Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on February 18, 2025, 08:35:41 AMI don't think I'd want PCs playing robots which are just programmed automatons as it'd get boring.

Probably similar to having low-order Modrons as PCs.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:02:15 PMBut something I've noticed is robot player characters tend to be much less divisive in this respect, at least typical objections brought forth against nonhuman PCs are not brought up as much against robots, is there a reason for this?

Is it a matter of setting or expectation? or is there something inherently different about robots as a nonhuman archetype that makes them more tolerable?

I'd say it's certainly a matter of setting.

If I understand the probe of your question correctly, you seem to be referring to the messy complications of things like ownership (slavery), dehumanization, and/or other inter-character behaviors that deviate from regular human norms.

That all depends on how a setting defines it's robotic characters. As someone else pointed out, clones (replicants, bioroids, etc) can easily fill the role of robots despite being fully organic. This MAY create some moral ambiguity in the game, but unless the game is designed to handle such dilemmas, the tone and expectation should really set clearly early on. After all, humans are quite capable of delineating between which forms of life hold more emotional value; a farmer may slaughter a dozen chickens without a second thought, but then cry when he finds out his dog just passed. If sentient robots are meant to be nothing more than servants, treat them like chickens rather than dogs.

Perhaps on a related topic, some games blur the lines even more. Traditional cyberpunk games often deal with the loss of humanity and emotion as man becomes more machine. Complete loss of humanity ("cyberpsychosis") typically results in character death, either literally or by the character becoming completely irrational and losing touch with reality.

Games like Nova Praxis deal with transhumanism, where player-characters can completely shed their physical bodies for entirely new ones. The concept of what it means to be "human" is relegated largely to the mental state, as bodies are treated like tools. It's an almost cynical take on what life in a post-scarcity society might be like.

But getting back to your question...
I don't think there's anything "inherent" about robot characters that make them different from other nonhuman characters. When you really get down to it, all races/archetypes are just exaggerations of regular human behavior. Whether you have gruff & greedy dwarves or exceedingly patient & wise elves, there's nothing that inherently separates them from humans that behave the same way. Similarly, an emotionally-detached robot with amazing computational abilities may be played much like a human with severe autism. The only real difference is how the setting views the human versus the robot.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 10:16:50 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 17, 2025, 08:54:37 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 07:55:30 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 17, 2025, 07:33:20 PMA robot is probably the most restrictive PC option in terms of character and decision making.  Robots are running a program, a script.

Many science fiction sources have AI that is at least as capable of open decision making as humans if not superior to them.

Sure, but there's still a much higher expectation to play to type in an RPG.  Also, even the most avant-garde scifi still holds to a more linear form of thinking for AI and robots.

We'll have to disagree. Sci-fi frequently shows high-end AI that equal or even vastly exceeds humans in all manner of thinking, including creativity.

I think I'm not communicating clearly then.  I'm well aware of more complex robot and AI personalities from fiction; with some of the more well known being Star Wars droids, Neuromancer, Bender, Johnny 5, V.I.N.C.E.N.T. and B.O.B., Data, and HAL.  All of these explore the limits of what artificial thinking could be, even if some are more serious than others.  They show complex motivations, creativity, emotions, and self reflection in some cases.  That doesn't negate the fact that hey had a structured thought process that could be followed.  In some cases there were thought flows that were not perfectly cold and logical but there was always a clear understanding that their behavior and decisions stemmed from their programming.  We even have example of these reprogramming themselves but they play to their programming in either case.

Quote from: Venka on February 18, 2025, 12:49:23 AMStar Wars in general is inconsistent about a lot of things, and droids are absolutely one of the worst offenders.  If we look at just Star Wars, the movie, we have a pretty clear vision: droids have no mind but are programmed to act like they do and to obey their master's orders.  We know they have no mind because a lot of goody-two-shoes characters treat them like property and have no qualms about wiping memory, sending them into mortal peril, and generally do not take them seriously at all.

Naturally by the time the main trilogy is over, we see a bunch of other weirdness.  We see what appears to be a nameless bounty hunting robot (it's not certain that he's a robot, but he's very skinny and appears to be one versus an exo-suit- while he was given the name "IG-88B" offscreen, it does appear that he was always intended to be a robot), and we see a scene where a droid in bondage is tortured by some kind of foot-torture device, followed immediately by another droid in bondage.  What is going on here?

It has been weird from the start. In A New Hope, the droid characters are the viewpoint characters at the start of the movie, and they are clearly intended to be sympathetic characters with emotions and relationships. They show devotion (R2-D2 for Kenobi) and creative problem-solving (conning the stormtroopers who burst in on them in the Death Star).

