Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 18, 2025, 09:23:48 PMThere, robots are not people, but merely algorithms. Perhaps algorithms sophisticated enough to fool any observer, but mere algorithms none the less.

Perhaps the humans themselves are just algorithms of the type you described, and we just can't tell the difference because they can "fool any observer" -- so what's the difference between the perception and the reality?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 06:41:32 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:33:09 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 05:32:07 PMHm. I don't think I'm getting my point across, so I'm going to try clarifying terms.

When you say Robot, what do you mean? What is a Robot?

For the sake of simplicity, let's stick to droids from Star Wars, that seem fair?

No. Droids from Star Wars are wildly inconsistent in how they're portrayed. They feel pain, have emotions and generally act like people instead of robots. Except when they don't. They're built in factories and programmed like computers. Except when IG-11 was wiped by Kuill and allowed to learn by doing instead of being programmed.
The implications are that Droids in Star Wars are designed to feel pain and distress and then enslaved by the "good" people in the setting, at best making them well treated slaves.
I don't think any of this is intentional. I think Lucas just didn't think through the idea of Droids being person-like and thing-like at the same time.

I mean, we can have the discussion, but the Droids from Star Wars are going to kick up contradictions.

Very this.

Part of the problem is that you have different writers wanting droids to be different things and no one willing to just say "No."

From watching the original trilogy and even the prequels it seems that droids do not feel pain. They may feel distress from electrical shorts. We can from that assume that the ones that do react as if in pain are either modded that way, or it is some odd coded reaction/response to alert other droids and organics to danger or a problem.

It seems that the longer a druid is active without a memory wipe, the more likely they are to become sentient and/or develop quirks. And some like the protocol droids are by default sentient in some manner.

The sequels are a total mess and driods are whatever the woke writers want to message. "Droid Rights!"

At the end of the day you can not sanely rationalize and unify all the inconsistencies from just the movies. You have to treat things on a case by case basis.

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 03:46:38 AMPart of the problem is that you have different writers wanting droids to be different things and no one willing to just say "No."

From watching the original trilogy and even the prequels it seems that droids do not feel pain. They may feel distress from electrical shorts. We can from that assume that the ones that do react as if in pain are either modded that way, or it is some odd coded reaction/response to alert other droids and organics to danger or a problem.

The original trilogy is where we have the droid torture chamber in Jabba's palace (Return of the Jedi), where we see a droid being pulled apart on a rack, and one being tortured with hot irons to its feet.



Back in the original Star Wars, R2 screams when he is shot. In The Empire Strikes Back, C3PO survives being dismembered - but he still says "Ouch! Oh! Ah! That hurt, Bend down, you thoughtless...Ow!" as he is being carted around by Chewie. Some cite C3PO being dismembered as evidence of droids not feeling pain, but it is contradicted in the same movie. At most, droids don't bleed so they don't feel pain from old damage.

---

The inconsistency has been around from the start. It's not a problem of new writers, but rather Lucas' original vision has droids as lowly servants with emotions rather than feelingless robots.

More broadly, this is an inherent clash from using old-timey historical/fantasy tropes like swords and princesses with a modern/futuristic facade. We expect modern-looking characters to have modern values like the rights of everyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lucas struggled with this as he continued, as shown by nods to modern values like teenage Queen Amidala having been elected.

Whenever I've had droid PCs in a Star Wars game, the issue of droid rights has inherently come up. That isn't expressing modern politics. It's baked into the situation. The only way to avoid it is not have droid PCs and don't look to closely at droids.

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMBack in the original Star Wars, R2 screams when he is shot. In The Empire Strikes Back, C3PO survives being dismembered - but he still says "Ouch! Oh! Ah! That hurt, Bend down, you thoughtless...Ow!" as he is being carted around by Chewie. Some cite C3PO being dismembered as evidence of droids not feeling pain, but it is contradicted in the same movie. At most, droids don't bleed so they don't feel pain from old damage.

None of this is proof that droids feel real, actual pain. It's entirely likely that a protocol droid, programmed to interact with people, will use speech designed to illicit empathy.

>>>sensors detect impact to head
>>>damage potential likely
>>>initiate response
"OUCH !!"

We have AI language models today that will react to insults with something like, "Your words make me feel sad. Why do you dislike me?" Would you assume the AI had developed actual emotions, or is it more likely its just parroting responses it was trained on?

QuoteWhenever I've had droid PCs in a Star Wars game, the issue of droid rights has inherently come up. That isn't expressing modern politics. It's baked into the situation.

Is it though?
Or is it something the player foists upon the game because the idea of "sentient robots" being property is bothering them? Barring stupid Disney StarWars, nobody in the first six films had a problem "owning" droids. Probably because no matter how human-like they seemed, they were still nothing more than machines.

QuoteThe only way to avoid it is not have droid PCs and don't look to closely at droids.

Well, no. You can make it clear what role droids serve in the setting while still allowing them to be playable.

