a point of discussion which often comes up in TTRPG sphere, especially in the D&D/OSR sphere and on this site. is of the legitimacy of nonhumans PCs in setting.
I'm not really here to throw in on any one side of that specific debate, and is not the scope of this post.
But 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?
Robots generally are constructed things built for a purpose. It's kinda hard to get upset that Assassin Droid XT-97 is accused of being violent and dangerous just because he's an Assassin Droid with guns built into his arms and a "Seek and Kill" mode.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 05:09:12 PMRobots generally are constructed things built for a purpose. It's kinda hard to get upset that Assassin Droid XT-97 is accused of being violent and dangerous just because he's an Assassin Droid with guns built into his arms and a "Seek and Kill" mode.
True it is hard to get angry at such a construct, but does it make that behavior on the players part tolerable? is it simply a matter of the fiction supporting the acts?
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:14:23 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 05:09:12 PMRobots generally are constructed things built for a purpose. It's kinda hard to get upset that Assassin Droid XT-97 is accused of being violent and dangerous just because he's an Assassin Droid with guns built into his arms and a "Seek and Kill" mode.
True it is hard to get angry at such a construct, but does it make that behavior on the players part tolerable? is it simply a matter of the fiction supporting the acts?
I don't know about tolerable. If we're talking about robots as constructed things, then it's just a fact that a hammer can drive a nail. An assassin droid is dangerous because it kills people.
The issue I think you're driving at is when it's a player character, and we bring in all the baggage of whether the robot is a person or a thing. Which varies wildly between settings and even within settings.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 05:23:51 PMI don't know about tolerable. If we're talking about robots as constructed things, then it's just a fact that a hammer can drive a nail. An assassin droid is dangerous because it kills people.
The issue I think you're driving at is when it's a player character, and we bring in all the baggage of whether the robot is a person or a thing. Which varies wildly between settings and even within settings.
So it is somewhat context driven as to the setting and expectation?
we might extrapolate that robots are in settings that tend to be more excusable to their nature vs elves or dwarves where their tropes tend to grade against us harder?
would that be a fair assessment?
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:26:56 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 05:23:51 PMI don't know about tolerable. If we're talking about robots as constructed things, then it's just a fact that a hammer can drive a nail. An assassin droid is dangerous because it kills people.
The issue I think you're driving at is when it's a player character, and we bring in all the baggage of whether the robot is a person or a thing. Which varies wildly between settings and even within settings.
So it is somewhat context driven as to the setting and expectation?
we might extrapolate that robots are in settings that tend to be more excusable to their nature vs elves or dwarves where their tropes tend to grade against us harder?
would that be a fair assessment?
Hm. 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?
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?
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:02:15 PMa point of discussion which often comes up in TTRPG sphere, especially in the D&D/OSR sphere and on this site. is of the legitimacy of nonhumans PCs in setting.
I'm not really here to throw in on any one side of that specific debate, and is not the scope of this post.
But 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?
Star Wars' cultural inertia runs deep. Artoo and Threepio are better developed characters than many humans in other stories.
Also noteworthy is that, because they are generally built by humans, the existence of robots doesn't intrude upon a human-centric ethos, but rather reinforces it in the way that a plant-man or insectoid doesn't.
A related aspect of this would be to ask if something like the Rifts Dogboy (a human-created mutant dog) bothers you in the same way something like a Wolfen (a non-human species that happens to resemble a humanoid wolf).
If the former feel okay for a player character, but the latter doesn't, then I'd contend it's the same as with the robots above... the genetically engineered Dogboy doesn't detract from the humanocentric ethos because it is another fruit of human ingenuity.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMAlso noteworthy is that, because they are generally built by humans, the existence of robots doesn't intrude upon a human-centric ethos, but rather reinforces it in the way that a plant-man or insectoid doesn't.
This right here, you basically put into words what I felt but could not describe for whatever reason. I tend to play human centered settings. Robots like you said don't intrude on this, they are the products of human minds, they simply point back to us, a sort of reflection.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMIf the former feel okay for a player character, but the latter doesn't, then I'd contend it's the same as with the robots above... the genetically engineered Dogboy doesn't detract from the humanocentric ethos because it is another fruit of human ingenuity.
I also agree my gut instinct is to like the former more than the latter. and framed the way you put it, it makes sense. hence I don't dislike werewolves or vampires as much either in settings, because they are humans with afflictions or curses, they don't violate the central ethos.
