but not all "Mutant Animals" are sapient

And that's why it needs to be defined as per this conversation.

"Mutant Animals" Covers all animals with mutations, sapient or no.

So are we talking about sapient mutant animals that can think and reason? Because being sapient is usually a defining characteristic of 'personhood' no matter what one looks like.

The OP how ever seemed to feel that mutant animals are just animals, and not 'people' which would seem to indicate the discussion was about nonsapient beings.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Within the PB megaverse 'Mutant Animal' has a particular definition.

Not as pertaining to this conversation. Mutant animal is very broad. It could be a mouse the size of a house, but with no sentience or human IQ, or it could be a mouse the size of a mouse with super high IQ, and psionics, or it could be the TMNT. And everything in between those different extremes.

*looks at who's BBS this is, where this forum is* My saying that in the Palladiumbooks Lexicon "mutant animals' has a particular definition is VERY RELEVANT!!!!!!
It does mean a Sentient being that had been ether genitally altered to be human-like or because of a mutagenic event they became human-like.

Thus the mutant animals created via the TMNT text and via the Mutant animal power cat and those made via the ATB text and Dogboys and kill cats and the psionic RCC's in RSA2 are all mutant animals as per the char creation rules.

Non-sentient mutated animals do not fall into the 'mutant animals' category according to the PBL.
As such they are just 'mutated animals' or 'monsters.'

Pepsi Jedi wrote:I think that, before we get too deep, we should have a defined defintion.
...snip

There I gave you the definitions you asked for.

Your assumptions are simply not correct. Via the Palladium rules you can build both, intelligent and sentient mutant animals and non intelligent mutant animals.

An animal with Full human looks, speech, biped, hands, and fully intelligent, looking more or less 'Human' even if it's base is a rodent or feline, is a mutant animal (And it should note, might still have the mind of a mouse and lack sapience)
So is a mouse the size of a house but no human intelligence, no hands, no biped. Just all of it's BIO-E poured into size levels, and reduction in IQ due to it, or simply not sapient and with out IQ to start with is also a Mutant Animal. (Though it should be noted that the same animal may very well be sapient even with zero human looks, hands, or anything)

You can build any of those options and indeed there are examples of them all.

It's assumed that most player characters will be sapient beings. That doesn't mean all mutant animals are. It's a 'Square/rectangle' thing. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares."

In the above, both sapient and non sapient mutated animals are... "Mutant animals" but not all "Mutant Animals" are sapient

And that's why it needs to be defined as per this conversation.

"Mutant Animals" Covers all animals with mutations, sapient or no.

So are we talking about sapient mutant animals that can think and reason? Because being sapient is usually a defining characteristic of 'personhood' no matter what one looks like.

The OP how ever seemed to feel that mutant animals are just animals, and not 'people' which would seem to indicate the discussion was about nonsapient beings.

Well I am considering all mutant animals...

Now sapience suggests wisdom, sentience refers to awareness. Certainly dog boys and other mutants created by the CS are generally sentient, though not all would be sapient. Does sentience immediately determin a mutant animal to be a person? I'm just not sure...

Tags wrote:Well I am considering all mutant animals...

Now sapience suggests wisdom, sentience refers to awareness. Certainly dog boys and other mutants created by the CS are generally sentient, though not all would be sapient. Does sentience immediately determin a mutant animal to be a person? I'm just not sure...

Thus.... the need to define what you 'mean' in the context of the query.

As a point of fact, all dog boys (and even normal dogs) Are sentient. They're aware, they process sensation. So is a cat and a badger and a beaver.

Sapience means that you can 'think' and qualify that awareness. In this instance. YES, Dog boys are Sapient too.

In that aspect, a dog boy, being sapient, is yes, a person. He's a person with doggy looks and tenancies, but I grew up with a few of those myself in the south. That doesn't make him less of a person.

If a mutant animal possesses Sapience, then he's a person. If he does not possess sapience and is not self aware, he's still a mutant animal, but is regulated to 'animal' status vs 'person' status.