Lucas always intended to use pulp historical/fantasy conventions as the core for Star Wars, rather than logic and science. R2 and Threepio are based on the two Japanese peasant characters in Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress". Lucas transposed nobles vs peasants onto humans vs droids, so droids are the servant class of an old-style kingdom. Luke has no problem treating droids as property, but by the end of the film, he does feel an emotional attachment to R2, and lights up with joy when R2 is saved. This is more like joy for a beloved pet, but it still shows emotional attachment.

Quote from: BadApple on February 18, 2025, 12:48:41 PMI think I'm not communicating clearly then.  I'm well aware of more complex robot and AI personalities from fiction; with some of the more well known being Star Wars droids, Neuromancer, Bender, Johnny 5, V.I.N.C.E.N.T. and B.O.B., Data, and HAL.  All of these explore the limits of what artificial thinking could be, even if some are more serious than others.  They show complex motivations, creativity, emotions, and self reflection in some cases.  That doesn't negate the fact that hey had a structured thought process that could be followed.  In some cases there were thought flows that were not perfectly cold and logical but there was always a clear understanding that their behavior and decisions stemmed from their programming.  We even have example of these reprogramming themselves but they play to their programming in either case.

In principle, sure, their behavior stems from their programming, just as human behavior stems from their neurobiology.

But in fiction, the behavior of a robot character like R2-D2 or Lieutenant Data is no more predictable than a biological character like Obi-Wan Kenobi or Spock. They all have patterns of behavior they'll tend to follow, but they can also behave unexpectedly, like hiding when the stormtroopers come in and then pretending to have been locked up by the perpetrators ("They're madmen. They're heading for the prison level."). Or Data trying to kill Kivas Fajo and then lying about it ("The Most Toys").

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 02:02:00 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 18, 2025, 12:48:41 PMI think I'm not communicating clearly then.  I'm well aware of more complex robot and AI personalities from fiction; with some of the more well known being Star Wars droids, Neuromancer, Bender, Johnny 5, V.I.N.C.E.N.T. and B.O.B., Data, and HAL.  All of these explore the limits of what artificial thinking could be, even if some are more serious than others.  They show complex motivations, creativity, emotions, and self reflection in some cases.  That doesn't negate the fact that hey had a structured thought process that could be followed.  In some cases there were thought flows that were not perfectly cold and logical but there was always a clear understanding that their behavior and decisions stemmed from their programming.  We even have example of these reprogramming themselves but they play to their programming in either case.

In principle, sure, their behavior stems from their programming, just as human behavior stems from their neurobiology.

Not just as. Human neurobiology is a result of evolution, with all the baggage that goes with it. Robots that are programmed, are programmed with intent. "Intelligent design", one might say.

QuoteBut in fiction, the behavior of a robot character like R2-D2 or Lieutenant Data is no more predictable than a biological character like Obi-Wan Kenobi or Spock. They all have patterns of behavior they'll tend to follow, but they can also behave unexpectedly, like hiding when the stormtroopers come in and then pretending to have been locked up by the perpetrators ("They're madmen. They're heading for the prison level."). Or Data trying to kill Kivas Fajo and then lying about it ("The Most Toys").

Data is a clear exception. Noonian Soong's goal with Data was to create a true artificial lifeform, one that could exceed it's programming and choose between conflicting moral decisions. Again, Star Trek addresses the issue head-on, while Star Wars just wants a cute scene where robots are hiding from Stormtroopers.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 05:57:46 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 02:02:00 PMIn principle, sure, their behavior stems from their programming, just as human behavior stems from their neurobiology.

Not just as. Human neurobiology is a result of evolution, with all the baggage that goes with it. Robots that are programmed, are programmed with intent. "Intelligent design", one might say.

Artificial systems can evolve if their programming can change as a result of input, like in neural nets. Expose a neural net to a bunch of experiences, and its output can change radically and not necessarily reflect the intent of the creator. We are seeing this in Large Language Models (LLMs) all the time now.

https://futurism.com/new-ai-claude-3-outbursts

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 05:57:46 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 02:02:00 PMBut in fiction, the behavior of a robot character like R2-D2 or Lieutenant Data is no more predictable than a biological character like Obi-Wan Kenobi or Spock. They all have patterns of behavior they'll tend to follow, but they can also behave unexpectedly, like hiding when the stormtroopers come in and then pretending to have been locked up by the perpetrators ("They're madmen. They're heading for the prison level."). Or Data trying to kill Kivas Fajo and then lying about it ("The Most Toys").

Data is a clear exception. Noonian Soong's goal with Data was to create a true artificial lifeform, one that could exceed it's programming and choose between conflicting moral decisions. Again, Star Trek addresses the issue head-on, while Star Wars just wants a cute scene where robots are hiding from Stormtroopers.

