Attune Object to Owner and Slavery...

[Nekira Sudacne]

Something just occured to me.

Object
Noun

a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

People are objects. the spell states it works via bio-energy. and it attunes to owner.

Technically speaking, then, I see nothing in a spell that prevents a slave owner from casting Attune Object to Owner on a slave, and thereby preventing them from doing anything whatsoever unless used by their owner--ordered to prehaps?

Is there anything in the books that would prevent this interpretation? Can you really make slaves freeze permanently like this?

[Prince Artemis]

Well, for one, if it did work this way, by the way the spell works it would be an instant kill, since the person's own bodily functions would stop working for them the moment the attuned person stopped touching them.

That being said, the spell only works in inanimate objects: IE Things that do not have a living aura of their own. The bio-energy, per mysteries of magic, IS an aura, and so the way the spell works essentially is that if the user does not have the aura of the attuner it doesn't work.

[Tor]

Would it work on a Machine Person or other sentient robots?

Do golems have auras? What if a LLW made a golem and then sold the golem to a Temporal Wizard, could this be used to transfer the golem ownership so it receives commands from the Twizard?

[Kagashi]

Something just occured to me.

Object
Noun

a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

People are objects. the spell states it works via bio-energy. and it attunes to owner.

Technically speaking, then, I see nothing in a spell that prevents a slave owner from casting Attune Object to Owner on a slave, and thereby preventing them from doing anything whatsoever unless used by their owner--ordered to prehaps?

Is there anything in the books that would prevent this interpretation? Can you really make slaves freeze permanently like this?

I do not believe so. Each living being has its own B.E. value. The spell is taking an object and matching it to the person's B.E. It does not change the B.E. of the owner of the object. Since both the slave and the master have individual B.E. values, and B.E. does not change, the slave's B.E. is going to remain static and cannot be attuned to the master's.

By the examples in the spell IAW BoM, I believe the spell was intended to be used on nonliving objects.

Would it work on a Machine Person or other sentient robots?

Do golems have auras? What if a LLW made a golem and then sold the golem to a Temporal Wizard, could this be used to transfer the golem ownership so it receives commands from the Twizard?

I think it would. Living beings have B.E. A machine person is not biologically living, therefore has no B.E.

Golems do not have auras or B.E. They can be attuned as well.

By casting the spell on the object, it MAKES the object owned by the living being being targeted. Dont get hung up on the "ownership" verbiage.

[Shark_Force]

you're using the wrong "object". that's "object" as in "object of my desire". you don't just pick a random definition of the word and use it regardless of context.

[Nekira Sudacne]

you're using the wrong "object". that's "object" as in "object of my desire". you don't just pick a random definition of the word and use it regardless of context.

I wasn't picking a random definition.

object
1 A material thing that can be seen and touched

1.1 Philosophy A thing external to the thinking mind or subject.

2 A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed

2.1 A goal or purpose:

2.2 Grammar A noun or noun phrase governed by an active transitive verb or by a preposition.

2.3 Computing A data construct that provides a description of something that may be used by a computer (such as a processor, a peripheral, a document, or a data set) and defines its status, its method of operation, and how it interacts with other objects.

Well, we can agree it's not a philosophical object, i'm not using it as the person or thing to which an emotion is ascribed (as you say, I am NOT using it in the object of desire sense), it's not a goal or purpose, it's not the object of a sentance, and it has nothing to do with object-oriented programming.

Which means I am using the word correctly. Object has ALWAYS been able to refer to a person as well as of inanimate things.

[glitterboy2098]

you're using the wrong "object". that's "object" as in "object of my desire". you don't just pick a random definition of the word and use it regardless of context.

[Citation needed]

if your going to make blanket statements like that, you need to back them up with something other than an implied "because i say so"

everyone else in the thread isn't using a random definition of object, they're using the commonly accepted meaning in our language. it makes a fair degree of sense that the common meaning is also the one the author of the spell had in mind when writing the book.

to be honest, making statements like "no it means object of my desires" sounds a lot more like picking a random definition out of context than what they've been discussing.