((As a small note, sentence and sapience are often used interchangeably in common parlance though there is a difference and it pretty much only comes up in conversations of this nature where the difference is a key to defining the topic of discussion. I'd go into more depth, but you all can google sentence vs sapience yourselves. lol))

I think a more detailed list of what it takes to be an individual being should be made before continuing.

What about culture, does this play a part in it , if so does it have its own culture or mimics other beings' culture.

Did not ether of you pick up on the suggestion I made that non-sentient/non-sophent animals that have been mutated to be called 'Mutated Animals' so they would not be confused with the sentient ones that the PBL says are 'Mutant Animals' when talking in this forum.

It is like being back in an argument about different types RCC's where one of the posters was Not making a distinction between which ones he is talking about and the other is being particular in Making those distinctions.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Did not ether of you pick up on the suggestion I made that non-sentient/non-sophent animals that have been mutated to be called 'Mutated Animals' so they would not be confused with the sentient ones that the PBL says are 'Mutant Animals' when talking in this forum.

It is like being back in an argument about different types RCC's where one of the posters was Not making a distinction between which ones he is talking about and the other is being particular in Making those distinctions.

1) It wasn't a suggestion. You laid it out as if it were a rule. As if it were a given. I pointed out that your assumption was not correct and pointed out why.

2) This isn't your thread. Tags started it. Nor do you own the forum. You don't make rules and we all have to follow them. Then get to be offended when we don't and roll your eyes as if we've some how missed something. Rules that you make up off the top of your head don't suddenly pertain to all, nor are we some how stupid if we don't instantly follow your arbitrary rules.

I've personally asked, as it does matter when discussing the topic, what the Original Poster has meant when he uses the term "Mutant animals" And it has been laid out that he means both sapient and non sapient ones. Which makes the answer a two pronged thing.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I think a more detailed list of what it takes to be an individual being should be made before continuing.

What about culture, does this play a part in it , if so does it have its own culture or mimics other beings' culture.

I would think culture would be an end result, but not a requirement to define individuality.

I'm not sure how much of a culture CS dog boys would develop, feral dog boys on the other hand would probably develop a.distinct culture as they are not restricted by the CS.

The thing I keep coming back to is that mutant animals in the case of the CS are normal animals modified through the interference of humanity. Fundamentally they are still animals, on the other hand, they are self aware... hmmm.

Is being a person somehow better then being an animal? After all when you get Down to it, were little more animals with big brains... So maybe there is no difference between a dog boy and human. *shrug*

Could look at it this way, do dog boys or other breeds of mutant animal constitute new races?

See, there's your problem. Until you have a firm definition of what a 'person' is, you can't really define if something is or not.

For me, "Sapience" Is needed to define personhood. You have to be self aware. Not just able to process input but to THINK about the input past the immediate.

How you become self aware is of little importance. That you 'are' self aware is the thing. A dog boy, lifted up to sapience through advanced science and genetic engineering is still a 'person' as he can think and reason and is aware of himself and the universe around him. it doesn't matter that he was genetically engineered to be that. he 'is' that in the end. Humanity reached that same end through natural evolution.

We both (Humanity and the dog boys) have reached that defining characteristic. The road traveled to get there is not part of the definition. An animal given full sapience through magic would still be a 'person', even if it was achieved magically.

Tags wrote:So this came up else where and I find myself curious. Personally, in Rifts I just see mutant animals as animals. After all they are genetically modified animals, unlike Wolven which evolved on their own. Not out to change any minds, just curious to see what other people think.

Yes they are genetically modified animal as humans are just naturally evolved animals. We are all just a pack of animals trying to get along.

kaid wrote:

Tags wrote:So this came up else where and I find myself curious. Personally, in Rifts I just see mutant animals as animals. After all they are genetically modified animals, unlike Wolven which evolved on their own. Not out to change any minds, just curious to see what other people think.

Yes they are genetically modified animal as humans are just naturally evolved animals. We are all just a pack of animals trying to get along.

"Trying" being the operative word, not so sure we do so well with getting along. ;>

I tend to see uplifted* animals as being people. In the fictions (including Rifts) such people are often seen (or portrayed in propaganda) as being lesser than humans. Often this is a rationalization used to maintain their status as slaves.