I don't agree that Data is the exception. It is a frequently-repeated theme for robots that they evolve beyond being puppets for their creators. In 2010, Dr. Chandrasegarampillai talks to SAL and it is clear that he believes and wants them to be intelligent beings rather than instruments of his will.

QuoteSAL-9000: Will I dream?
Dr. Chandra: Of course you will. All intelligent beings dream. Nobody knows why. Perhaps you will dream of HAL... just as I often do.

It varies how dark the results are of going beyond programming. On the dark side, there are the machines strike back against their creators -- like Terminator, Battlestar Galactica's Cylons, and The Matrix.

On the neutral side, there are stories where the AIs become independent but aren't portrayed as evil, just trying to live their lives separate from humanity -- like Neuromancer and Wintermute, or the Blade Runner replicants. Westworld features a range of robots, some killer but some more sympathetic compared to the abusive humans.

On the good side are creations like Data, D.A.R.Y.L., and the MCU's Vision who become a boon to humanity.

All of them are not just doing what they are programmed to, though.

---

In Star Wars it is largely unintentional, but the same thing is true. Droids don't just follow orders - they can show great devotion, and emotions, and make unexpected choices. For George Lucas, it's not because he's following speculative science, but because he's making droids into the same stereotypes as peasants/servants in older stories. But the result is similar.

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 06:35:14 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 05:57:46 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 02:02:00 PMIn principle, sure, their behavior stems from their programming, just as human behavior stems from their neurobiology.

Not just as. Human neurobiology is a result of evolution, with all the baggage that goes with it. Robots that are programmed, are programmed with intent. "Intelligent design", one might say.

Artificial systems can evolve if their programming can change as a result of input, like in neural nets. Expose a neural net to a bunch of experiences, and its output can change radically and not necessarily reflect the intent of the creator. We are seeing this in Large Language Models (LLMs) all the time now.

I'm not talking about neural nets. Science fiction has had robots that "learn", but only within the bounds of their programming. Modern neural nets (the idea of a "black box" system that programs itself by brute forcing huge amounts of trial and error attempts)  are a whole nother topic, and for the most part have not been a topic of sci-fi, being a pretty new development.

Quote---

In Star Wars it is largely unintentional, but the same thing is true. Droids don't just follow orders - they can show great devotion, and emotions, and make unexpected choices. For George Lucas, it's not because he's following speculative science, but because he's making droids into the same stereotypes as peasants/servants in older stories. But the result is similar.

In Star Wars it's beyond unintentional. It's confusing and contradictory. Like you say, Droids aren't robots, they're human being characters slotted into a sci-fi robot trope without thought as to what that implies.
The result is robots that act like humans or devices, depending on the needs of the scene. And so any discussion about the ability of Droids to think and feel falls apart due to it simply being a storytelling convention and not a serious (or any kind at all) attempt to portray the capacity of Droids to think and feel.

I'm lurking in this topic with a kind of anthropological fascination, as the premise goes completely counter to what I like in a game.  In now way or fashion am I running a game with robots as characters--and that includes golems as robots in fantasy.  Carry on.

Speaking of Star Wars, I wonder how the droids would have dealt with this situation....

THREEPIO:  "Master Luke, your pants just fell off!"
ARTOO:  *Beepity Beep A Loop Zeep Whirrrr Boop!*

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 06:51:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 06:35:14 PMArtificial systems can evolve if their programming can change as a result of input, like in neural nets. Expose a neural net to a bunch of experiences, and its output can change radically and not necessarily reflect the intent of the creator. We are seeing this in Large Language Models (LLMs) all the time now.

I'm not talking about neural nets. Science fiction has had robots that "learn", but only within the bounds of their programming. Modern neural nets (the idea of a "black box" system that programs itself by brute forcing huge amounts of trial and error attempts)  are a whole nother topic, and for the most part have not been a topic of sci-fi, being a pretty new development.

Neural nets have been around a long time - they've just gotten a lot more practical lately. I learned about them in a "Minds and Machines" class at U of Chicago in the 1980s, and theoretical work about them goes back to the 1940s and earlier. A lot of sci-fi writers were influenced by the theoretical possibilities, even if they weren't practical at the time.

I recall Data in TNG was referred to as having a positronic network or matrix in his brain, which referenced neural nets (as well as Isaac Asimov's "positronic" basis for robot brains).

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 06:51:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 06:35:14 PMIn Star Wars it is largely unintentional, but the same thing is true. Droids don't just follow orders - they can show great devotion, and emotions, and make unexpected choices. For George Lucas, it's not because he's following speculative science, but because he's making droids into the same stereotypes as peasants/servants in older stories. But the result is similar.