[Athos]

According to Merriam-Webster

Object (noun)
: a thing that you can see and touch and that is not alive

: someone or something that makes you feel a specified emotion

: someone or something that your attention or interest is directed toward


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object

There is your citation boy, but I don't think you will like it

[Shark_Force]

be honest, making statements like "no it means object of my desires" sounds a lot more like picking a random definition out of context than what they've been discussing.

the definition that she quoted is object as in "object of my desire". the definition that *should* be used, based on context, is the top definition of all the full lists that have been posted. that is:

"object
1 A material thing that can be seen and touched"

otherwise you can attune a goal to yourself and make it non-functional for anyone else, and that's just stupid. how do you stop the mechanoids? well, you attune the goal of the destruction of all humans and human-like beings to yourself, making it impossible for the mechanoids to use it. so much for your stupid goal, suckers! its mine now, and you can't have it!

[Nekira Sudacne]

be honest, making statements like "no it means object of my desires" sounds a lot more like picking a random definition out of context than what they've been discussing.

the definition that she quoted is object as in "object of my desire". the definition that *should* be used, based on context, is the top definition of all the full lists that have been posted. that is:

"object
1 A material thing that can be seen and touched"

That...IS the definition I quoted. Just from a different dictionary and so worded differently

[Shark_Force]

be honest, making statements like "no it means object of my desires" sounds a lot more like picking a random definition out of context than what they've been discussing.

the definition that she quoted is object as in "object of my desire". the definition that *should* be used, based on context, is the top definition of all the full lists that have been posted. that is:

"object
1 A material thing that can be seen and touched"

That...IS the definition I quoted. Just from a different dictionary and so worded differently

no, the definition you quoted is:

"a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed".

which is object as it would be used in the phrase "object of my desire", not object as would be used in the statement "this cup is an object".

[michael silverbane]

Regardless of the lay definition of the term, I always take the game term, "object" to mean an inanimate object, which would preclude attuning to any sort of creature, including most artificial intelligence robots.

Anyway, that's how I would rule it in a game I was running.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Living things are not objects. Thus it would not work.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Living things are not objects. Thus it would not work.

The actual definition of "object" disagrees with you

[eliakon]

I think we are well into the realm of "Which definition of the word that the GM wants to use" and "What the GM feels the intent of a spell is because the wording is vague"
I would say, personally that the spell doesn't work on living things because it has 'saving throw none' and that is the usual markings of a spell that can only be cast on unliving things. When it can be cast on living things this is changed to saving throw standard or the like. (example, Stone to Flesh in HU GMs Guide.)

[Library Ogre]

Regardless of the lay definition of the term, I always take the game term, "object" to mean an inanimate object, which would preclude attuning to any sort of creature, including most artificial intelligence robots.

Anyway, that's how I would rule it in a game I was running.

I tend to agree with this. Despite the dictionary definition of "object", it has a common definition in games (including Palladium) as something distinct from living creatures.

[Shark_Force]

I think we are well into the realm of "Which definition of the word that the GM wants to use" and "What the GM feels the intent of a spell is because the wording is vague"
I would say, personally that the spell doesn't work on living things because it has 'saving throw none' and that is the usual markings of a spell that can only be cast on unliving things. When it can be cast on living things this is changed to saving throw standard or the like. (example, Stone to Flesh in HU GMs Guide.)

ummm... we're always in that realm.

that doesn't mean both options are equally valid when examined logically. one definition lets you claim ideas and goals as your property and renders them unusable by anyone else. the other doesn't.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't have my books with me, so could somebody post the exact text of the spell description?

[Shark_Force]

i think posting the whole thing is probably beyond fair use.

i'll post some of it, though.

"What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's B.E. [ed: Biological Energy] frequency, making it impossible for anyone else to make the object function. The attuning magic can also be used to identify personal belongings and valuables. It is primarily used on rare or unique mechanical or magically powered devices, weapons, and items of great value."

(may not be 100% accurate copy because i have to type it in manually, so there might be typo's... i don't think there are, but there might be).

it goes on in more detail along those lines through the whole spell, pretty much.

[eliakon]

I think we are well into the realm of "Which definition of the word that the GM wants to use" and "What the GM feels the intent of a spell is because the wording is vague"
I would say, personally that the spell doesn't work on living things because it has 'saving throw none' and that is the usual markings of a spell that can only be cast on unliving things. When it can be cast on living things this is changed to saving throw standard or the like. (example, Stone to Flesh in HU GMs Guide.)

ummm... we're always in that realm.

that doesn't mean both options are equally valid when examined logically. one definition lets you claim ideas and goals as your property and renders them unusable by anyone else. the other doesn't.