* In science fiction, uplift is a developmental process to transform a certain species of animals into sentient beings by other, already-intelligent beings. This is usually accomplished by evolutional interventions like genetic engineering but any fictional or real process can be used.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:See, there's your problem. Until you have a firm definition of what a 'person' is, you can't really define if something is or not.
For me, "Sapience" Is needed to define personhood. You have to be self aware. Not just able to process input but to THINK about the input past the immediate.

How you become self aware is of little importance. That you 'are' self aware is the thing. A dog boy, lifted up to sapience through advanced science and genetic engineering is still a 'person' as he can think and reason and is aware of himself and the universe around him. it doesn't matter that he was genetically engineered to be that. he 'is' that in the end. Humanity reached that same end through natural evolution.

We both (Humanity and the dog boys) have reached that defining characteristic. The road traveled to get there is not part of the definition. An animal given full sapience through magic would still be a 'person', even if it was achieved magically.

*Marks calendar in red* I am in agreement with Pepsi here.
The discussion here is sounding a bit like Apples Vs. Fruits.
The two terms being weighed against each other "people" and "mutant animals" are ill defined, and not equivilant in any way.
I will agree some mutant animals are people, some are not. But this is true of anything else. Some alien species are people some are not. Some plants are people some are not. Some machines are people some are not.
All people are people. But with out a definition of what people is, no progress can be made on any topic that uses the definition of people as one of its key premises.

The implication in most of what I've read from Palladium is that, with few exceptions, mutant animals are counted as people. There are some that might not be people, and more intelligent animals, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.

1) Yes, it is a given that the term "Mutant Animals" in the PB gamebook means that the "changed"/"uplifted" animal is a person/intelligent being/sophent. This is because that is how the PB gamebooks use the term. Thus the term has already been defined by Kevin S.

Yes, Everyone can read the gamebooks and come to the realization that yes this is how PB uses that term.

2) Yes, I suggested a different term, "mutated animals", which got ignored in the race to "kill the messenger" for stating how the term "mutant animal" is used in the PB gamebooks.
A second suggestion, just drop attacking me, and lets get on with the discussion at hand.
----------------------------
Yes, the dividing line between Mutant Animals and just mutated animals is whether or not they can be considered to be "people".
----------------------------
Can normal animals be altered to be better animals, Yes. There are two examples in the PB gamebooks in which the customer gets about what they want, and two examples of ways that they beings 'improving' the animals will make extra changes.

The 1st types of altering organisms can found outside the Rifts and 3G books. There is the genetic engineering in the AU:GG book, and then there is the familiar augmentations in NB:TtGD.

The Gene-splicers and the similar 3G race are those that make the improvements that they want to.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:1) Yes, it is a given that the term "Mutant Animals" in the PB gamebook means that the "changed"/"uplifted" animal is a person/intelligent being/sophent. This is because that is how the PB gamebooks use the term. Thus the term has already been defined by Kevin S.

Yes, Everyone can read the gamebooks and come to the realization that yes this is how PB uses that term.

Source? Book and Page for instance where it specifically states that Mutant Animals are by definition intelligent.
ESPECIALLY since I can go to several of the game books and come back with mutant animals that are NOT people/intelligent beings/sentient/sophent/what ever

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:2) Yes, I suggested a different term, "mutated animals", which got ignored in the race to "kill the messenger" for stating how the term "mutant animal" is used in the PB gamebooks.

Helpful hint. If you want to make a suggestion of a different term. Make it clear that you are offereing such.
I.e. "A suggestion might be to use the slightly different term Mutated Animals to describe these beings. This has the merits of....."
Just putting the word 'mutated animals' out there with no context or clairification does not make it clear that you ARE offering a new term, just that you are using the old term in a different way (i.e. that you are talking about mutant animals)

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:A second suggestion, just drop attacking me, and lets get on with the discussion at hand.

I don't believe he was attacking you. I believe he was attacking your claim to have the ability to define the terms.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:----------------------------
Yes, the dividing line between Mutant Animals and just mutated animals is whether or not they can be considered to be "people".