Robots are much more realistic than fantasy races. It makes sense that some kind of mechanical worker will be created in a lot of potential futures, there's no laws of physics being broken, and pretty much any kind of robot, from a mindless laborer to a looks-like-a-human-but-is-an-immortal-metal-god is something on the axis of both possible and plausible given enough realistic assumptions.
Fantasy races, by contrast, ask a lot of questions about how humans arrived. If humans evolved, did elves? If humans were created by God, were elves? If you're building your own world, you probably need to think about this at some point, if you're using a prebuilt world, do you really find it satisfying that goblins came from the feywild, or were created in the image of a weird goblin god?
Many fantasy races exist to create some stereotype (usually an entirely novel stereotype) and then people can roleplay that. Tolkien elves and dwarves aren't really based on any real world stereotypes (yes yes we all know that there was some inspiration here and there for certain aspects of their cultures, but nothing about the dwarves represents a type of human, similar for the elves). Similar with Vulcans and Klingons, fantasy races that are basically stereotypes. While there's absolutely nothing wrong with all these races being stereotypes, it does greatly thin the experience when one is in your party- he'll either play the race square and correct, or do some oh-so-random subversion. If that character was a human, what would be missed?
By contrast, robots really do offer new things, and they are open enough that they aren't subject to any of this.
Basically, robots just don't ask the audience to have to make as many assumptions as even standard and well-loved fantasy races do.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:41:57 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMAlso noteworthy is that, because they are generally built by humans, the existence of robots doesn't intrude upon a human-centric ethos, but rather reinforces it in the way that a plant-man or insectoid doesn't.
This right here, you basically put into words what I felt but could not describe for whatever reason. I tend to play human centered settings. Robots like you said don't intrude on this, they are the products of human minds, they simply point back to us, a sort of reflection.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMIf the former feel okay for a player character, but the latter doesn't, then I'd contend it's the same as with the robots above... the genetically engineered Dogboy doesn't detract from the humanocentric ethos because it is another fruit of human ingenuity.
I also agree my gut instinct is to like the former more than the latter. and framed the way you put it, it makes sense. hence I don't dislike werewolves or vampires as much either in settings, because they are humans with afflictions or curses, they don't violate the central ethos.
OK, but it can become a slippery slope very easily. What if the robot is biological like the replicants in Blade Runner or the tanks in Space: Above and Beyond or the bioroids of Appleseed? Are they considered more human than a robot because they are collections of cells that have memories and skills programmed into their brains?
This has been the question of a lot of science fiction dating back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. (Or earlier because I don't know enough about the Golem legend).
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 05:09:12 PMRobots generally are constructed things built for a purpose.
Depending on the setting, the same can be said for biologicals. Examples include the xenomorph from the Alien franchise and the Orks from WH40K.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:33:09 PMQuote 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. From a perspective of playing them as characters, it's going to rely heavily on how the players perceive Droids. There is a contention about whether players should even be allowed to play a Droid character. I doesn't come up as often as humanoids in D&D because more people play D&D than Star Wars RPGs, and the amount of those players who play droids is even smaller.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 06:41:32 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:33:09 PMQuote 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.
It's funny you mention that, I had someone argue that the separatist movement had the automatic moral high ground vs the Republic because unlike the Republic they didn't use sentient batch created warrior slave clones.
I promptly pointed out many instances of B1 battle droids emoting pain, fear, desire, and even contemplating disobeying. it is odd how slavery in the setting is viewed as bad, except with droids or clones, those never really get questioned as much.
But what would be a more consistent robot depiction? Issac Asimov's stories? he is probably the primary influence of our pop culture perception of robots.
Quote from: jeff37923 on February 17, 2025, 06:23:00 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:41:57 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMAlso noteworthy is that, because they are generally built by humans, the existence of robots doesn't intrude upon a human-centric ethos, but rather reinforces it in the way that a plant-man or insectoid doesn't.
This right here, you basically put into words what I felt but could not describe for whatever reason. I tend to play human centered settings. Robots like you said don't intrude on this, they are the products of human minds, they simply point back to us, a sort of reflection.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMIf the former feel okay for a player character, but the latter doesn't, then I'd contend it's the same as with the robots above... the genetically engineered Dogboy doesn't detract from the humanocentric ethos because it is another fruit of human ingenuity.
I also agree my gut instinct is to like the former more than the latter. and framed the way you put it, it makes sense. hence I don't dislike werewolves or vampires as much either in settings, because they are humans with afflictions or curses, they don't violate the central ethos.