AHA!! This is the reason the CS can never be defeated!
A Vanguard Translocator cast Attune Object on 'Defeat the Coalition' thus making this goal unusable by anyone else! The secret of the CS Plot Armor has been revealed!

[flatline]

If Attune Object uses the person's aura, what happens if a mind bleeder steals someone's aura?

Would objects attuned to that person work for the mind bleeder?

Would objects attuned to the mind bleeder still work for the mind bleeder even though she's got someone else's aura?

--flatline

[eliakon]

If Attune Object uses the person's aura, what happens if a mind bleeder steals someone's aura?

Would objects attuned to that person work for the mind bleeder?

Would objects attuned to the mind bleeder still work for the mind bleeder even though she's got someone else's aura?

--flatline

the B.E. is related to (but not the same) as your Aura.
You would need a new, hypothetical ability "steal/copy/bleed/mimic B.E."
This is why a simple Alter Aura will not allow you to bypass an Attune Object

[Nekira Sudacne]

If Attune Object uses the person's aura, what happens if a mind bleeder steals someone's aura?

Would objects attuned to that person work for the mind bleeder?

Would objects attuned to the mind bleeder still work for the mind bleeder even though she's got someone else's aura?

--flatline

It attunes their bio-energy, not their psychic aura, they are two different auras that operate on different energy.

[Kagashi]

I don't have my books with me, so could somebody post the exact text of the spell description?

Page 245 Book of Magic:

Spoiler:

Attune Object to Owner
Range: Touch
Duration: One year per level of experience or until dispelled by the one who performed the spell.
ST: NA
PPE: 30

Every Being radiates a unique biological energy (B.E.) signature. The B.E. is not to be confused with a person's aura, which is of a psionic nature, though similar. What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's B.E. frequency, making it impossible for any one else to make the object function. The attuning magic can also be used to identify personal belongings and valuables. it is primarily used on rare or unique mechanical or magically powered devices, weapons, and items of great value. Even though with Telemechanics will not be able to activate anything so attuned. For example: a rune sword that contains magical properties can be used for a sword, but none of its special magical abilities can be activated by anybody except its proper owner.

The spell requires the presence of the object, owner, and spell caster. The spell caster places one hand on the object and one on the owner. While casting the spell, a bright, white light will engulf the object and its owner. Although no physical mark will appear on the object, it will register as being magical by those able to sense magic and the owner will see a sort of aura signature around it. All objects attuned to him will have the same unique aura. Objects that contain magic can also be attuned to their owner.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't have my books with me, so could somebody post the exact text of the spell description?

Page 245 Book of Magic:

Spoiler:

Attune Object to Owner
Range: Touch
Duration: One year per level of experience or until dispelled by the one who performed the spell.
ST: NA
PPE: 30

Every Being radiates a unique biological energy (B.E.) signature. The B.E. is not to be confused with a person's aura, which is of a psionic nature, though similar. What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's B.E. frequency, making it impossible for any one else to make the object function. The attuning magic can also be used to identify personal belongings and valuables. it is primarily used on rare or unique mechanical or magically powered devices, weapons, and items of great value. Even though with Telemechanics will not be able to activate anything so attuned. For example: a rune sword that contains magical properties can be used for a sword, but none of its special magical abilities can be activated by anybody except its proper owner.

The spell requires the presence of the object, owner, and spell caster. The spell caster places one hand on the object and one on the owner. While casting the spell, a bright, white light will engulf the object and its owner. Although no physical mark will appear on the object, it will register as being magical by those able to sense magic and the owner will see a sort of aura signature around it. All objects attuned to him will have the same unique aura. Objects that contain magic can also be attuned to their owner.

Thanks!

[Killer Cyborg]

Something just occured to me.

Object
Noun

a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

People are objects. the spell states it works via bio-energy. and it attunes to owner.

Technically speaking, then, I see nothing in a spell that prevents a slave owner from casting Attune Object to Owner on a slave, and thereby preventing them from doing anything whatsoever unless used by their owner--ordered to prehaps?

Is there anything in the books that would prevent this interpretation? Can you really make slaves freeze permanently like this?