And again now you are just making up a new term to change the goalposts.
The discussion is on the PB definition of Mutant Animals, not your definition of Mutant Animals. As such they include all animals that have been mutated, in any way (i.e. what the words "mutant" + "animal" mean). Unless you can provide a specific citation to the contrary

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:----------------------------
Can normal animals be altered to be better animals, Yes. There are two examples in the PB gamebooks in which the customer gets about what they want, and two examples of ways that they beings 'improving' the animals will make extra changes.

The 1st types of altering organisms can found outside the Rifts and 3G books. There is the genetic engineering in the AU:GG book, and then there is the familiar augmentations in NB:TtGD.

The Gene-splicers and the similar 3G race are those that make the improvements that they want to.

Actually there is mention of this in Rifts when it talks about genetically engineered cattle providing beef for the Coalition as well.
However the burden of proof is on you to prove that these animals, which are mutants, are not mutant animals. Since the meaning of the words "mutant animal" do not by them selves include the quality of being sentient.

eliakon wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:----------------------------
Can normal animals be altered to be better animals, Yes. There are two examples in the PB gamebooks in which the customer gets about what they want, and two examples of ways that they beings 'improving' the animals will make extra changes.

The 1st types of altering organisms can found outside the Rifts and 3G books. There is the genetic engineering in the AU:GG book, and then there is the familiar augmentations in NB:TtGD.

The Gene-splicers and the similar 3G race are those that make the improvements that they want to.

Actually there is mention of this in Rifts when it talks about genetically engineered cattle providing beef for the Coalition as well.
However the burden of proof is on you to prove that these animals, which are mutants, are not mutant animals. Since the meaning of the words "mutant animal" do not by them selves include the quality of being sentient.

I was pointing out that there are Specific places in the PB gamebooks that have text conserning specific modifications of animals by people.
---------------------------
I was commenting on Three different things seperated by my placement of ------------------------
---------------------------
As for the rest of your post I am not going to repeat what I've already stated in other posts or in that same post.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote: 1) Yes, it is a given that the term "Mutant Animals" in the PB gamebook means that the "changed"/"uplifted" animal is a person/intelligent being/sophent. This is because that is how the PB gamebooks use the term. Thus the term has already been defined by Kevin S.

No, that's a -partial- definition of the word. Not a complete. You're indicating that it's the 'only' way the term (Mutant animal) is defined, and that's how it's defined by Kevin. It's simply not true. It's -part- of the definition. Not all of it. As pointed out, a mutant animal could be a mouse the size of a house, with no intelligence.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote: Yes, Everyone can read the gamebooks and come to the realization that yes this is how PB uses that term.

Partially. Not completely. Thus, the problem at hand. It's not a universal definition for the term. It is often the usage, but not the only usage. Your insistence that it is, is simply, false.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
2) Yes, I suggested a different term, "mutated animals", which got ignored in the race to "kill the messenger"

No you didn't suggest it. You stated it was the term, making it up on the cuff as per the usage and then rolled your eyes when it wasn't simply accepted because you stated it was so. There's a difference between the two. You said "This is how it is" not 'We could use this term for this meaning". There is a difference.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote: for stating how the term "mutant animal" is used in the PB gamebooks.
A second suggestion, just drop attacking me, and lets get on with the discussion at hand.

Not agreeing with you is not an attack. Pointing out false statements is not an attack. It's having opinions contrary to yours and pointing out inaccuracies or untruths.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
----------------------------
Yes, the dividing line between Mutant Animals and just mutated animals is whether or not they can be considered to be "people".
----------------------------
Can normal animals be altered to be better animals, Yes. There are two examples in the PB gamebooks in which the customer gets about what they want, and two examples of ways that they beings 'improving' the animals will make extra changes.

The 1st types of altering organisms can found outside the Rifts and 3G books. There is the genetic engineering in the AU:GG book, and then there is the familiar augmentations in NB:TtGD.