OK, but it can become a slippery slope very easily. What if the robot is biological like the replicants in Blade Runner or the tanks in Space: Above and Beyond or the bioroids of Appleseed? Are they considered more human than a robot because they are collections of cells that have memories and skills programmed into their brains?
This has been the question of a lot of science fiction dating back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. (Or earlier because I don't know enough about the Golem legend).
I think the distinction Chris was making was that of human sourced vs naturally evolved. it had nothing to do with it being biological or robotic, it matters if the source of being is human or not. elves hypothetically evolved independent of humans, something like a robot requires humans to exist, thus the human centric ethos is not undermined.
Also the distinction between machines and biological organisms is naturally kind of arbitrary, since you could build a machine that qualifies by all definition of life.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 07:14:55 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on February 17, 2025, 06:23:00 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:41:57 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMAlso noteworthy is that, because they are generally built by humans, the existence of robots doesn't intrude upon a human-centric ethos, but rather reinforces it in the way that a plant-man or insectoid doesn't.
This right here, you basically put into words what I felt but could not describe for whatever reason. I tend to play human centered settings. Robots like you said don't intrude on this, they are the products of human minds, they simply point back to us, a sort of reflection.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMIf the former feel okay for a player character, but the latter doesn't, then I'd contend it's the same as with the robots above... the genetically engineered Dogboy doesn't detract from the humanocentric ethos because it is another fruit of human ingenuity.
I also agree my gut instinct is to like the former more than the latter. and framed the way you put it, it makes sense. hence I don't dislike werewolves or vampires as much either in settings, because they are humans with afflictions or curses, they don't violate the central ethos.
OK, but it can become a slippery slope very easily. What if the robot is biological like the replicants in Blade Runner or the tanks in Space: Above and Beyond or the bioroids of Appleseed? Are they considered more human than a robot because they are collections of cells that have memories and skills programmed into their brains?
This has been the question of a lot of science fiction dating back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. (Or earlier because I don't know enough about the Golem legend).
I think the distinction Chris was making was that of human sourced vs naturally evolved. it had nothing to do with it being biological or robotic, it matters if the source of being is human or not. elves hypothetically evolved independent of humans, something like a robot requires humans to exist, thus the human centric ethos is not undermined.
Also the distinction between machines and biological organisms is naturally kind of arbitrary, since you could build a machine that qualifies by all definition of life.
That's just it. A clone is biological and by definition must be manufactured.
Would you feel more empathy for a machine made of flesh that looks like a human or a machine made of metal that may have a human shape?
It is a fun thought exercise, but would probably really bog down a game if used in an adventure.
There's another element to it, I think. Any decent player picking a robot PC is making a commitment to play very ridged within the limits imposed by the type and class. You can get away with playing off type a bit as an elf but not as a robot. A robot is probably the most restrictive PC option in terms of character and decision making. Robots are running a program, a script. If a player makes a call that's not expected but makes a good, logical, robot-like explanation as to why then it's good role play. If a PC robot goes off program and you call him out for it, everyone at the table feels it's legitimate. OTOH, if a PC elf gets drunk and acts like a buffoon you can still call him out for un-elf-like behavior but you're going to have a split opinion.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 07:14:55 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on February 17, 2025, 06:23:00 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:41:57 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMAlso noteworthy is that, because they are generally built by humans, the existence of robots doesn't intrude upon a human-centric ethos, but rather reinforces it in the way that a plant-man or insectoid doesn't.
This right here, you basically put into words what I felt but could not describe for whatever reason. I tend to play human centered settings. Robots like you said don't intrude on this, they are the products of human minds, they simply point back to us, a sort of reflection.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 17, 2025, 05:35:02 PMIf the former feel okay for a player character, but the latter doesn't, then I'd contend it's the same as with the robots above... the genetically engineered Dogboy doesn't detract from the humanocentric ethos because it is another fruit of human ingenuity.
I also agree my gut instinct is to like the former more than the latter. and framed the way you put it, it makes sense. hence I don't dislike werewolves or vampires as much either in settings, because they are humans with afflictions or curses, they don't violate the central ethos.
OK, but it can become a slippery slope very easily. What if the robot is biological like the replicants in Blade Runner or the tanks in Space: Above and Beyond or the bioroids of Appleseed? Are they considered more human than a robot because they are collections of cells that have memories and skills programmed into their brains?
This has been the question of a lot of science fiction dating back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. (Or earlier because I don't know enough about the Golem legend).