First and foremost, I don't think that's how Palladium meant the word "object."


Second, it sounds fun to explore the idea.

One thing to keep in mind is that one example of the spell given in the spell description is attuning a rune sword to its owner. In that case, the rune sword can still be used as a sword. All the spell does is to keep the sword's "special magical abilities" from being activated.
Following that logic, a slave could still be used the same way that any other object of that species could be used (i.e., a human slave could still do the things that a normal human does), but none of the slave's special abilities would be able to be activated by anybody other than the owner.
A slave who was a T-Man couldn't activate his/her tattoos, for example. A slave who was a psychic couldn't activate their own psychic powers.
Of course, since another person generally can't activate that sort of power in the first place, that would seem to mean that the person's powers would be inaccessible to anybody in most cases.

The fact that they use a rune sword as an example is an interesting one, because rune weapons are very often sentient, complete with personalities. That sets a precedent for the spell being able to work on intelligent beings of at least one sort.

[Tor]

If you possess someone could you use stuff attuned to the BE of the person you're inhabiting?

Could you bring your BE along and use your attuned weapons while inhabiting another body?

What about that PU3 super ability that lets you jump into others' bodies?

[eliakon]

If you possess someone could you use stuff attuned to the BE of the person you're inhabiting?

No you use your own BE

Could you bring your BE along and use your attuned weapons while inhabiting another body?

Yes, that is exactly how I see this as working.

What about that PU3 super ability that lets you jump into others' bodies?

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

[michael silverbane]

If you possess someone could you use stuff attuned to the BE of the person you're inhabiting?

No you use your own BE

Could you bring your BE along and use your attuned weapons while inhabiting another body?

Yes, that is exactly how I see this as working.

What about that PU3 super ability that lets you jump into others' bodies?

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I would probably rule the opposite. You would use the bio energy of the body you currently inhabited, meaning that you could use stuff that was attuned to them, but not your own stuff.

[flatline]

If you possess someone could you use stuff attuned to the BE of the person you're inhabiting?

No you use your own BE

Could you bring your BE along and use your attuned weapons while inhabiting another body?

Yes, that is exactly how I see this as working.

What about that PU3 super ability that lets you jump into others' bodies?

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I would probably rule the opposite. You would use the bio energy of the body you currently inhabited, meaning that you could use stuff that was attuned to them, but not your own stuff.

I agree with this line of thinking.

--flatline

[Tor]

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I guess the issue is... biologically, you left your DNA back in your body if you're doing 'Mentally Possess Others' or something, and the bio-energy of the person you're inhabiting is still in their body, they just have a dormant mind, so it makes me wonder if you commandeer their bio-energy while in them.

You can have DNA and be dead though... organic but non-biological... like zombies... so maybe the 'bio' aspect is more the life force / soul?

If the Kittani cloned you, you figure the clone would still have a unique Bio-E because they have a different soul even if your DNA is identical?

Same with Dopplegangers (spell) or Multiple Selves (major HU power) because the Bio-E is different due to being a different being?

Kind of makes you wonder what happens with CO-ownership. Like if you and a business partner each own 50% of a robot... could you still attune? What if you only owned 40%? Is owning 100% necessary?

[Killer Cyborg]

If you possess someone could you use stuff attuned to the BE of the person you're inhabiting?

No you use your own BE

Could you bring your BE along and use your attuned weapons while inhabiting another body?

Yes, that is exactly how I see this as working.

What about that PU3 super ability that lets you jump into others' bodies?

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I would probably rule the opposite. You would use the bio energy of the body you currently inhabited, meaning that you could use stuff that was attuned to them, but not your own stuff.

I agree with this line of thinking.

--flatline

Agreed.

[Library Ogre]

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I guess the issue is... biologically, you left your DNA back in your body if you're doing 'Mentally Possess Others' or something, and the bio-energy of the person you're inhabiting is still in their body, they just have a dormant mind, so it makes me wonder if you commandeer their bio-energy while in them.

What makes you think B.E. has anything to do with DNA?

(Personally, I'd say someone who possessed another person would have different BE than either the original person or the possessor in their original body, but given that BE is more or less mentioned in a couple places and otherwise ignored as a concept, that's no less conjecture than anything else said here.)

[say652]

I would have the spell work as such.
Any request by the owner is automatically followed.