The Rifts books (Lone Star) Has instance of mutated animals that are not sapient. They speak of genetically altered bovines that grow faster on less food and produce better tasting meat. The CS isn't sitting down at dinner and chowing down on Cow-people-burgers and steaks. There is an example of mutant animals in Palaldium (Rifts) that are altered, but don't gain intelligence or sapience. The same place (Lone Star) produces other mutant animals, the dog boys, kill cats, bears, chimps, rats, bats, etc, that are sapient.

So the term, proven in one book (Lone Star) Shows that the definition isn't universal and yes covers both sapient and non sapient mutant animals.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

eliakon wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:----------------------------
Can normal animals be altered to be better animals, Yes. There are two examples in the PB gamebooks in which the customer gets about what they want, and two examples of ways that they beings 'improving' the animals will make extra changes.

The 1st types of altering organisms can found outside the Rifts and 3G books. There is the genetic engineering in the AU:GG book, and then there is the familiar augmentations in NB:TtGD.

The Gene-splicers and the similar 3G race are those that make the improvements that they want to.

Actually there is mention of this in Rifts when it talks about genetically engineered cattle providing beef for the Coalition as well.
However the burden of proof is on you to prove that these animals, which are mutants, are not mutant animals. Since the meaning of the words "mutant animal" do not by them selves include the quality of being sentient.

I was pointing out that there are Specific places in the PB gamebooks that have text conserning specific modifications of animals by people.
---------------------------
I was commenting on Three different things seperated by my placement of ------------------------

which is why I included your --------- in the quoted blocks when I addressed them.....

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:---------------------------
As for the rest of your post I am not going to repeat what I've already stated in other posts or in that same post.

I am still waiting for a citation for the definitions of Mutant Animal and Mutated Animal so I can read them. Since apparently if I read the definitions that Kevin has written it will be obvious what is meant, and since I don't know what is meant the only conclusion I can come to is that I have not read the right definitions and want to.
Can you please provide the book and page for them?



<Edit> Nevermind. On page 186 of the ATB book it has an encounter 31-35 Non-Sentient animal with human looks and 36-40 Partially sentient animal. Both are described as mutants which means that we have examples of mutant animals that are not sentient....

Animal intelligence is only a 1D4 roll for IQ. Mutant animals in both AtB and Rifts roll at least a 3D6, which is standard for human intelligence. They are clearly more than just a standard animal, capable of independent thought the has the abilitiy to learn equal to that of any human.

Kagashi wrote:Animal intelligence is only a 1D4 roll for IQ. Mutant animals in both AtB and Rifts roll at least a 3D6, which is standard for human intelligence. They are clearly more than just a standard animal, capable of independent thought the has the abilitiy to learn equal to that of any human.

Less you roll a 3. >.>

Maybe I just I don't want to think of dog boys as people... I hate people, don't want to hate dog boys or any other animal... *shrugs* I may just have learned something new today.

Don't forget the chart on page 21 as well.

IQ: SL 4 or below and you start losing IQ off the top, as you're too small to have a brain big enough, and at sl 21 and up you lose IQ as well, the penalties go to -8 on the small size and -10 on the high side.

When he average person in the world has an IQ of 90-100. (IQ 9 or 10 in palladium terms) Then losing 8 to 10 off that stat could seriously hinder you.

Add in that not all are rolled high. And it complicates matters. The 'non sapient' mutants might not roll 3D6 on IQ as they're not sapient. Or it could simply be explained as Tags pointed out. an IQ of 3 perhaps with penalties. an IQ of 3 would = 30 in the real world. You wouldn't even be able to tie your shoes. That's stand out side staring into the sun type IQ level. Forrest Gump had an IQ of 69 (So think '7' in Palladium rules)

Now sure. he's a person. (Forest) But it's not automatically assumed that all mutant animals are Sapient. There's clear instances in thebook where it's not true.
PG 185, has mutant chickens turning out to be "Allosauroids" (Then slips and calls them Raptors. lol Long Live Jurassic park), that are not sapient, but are simply pack hunters. Even says they're dumb as rocks. 186 has mutant insects, that are not sapient, and specificly "Non sentient psionic animal," and "non sentient animal with human looks full" More to the point the 36-40% category reads
"Partially-Sentient Natural-Looking Animal. While the creature looks like an ordinary animal, it is wickedly smart. It can't speak, or understand speech, and has nothing of any human mental attributes or feelings, but it is far, far smarter than an ordinary animal. Large predators in this category are incredibly dangerous! There's a 10% chance that the creature has 25 BIO-E in Animal Psionics. Roll on the Quick Roll Mutant Animal Table to determine the type of animal."