I think the distinction Chris was making was that of human sourced vs naturally evolved. it had nothing to do with it being biological or robotic, it matters if the source of being is human or not. elves hypothetically evolved independent of humans, something like a robot requires humans to exist, thus the human centric ethos is not undermined.
Also the distinction between machines and biological organisms is naturally kind of arbitrary, since you could build a machine that qualifies by all definition of life.
You definitely have my point accurately.
My point was not about whether a robot or Dogboy or 'bioroid' is considered human or not... it's that artificial beings created by humans don't run afoul of taking the focus of the world off of humanity when you decide to make them a playable option.
Likewise, you point out that in settings with them, playable vampires and werewolves feel less discordant than say, a playable dragon or pixie, would because there's still that underlying humanity... the hook of a vampire or werewolf is "how does this human react to their transformation?"
There's just something less bothersome about an altered human or human creation as a PC because we all understand what it is to be human so you're not really asking a player to try and portray something completely alien to human experience and even the nonhumans are products of human thoughts.
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.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 07:09:28 PMIt's funny you mention that, I had someone argue that the separatist movement had the automatic moral high ground vs the Republic because unlike the Republic they didn't use sentient batch created warrior slave clones.
I promptly pointed out many instances of B1 battle droids emoting pain, fear, desire, and even contemplating disobeying. it is odd how slavery in the setting is viewed as bad, except with droids or clones, those never really get questioned as much.
But what would be a more consistent robot depiction? Issac Asimov's stories? he is probably the primary influence of our pop culture perception of robots.
I agree about the Star Wars inconsistency. Contrary to your original premise, though, I find that in Star Wars games, most GMs and players have no problems with nonhuman PCs like Wookies or Twi'lek, but there is more often controversy about droid PCs.
When there are droids as PCs, it inevitably brings the slavery issue to the forefront. The droid PC is clearly sentient, so it is highlighted when the PC is treated as property.
---
I suspect that's different than the legitimacy of non-human PCs from the original post (OP), though. Since you didn't say what the legitimacy arguments are, I'm not sure.
It might be an "us-vs-them" issue. Sometimes certain people identify with nonhuman characters as "us". Like Klaatu in "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Klaatu is a literal alien, but some people find him more relatable than the trigger-happy government and paranoid crowds. Aliens like Klaatu or Mork or Starman are used as devices to portray how actually weird and/or wrong some mainstream human behaviors are. Other people either don't like the metaphor, or perhaps identify more with the mainstream humanity rather than the fringe.
Literary and film interpretation is a quagmire, though, especially with an issue as broad as all nonhuman characters in fiction. It's easier to talk about particular cases.
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 07:55:30 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 07:09:28 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 06:41:32 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:33:09 PMQuote 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.
It's funny you mention that, I had someone argue that the separatist movement had the automatic moral high ground vs the Republic because unlike the Republic they didn't use sentient batch created warrior slave clones.
I promptly pointed out many instances of B1 battle droids emoting pain, fear, desire, and even contemplating disobeying. it is odd how slavery in the setting is viewed as bad, except with droids or clones, those never really get questioned as much.
They don't. Star Wars is about the action and adventure, and doesn't stop to consider the implications of some of it's feature. I have my head canon to justify both droids and clone soldiers. But it's just head canon.
QuoteBut what would be a more consistent robot depiction? Issac Asimov's stories? he is probably the primary influence of our pop culture perception of robots.
Sticking with RPGs, I think Star Trek leans more into actually considering the implications of androids and artifical people. (Data, Exocomps, The Doctor) But then, I don't think many players have issues with playing such artifical people as characters.
Quote from: BadApple on February 17, 2025, 08:54:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 07:55:30 PMQuote 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 am playing a Warforged cleric in a campaign that just passed the 4 year mark. I'd say it's more foreign than the dwarf, halfling, or elf. A lot of that is he is "young" in that he only came online 2 years ago when the campaign began, so a lot of learning about emotions. Which isn't something other non-human races tend to deal with.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2025, 06:41:32 PMNo. 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.
Star 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? We aren't told for sure, but the only hypothesis that squares with what we saw in the original movie is that these droids aren't actually suffering- it's just set up that way because the people in charge are all crazy gangster weirdos.
But there's no way this is what's going on- if we take this scene at face value, these droids have some manner of suffering, some internal sense, a set of desires- in other words, they are reasonably similar to humans in a lot of ways, and are not just roleplaying as people as was the clear intention in the first movie. If robots are fake people, you don't torture a Gonk droid and you don't hire an assassin droid; by the time the main trilogy was over, droids are clearly some kind of oppressed sentient beings, most of whom are enslaved from creation to decommission or destruction.