[Killer Cyborg]

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I guess the issue is... biologically, you left your DNA back in your body if you're doing 'Mentally Possess Others' or something, and the bio-energy of the person you're inhabiting is still in their body, they just have a dormant mind, so it makes me wonder if you commandeer their bio-energy while in them.

What makes you think B.E. has anything to do with DNA?

(Personally, I'd say someone who possessed another person would have different BE than either the original person or the possessor in their original body, but given that BE is more or less mentioned in a couple places and otherwise ignored as a concept, that's no less conjecture than anything else said here.)

You consider possession to be a biological process?

[Library Ogre]

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I guess the issue is... biologically, you left your DNA back in your body if you're doing 'Mentally Possess Others' or something, and the bio-energy of the person you're inhabiting is still in their body, they just have a dormant mind, so it makes me wonder if you commandeer their bio-energy while in them.

What makes you think B.E. has anything to do with DNA?

(Personally, I'd say someone who possessed another person would have different BE than either the original person or the possessor in their original body, but given that BE is more or less mentioned in a couple places and otherwise ignored as a concept, that's no less conjecture than anything else said here.)

You consider possession to be a biological process?

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your possessions with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-possessing-Betty, and Betty-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

[Killer Cyborg]

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I guess the issue is... biologically, you left your DNA back in your body if you're doing 'Mentally Possess Others' or something, and the bio-energy of the person you're inhabiting is still in their body, they just have a dormant mind, so it makes me wonder if you commandeer their bio-energy while in them.

What makes you think B.E. has anything to do with DNA?

(Personally, I'd say someone who possessed another person would have different BE than either the original person or the possessor in their original body, but given that BE is more or less mentioned in a couple places and otherwise ignored as a concept, that's no less conjecture than anything else said here.)

You consider possession to be a biological process?

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your possessions with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-possessing-Betty, and Betty-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

You've kind of lost me here, because I'm not sure when you're using "possession" in the sense of "ownership," and when you're using it in the sense of "Mentally Possessed By Another," or if you're conflating the two.
Are you saying that Mentally Possess Other gives you ownership over the person's body?

Regardless, why would being possessed alter your biological energy, if it's not a biological process?

Also, the text doesn't state that the status of "owner" has anything to do directly with BE, only that the owner's BE is used as a kind of passkey for using the object.
Here's the key sentence:
"What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's B.E. frequency"

It could just as easily say:
"What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's retinal patterns"
"What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's True Name"
"What this spell does is attune a particular object to the aura"
"What this spell does is attune a particular object to the owner's fingerprints"
Or any number of other things.

In none of those cases is the bolded portion the distinguishing mark of ownership. It doesn't say, "...attunes a particular object to the BE frequency of the person who uses it most," or "...to the BE frequency that has permeated the object most strongly," or anything like that.

[flatline]

You are still you, they are still they. You use your stuff they use their stuff.

I guess the issue is... biologically, you left your DNA back in your body if you're doing 'Mentally Possess Others' or something, and the bio-energy of the person you're inhabiting is still in their body, they just have a dormant mind, so it makes me wonder if you commandeer their bio-energy while in them.

What makes you think B.E. has anything to do with DNA?

(Personally, I'd say someone who possessed another person would have different BE than either the original person or the possessor in their original body, but given that BE is more or less mentioned in a couple places and otherwise ignored as a concept, that's no less conjecture than anything else said here.)

You consider possession to be a biological process?

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your possessions with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-possessing-Betty, and Betty-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

That has some cool implications. If you attune your watch to you and someone possesses you, the watch would stop working. Observant friends might notice. Or after possession stopped, you might use that to notice how much time you lost.

--flatline

[Library Ogre]

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your possessions with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-possessing-Betty, and Betty-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

You've kind of lost me here, because I'm not sure when you're using "possession" in the sense of "ownership," and when you're using it in the sense of "Mentally Possessed By Another," or if you're conflating the two.
Are you saying that Mentally Possess Other gives you ownership over the person's body?

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your equipment with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-psychically-possessing-Betty, and Betty-psychically-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they psychically possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

Regardless, why would being possessed alter your biological energy, if it's not a biological process?

Being psychically possessed might alter your BE signature because the mind in charge would be different, enacting changes to this otherwise completely undefined force.