So even getting to "partially sentient" It states clearly while a smart animal it can't speak or understand speech and has nothing of any human mental attributes or feelings"

This would indicate that if partially sentient mutant animals don't have that the 'NON Sentient ones don't have it either.

So on the page Eliakon pointed out there's not one, or two but multiple 'proofs' of the mutant animals not all being of human intelligence or awareness.

this is one of the cases where you really can have a deep philosophical discussion about the meaning of "intelligence and sapience"

I tend to look at most "uplifting" examples as really changing multiple aspects of intelligence.

aspect 1 "raw intelligence" this comes back to 1 measure of how "smart" something is. I actually can see where an animal might have a raw intelligence into the "human normal" range and still have issues with "animal intelligence" as in it doesn't get causal reasoning and things like that. Ie its really smart, but figuring out that if I lift the latch (somehow) it makes the gate easy to open. nope just not going to happen.

2 applied reasoning this is where cause and effect reasoning beyond (dog training) "if I sit I get good feelings (petted/praise) etc. occurs when you start to be able to plan, and implement said plans and adjust for complications, etc.

3 self awareness. "I think therefore I am." being able to understand your own existence etc. (as a side note the dog boys as a whole were definitely upgraded in this area even if the coalition as a whole doesn't think so.)

I know there are other aspects of intelligence as regards to sapience but its a starting point.

when we look at "animals" in our own world there are some that everyone accepts as having some level of "smarts" and others not so much. its like the arguments that say chimps and dolphins (or killer whales) are intelligent based on "reasons" the fact is I suspect that the main reason they aren't considered "people" in their own right has less to do with their actual (raw) intelligence but rather other aspects of their mental makeup, and or prejudice I mean look at how many people insist "blacks", or "browns" obviously aren't as evolved as insert race, because "reasons"

I voted intelligent animals.

No, mutant animals are not people but intelligent pets to be cared for and used for desired purpose.

Just because a dog can walk and talk doesn't make a dog a person.

say652 wrote:I voted intelligent animals.

No, mutant animals are not people but intelligent pets to be cared for and used for desired purpose.

Just because a dog can walk and talk doesn't make a dog a person.

The logical response to this would be "Then what do you, Say652, consider needed to be a person, that dogboys do not have?"

Your opinion is valid, but I am curious as to what you think Humans have, that defines and or denotes personhood that a Dogboy doesn't?

In Rifts only cs citizens count as humans.
Everyone else is either a dbee or a dbee sympathizer.
Dogboys are pets, great pets but still pets.

say652 wrote:In Rifts only cs citizens count as humans.
Everyone else is either a dbee or a dbee sympathizer.
Dogboys are pets, great pets but still pets.

Seems say652 is in my camp.

But the question is how 'you' the player, sees them. Not how people in the CS see them.The CS has already 'spoken' on how they perceive them. That's not in question.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:But the question is how 'you' the player, sees them. Not how people in the CS see them.The CS has already 'spoken' on how they perceive them. That's not in question.

I know that's not at me but... it's easy, people suck dog boys don't.

I view most nonhuman things as pets, prey or a mark.

My vote is for tasty.

The Beast wrote:My vote is for tasty.

Would you eat a cow man?

Ha ha GOT EM!!

say652 wrote:I view most nonhuman things as pets, prey or a mark.

Demigods are non-human so is yours a pet prey or mark?

Tags wrote:

The Beast wrote:My vote is for tasty.

Would you eat a cow man?

Hey it is post apocalyptic do not question where your food comes from.

I see humans as animals so I don't really understand the conversation.

I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.