In Star Wars it's beyond unintentional. It's confusing and contradictory. Like you say, Droids aren't robots, they're human being characters slotted into a sci-fi robot trope without thought as to what that implies.
The result is robots that act like humans or devices, depending on the needs of the scene. And so any discussion about the ability of Droids to think and feel falls apart due to it simply being a storytelling convention and not a serious (or any kind at all) attempt to portray the capacity of Droids to think and feel.

I don't generally disagree, but Star Wars was also hugely popular and influential - so a lot of media and gaming have followed its tropes.

So if I'm playing a nominally sci-fi RPG, chances are that robots in that fictional universe will not all be mindless automatons, but rather can potentially have true intelligence and consciousness.

To me, robots are exactly the same as fantasy races.

TTRPGs are extraordinarily interesting when it comes to POV characters. in other forms of literature, using something like a 3rd person perspective, either limited or omniscient, it's possible for the story to follow something that isn't a person. The story can describe what happens around the object, or ascribe some opinionation to the object.

However, videogames and TTRPGs, cheat. By virtue of the fact that a player is controlling a character, that entity is a character and a person. Because the player is capable of making decisions, so too must the player character.  The player's will becomes the characters will, therefore necessarily, the character has a will.

Therefore, there are settings where I would not allow a player to play a robot. These would be the more grounded or hard sci-fi settings. There, robots are not people, but merely algorithms. Perhaps algorithms sophisticated enough to fool any observer, but mere algorithms none the less. In other settings, and I'm inclined to include Star Wars in this category, robots are people, they contain enough of a will to be classified as such and be played.

There is also value in the ambiguity. Take a Star Trek game for example. If the party has an NPC crewmate which is an android, and somehow the question of it's person-ness arises, it would be interesting for both the characters and players to consider. However, if that android was a PC, there would be no doubt whatsoever, at least for the players.

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 08:28:15 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 06:51:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 06:35:14 PMArtificial systems can evolve if their programming can change as a result of input, like in neural nets. Expose a neural net to a bunch of experiences, and its output can change radically and not necessarily reflect the intent of the creator. We are seeing this in Large Language Models (LLMs) all the time now.

I'm not talking about neural nets. Science fiction has had robots that "learn", but only within the bounds of their programming. Modern neural nets (the idea of a "black box" system that programs itself by brute forcing huge amounts of trial and error attempts)  are a whole nother topic, and for the most part have not been a topic of sci-fi, being a pretty new development.

Neural nets have been around a long time - they've just gotten a lot more practical lately.

I'm talking about modern deep neural network learning.

QuoteI learned about them in a "Minds and Machines" class at U of Chicago in the 1980s, and theoretical work about them goes back to the 1940s and earlier. A lot of sci-fi writers were influenced by the theoretical possibilities, even if they weren't practical at the time.

I recall Data in TNG was referred to as having a positronic network or matrix in his brain, which referenced neural nets (as well as Isaac Asimov's "positronic" basis for robot brains).

The positronic brains in Asimov's Robot books do not resemble our modern neural networks at all. The books are vague on how a positronic brain actually works, the stories being more about logic puzzles surrounding the Three Laws.

Quote

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 06:51:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 06:35:14 PMIn Star Wars it is largely unintentional, but the same thing is true. Droids don't just follow orders - they can show great devotion, and emotions, and make unexpected choices. For George Lucas, it's not because he's following speculative science, but because he's making droids into the same stereotypes as peasants/servants in older stories. But the result is similar.

In Star Wars it's beyond unintentional. It's confusing and contradictory. Like you say, Droids aren't robots, they're human being characters slotted into a sci-fi robot trope without thought as to what that implies.
The result is robots that act like humans or devices, depending on the needs of the scene. And so any discussion about the ability of Droids to think and feel falls apart due to it simply being a storytelling convention and not a serious (or any kind at all) attempt to portray the capacity of Droids to think and feel.

I don't generally disagree, but Star Wars was also hugely popular and influential - so a lot of media and gaming have followed its tropes.

So if I'm playing a nominally sci-fi RPG, chances are that robots in that fictional universe will not all be mindless automatons, but rather can potentially have true intelligence and consciousness.

Sure. And I'm pointing out that someone who uses Droids from Star Wars as some kind of inspiration on how robots could behave in an RPG should be aware that they're wildly incoherent and contradictory in how they're portrayed in the films.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 05:57:46 PMData is a clear exception. Noonian Soong's goal with Data was to create a true artificial lifeform, one that could exceed it's programming and choose between conflicting moral decisions.

That 'exception' shows up so often in sci-fi that it's almost the norm.

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 08:28:15 PMSo if I'm playing a nominally sci-fi RPG, chances are that robots in that fictional universe will not all be mindless automatons, but rather can potentially have true intelligence and consciousness.

Exactly.