[say652]

Would be cool though.
Ella Enchantedesque.

And easily abused with proper wording.
Pick up that 100 ton block of stone!

[Tor]

What makes you think B.E. has anything to do with DNA?

Just exploring the possibility. DNA or RNA is how genes are coded for living beings on earth.

It isn't clear if the spell is meaning cellular biology / biochem or 'spiritual biology'.

[michael silverbane]

For cloning, I would contrive some percentage chance that the attuned object would function normally (probably starting at 98% and decreasing as time passed).

I would do the same with a duplication type power. A newly formed duplicate would have a 98% chance of being able to operate stuff attuned to the original, but as time passed and the duplicate diverged from the original, the chance to operate attuned stuff would be reduced.

Of course, this is all pretty far into house-rule territory.

[Killer Cyborg]

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your possessions with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-possessing-Betty, and Betty-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

You've kind of lost me here, because I'm not sure when you're using "possession" in the sense of "ownership," and when you're using it in the sense of "Mentally Possessed By Another," or if you're conflating the two.
Are you saying that Mentally Possess Other gives you ownership over the person's body?

No; I'd lean towards it being a psychic process, where you slowly associate your equipment with your sense of self (and, since I use a lot of Shadowrun metaphysics, imprinting your aura somewhat on the aura of the inanimate object), but they went and threw in BE, then let the concept twist in the wind. If you had two people, I'd say you'd have potentially four BE signatures... Aaron, Betty, Aaron-psychically-possessing-Betty, and Betty-psychically-possessing-Aaron, with them each having their own unique BE signature, and an altered on when they psychically possessed the other... elements of their self interacting with the meat they're in and the aura it projects.

Regardless, why would being possessed alter your biological energy, if it's not a biological process?

Being psychically possessed might alter your BE signature because the mind in charge would be different, enacting changes to this otherwise completely undefined force.

It's not completely undefined.
The word "biological" is in there.
Minds aren't biological, that I'm aware of.

[Tor]

Aren't they? I think memes exhibit the same biological characteristics of genes. This must be how Machine People are living.

[Library Ogre]

It's not completely undefined.
The word "biological" is in there.
Minds aren't biological, that I'm aware of.

Are you saying minds exist independently of the biological matter that contains them, without psychic powers? If minds aren't biological, why do biological chemical changes have huge effects on them? Why does physical trauma to the brain radically alter them?

[Killer Cyborg]

It's not completely undefined.
The word "biological" is in there.
Minds aren't biological, that I'm aware of.

Are you saying minds exist independently of the biological matter that contains them, without psychic powers? If minds aren't biological, why do biological chemical changes have huge effects on them? Why does physical trauma to the brain radically alter them?

I'm saying that minds are non-physical in nature, especially in a setting where a mind may move from one brain to another--or to a machine--without becoming altered.
Minds are effects produced by biology, but that doesn't make them biological.
If minds were biological in Rifts, how could they exist independently from the brain, moving about to other bodies, to machines, or existing after the death/destruction of the original body?

[Killer Cyborg]

Aren't they? I think memes exhibit the same biological characteristics of genes. This must be how Machine People are living.

Memes share characteristics with biology.
That doesn't make them biology.

[Library Ogre]

It's not completely undefined.
The word "biological" is in there.
Minds aren't biological, that I'm aware of.

Are you saying minds exist independently of the biological matter that contains them, without psychic powers? If minds aren't biological, why do biological chemical changes have huge effects on them? Why does physical trauma to the brain radically alter them?

I'm saying that minds are non-physical in nature, especially in a setting where a mind may move from one brain to another--or to a machine--without becoming altered.
Minds are effects produced by biology, but that doesn't make them biological.
If minds were biological in Rifts, how could they exist independently from the brain, moving about to other bodies, to machines, or existing after the death/destruction of the original body?

A wizard did it.

Just because magic or psionics can overcome some of those limitation doesn't change the fact that brain damage can change minds in the setting.

Or, to put it another way, what evidence do you have that BE won't be recognizably changed because of possession?

[eliakon]

So step one here....define 'what is a mind'
(I am going to assume that the answer to this is 'see philosophers')

[Athos]

So step one here....define 'what is a mind'
(I am going to assume that the answer to this is 'see philosophers')

cogito ergo sum