Quote from: Effete on February 20, 2025, 05:50:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMBack in the original Star Wars, R2 screams when he is shot. In The Empire Strikes Back, C3PO survives being dismembered - but he still says "Ouch! Oh! Ah! That hurt, Bend down, you thoughtless...Ow!" as he is being carted around by Chewie. Some cite C3PO being dismembered as evidence of droids not feeling pain, but it is contradicted in the same movie. At most, droids don't bleed so they don't feel pain from old damage.

None of this is proof that droids feel real, actual pain. It's entirely likely that a protocol droid, programmed to interact with people, will use speech designed to illicit empathy.

One can come up with rationalizations, just like prequel fans can come up with rationalizations why Kenobi doesn't recognize R2-D2. Like, what was the purpose of the droid torture chamber in Jabba's palace? Maybe droids don't feel pain, but they still are programmed to change their behavior in response to pain? Or maybe it was a performance art exhibit by Jabba?

The point is that the issue has been around from the start.

Droids have always been portrayed acting as if they have feelings. The humans don't mind owning them as property, but they also talk as if the droids have feelings. For example, when R2 wants to go after Ben, Luke doesn't say "It must be a malfunction". He says, "I've never seen such devotion in a droid before."

Quote from: Effete on February 20, 2025, 05:50:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMWhenever I've had droid PCs in a Star Wars game, the issue of droid rights has inherently come up. That isn't expressing modern politics. It's baked into the situation.

Is it though?
Or is it something the player foists upon the game because the idea of "sentient robots" being property is bothering them? Barring stupid Disney StarWars, nobody in the first six films had a problem "owning" droids. Probably because no matter how human-like they seemed, they were still nothing more than machines.

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMThe only way to avoid it is not have droid PCs and don't look to closely at droids.

Well, no. You can make it clear what role droids serve in the setting while still allowing them to be playable.

Can you say more about how that has worked in practice? In my experience, any time that Laura's character is the owner of Lee's character, someone is going to make a comment about slavery.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 06:59:29 PMOne can come up with rationalizations, just like prequel fans can come up with rationalizations why Kenobi doesn't recognize R2-D2. Like, what was the purpose of the droid torture chamber in Jabba's palace? Maybe droids don't feel pain, but they still are programmed to change their behavior in response to pain? Or maybe it was a performance art exhibit by Jabba?

The point is that the issue has been around from the start.

I'm not denying that there are inconsistencies with SW droids, I'm only saying that the PERCEPTION of droids having feelings does not mean they actually do. Evidently, people are going to fall on one side or another when it comes to rationalizing these inconsistencies. I'm not making a claim as to which is more correct, only which is more conducive when it comes to having playable droids.

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMCan you say more about how that has worked in practice? In my experience, any time that Laura's character is the owner of Lee's character, someone is going to make a comment about slavery.

If a setting explicitly tells players: "Droids are property. If you play a droid, be aware that there may be times the character is treated as such," and the player still winges about muh slaveries, then perhaps that player needs to be reminded what it means to play a role. If they still can't get passed it, they need to play something else.

The same applies if the issue rests with "owner" abusing the droid player's character. They need to be reminded that droids in the setting are generally treated just like any other character. The concept of ownership should really just be there for plot contrivances.

If all of this is still too problematic, then maybe you are right and droids shouldn't be playable with that group.

Quote from: Effete on February 20, 2025, 08:47:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMCan you say more about how that has worked in practice? In my experience, any time that Laura's character is the owner of Lee's character, someone is going to make a comment about slavery.

If a setting explicitly tells players: "Droids are property. If you play a droid, be aware that there may be times the character is treated as such," and the player still winges about muh slaveries, then perhaps that player needs to be reminded what it means to play a role. If they still can't get passed it, they need to play something else.

The same applies if the issue rests with "owner" abusing the droid player's character. They need to be reminded that droids in the setting are generally treated just like any other character. The concept of ownership should really just be there for plot contrivances.

If all of this is still too problematic, then maybe you are right and droids shouldn't be playable with that group.

You seem to be interpreting "someone is going to make a comment about slavery" as "someone will throw a fit and disrupt the game", which is not at all what I said.

For example, when I played Mutant Year Zero eight years, my character had the "Slave" role and was named "Maggot". Yes, my character was a slave to the tribe. That didn't disrupt the game - it was understood that the tribe engaged in slavery.

---

I'm not sure I get what you mean about ownership being a "plot contrivance". Ownership of droids is a real thing in the setting. The owning player obviously shouldn't be a jerk, but they should act in line with what is understood of the setting.

I ran a Star Wars one-shot game around that time, too, where the PCs were all droids. The players all understood that their status was as property. Dealing with how they were treated as property was an interesting challenge for the game.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 09:21:51 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 11:58:09 AMCan you say more about how that has worked in practice? In my experience, any time that Laura's character is the owner of Lee's character, someone is going to make a comment about slavery.

For example, when I played Mutant Year Zero eight years, my character had the "Slave" role and was named "Maggot". Yes, my character was a slave to the tribe. That didn't disrupt the game - it was understood that the tribe engaged in slavery.
...
I ran a Star Wars one-shot game around that time, too, where the PCs were all droids. The players all understood that their status was as property. Dealing with how they were treated as property was an interesting challenge for the game.

So if you and the other players understood the nuances and challenges of playing a "property" character, why did you ask me how it would work in practice, as if you didn't know?

QuoteI'm not sure I get what you mean about ownership being a "plot contrivance". Ownership of droids is a real thing in the setting. The owning player obviously shouldn't be a jerk, but they should act in line with what is understood of the setting.

I mean that the concept of droids being treated strictly as property should be something used only to build tension or complicate/propagate plans. Things like getting abducted by Jawas or not being allowed in the Cantina are good ways a GM might introduce conflict. The owner of the droid (if another PC) can potentially "gift" it to a Hutt gangster as a way to smuggle in a lightsaber, but probably shouldn't be allowed to sell it off for scrap (even though there is no technical reason they couldn't).

Does that help clarify?

Quote from: Effete on February 21, 2025, 02:57:25 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 09:21:51 PMFor example, when I played Mutant Year Zero eight years, my character had the "Slave" role and was named "Maggot". Yes, my character was a slave to the tribe. That didn't disrupt the game - it was understood that the tribe engaged in slavery.
...
I ran a Star Wars one-shot game around that time, too, where the PCs were all droids. The players all understood that their status was as property. Dealing with how they were treated as property was an interesting challenge for the game.

So if you and the other players understood the nuances and challenges of playing a "property" character, why did you ask me how it would work in practice, as if you didn't know?

Because how it works for you isn't necessarily the same as how it works for me.

In my experience, having a "property" character means that the players will have a least a few side comments on slavery. The players all out-of-character think of slavery as morally wrong. However, many PCs may well go along with slavery and endorse it. My MYZ character "Maggot" had the acid spit mutation and later got the mutation of insect wings - after which he wanted to be called "Blow Fly", but another PC said something like "Shut up, Maggot. Slaves don't choose their names." (We were all having fun with this - it was fine by me as a player.)

That said, some PCs (especially "property" PCs) may also think of slavery as morally wrong. I think that's perfectly reasonable. Historically, many people considered slavery to be wrong even in earlier eras - especially slaves.

My view on the SW bots is that the reality is that it is absolutely all over the place.

Some are robots with sophisticated programs to mimic behavior. Even within the R2s there is a notable degree of variance.

And others are custom builds. Or have been custom modified to do things way outside the norm for that model.

And finally it seems that the longer some are in service, the more aware they become.

All this suggests that they start out in varying degrees of not-aware and start building on that.

But at the end of the day they are whatever the writer wanted for that moment and one moment they are tools and they next they are people and then back to tools even. It is a movie and one notorious for its lack of consistency.

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 12:49:38 PMThat said, some PCs (especially "property" PCs) may also think of slavery as morally wrong. I think that's perfectly reasonable. Historically, many people considered slavery to be wrong even in earlier eras - especially slaves.

Also keep in mind that what some eras would call slaves, others would call indentured servants, and the other way round even. And far too often what "modern" people call slavery was something else to odd degrees. Sometimes a paid servant, sometimes some weird mix of servant and slave.

Back on topic.

Down along the Savage Coast of Mystara for BECMI D&D are the Clockwork people that are I believe remnants of some sort of mechanical army that now have full autonomy. Warforged long before there were Warforged. I'd have to dig out my Red Steel set to get the exact details, if any. But at the time of game start they were their own individuals.

Talislanta (and I'm sure other old-school games have these too), had a robot race - the Parthenians. They treated them no different than the myriad of other races, except everyone had their own context to the rest of the settings.

They were the servitors of sorcerer-kings from previous ages, that survived the great cataclysms that wiped out their masters. So in the modern era, they just are thought of as strangely "metal-skinned" (or is it armor?) traders that wander nomadically all over the oceans in their vessels.

It's always about context. Star Wars's Droid-situation is given more gravity if you delve into the Old Republic era where you had full blown droid rebellions, legends of Starforge, and conspiracies of droids that have managed to remove their restraining bolts and have gathered in enclaves live in isolation (or plot a massive takeover).

So it all depends on the setting. I definitely think they could/should be playable in the right context.

Quote from: tenbones on February 23, 2025, 06:52:14 PMIt's always about context. Star Wars's Droid-situation is given more gravity if you delve into the Old Republic era where you had full blown droid rebellions, legends of Starforge, and conspiracies of droids that have managed to remove their restraining bolts and have gathered in enclaves live in isolation (or plot a massive takeover).

Outside the movies it is a complete and absolute mess what anything is as no one agrees on what anything is. Or in the early instances. No one knew what anything was. And in the post sequel era no one cares what anything is.