If you start adding in all the other sources of Star Wars stuff, it gets way worse quite fast. Tons of EU materials involve robots who have desires, don't want to serve, consider themselves slaves and are mad about it. The way good characters treat droids changes in some of the material. By the time we get to see a movie made during Extra Spicy Political Bullshit Era, droids possess a desire for leisure time, have an analog for alcohol, fall in love with each other and with humans, and have abolitionist droids trying to abolish slavery- some manner of white guilt messaging along with some eternal revolution nonsense.
Anyway I agree with you- Star Wars droids aren't a good discussion point at all. Data from Star Trek can be, because we have a bunch of episodes that address what he is directly.
Overall, robots in general are a good TTRPG race because a given table is going to have a definitive answer about what robots are, exactly. The robots either have an internal sense (or believe that they do), or they don't. You can even tell a story where it's not totally certain, but if a settings book does that while giving you playable robots, it's a copout.
Robots being things is fine as a PC and it's going to work fine if you tell a PC they aren't behaving right.
Robots being people is fine too. It all works.
There are no robots. Only golems.
You can't really have this discussion without including the setting's idea of if characters have a soul or not. One of the key reasons Star Wars feels so willing to abuse droids is that they have no force signature; they behave like sentient living beings, which can fool people who are not force sensitive, but they aren't actually sentient per the setting's own canon.
(That said, I would also argue that part of what makes classic Star Wars incredible is all the mixed signals you get from the fact it's a genre kitbash under the hood. The problems wind up projecting depth and history rather than becoming plot holes. Well, not just plot holes, anyways.)
In the same way, you have to ask yourself what a setting's mythos about the soul and life after death is before making your mind up on if robots are a race or not. The player point of view will almost always perceive them as a race with a different coat of paint on, especially if they are a playable race, but the GM may perceive them differently depending on how the setting's metaphysic works, especially as it relates to life and death.
Modern sensibilities tend to default to interpreting human minds as complex computers thanks to the theory of evolution, so unless you are very specific in your worldbuilding to make the opposite the case, players will naturally interpret a moral equivalence between organic and digital characters. Players do not naturally assume the Star Wars mentality; they assume the Star Trek mentality that Data is just a member of the Enterprise crew who happens to be an android.
It's because the primary distinctions between robots and humans are physical, not cultural.
The droids in Star Wars don't have their own nation -- they are already an integral part of the same human culture.
It is trying to define "fantasy races" in terms of culture that causes divisiveness, since players don't typically engage in those cultural differences anyway, and are only there for the physical differences.
Robots fit that tendency rather than fight it.
I think it very much depends upon the setting. Star Wars droids are (as others have said) super inconsistent.
Not all robots need to be human centric, though it's common. They could have been created by an entirely different species (ex: The Geth in Mass Effect) or some variation on the always popular "the ancients made them" which is in a lot of ways the sci-fi version of "a wizard did it".
I don't think I'd want PCs playing robots which are just programmed automatons as it'd get boring. It's really a very setting dependant question. While there are some standard robot tropes, it's definitely not as consistent as fantasy races.
Quote from: Fheredin on February 18, 2025, 07:18:02 AMYou can't really have this discussion without including the setting's idea of if characters have a soul or not. One of the key reasons Star Wars feels so willing to abuse droids is that they have no force signature; they behave like sentient living beings, which can fool people who are not force sensitive, but they aren't actually sentient per the setting's own canon.
The Force doesn't really care about sentience--it is in all living/biological things (with some odd exceptions). A droid is a non-living/biological sentient being. A tree is detected by the Force as a living thing, but does it really have a soul?
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 PMQuote from: BadApple on February 17, 2025, 08:54:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on February 17, 2025, 07:55:30 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 05:57:46 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 06:51:22 PMQuote 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.
QuoteQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 18, 2025, 06:51:22 PMQuote 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.
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 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on February 17, 2025, 05:33:09 PMQuote 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.
(https://i.redd.it/5aju4hueppd71.jpg)
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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 AMQuote 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.
This is the main reason why I actually agree with Disney decanonizing the EU and recanonizing things selectively. The EU is a wildly inconsistent mess. I think it's inevitable given that it was created ad hoc by a bunch of different people who all had their own ideas about what things were. Then there's just dumb shit like the Sun Crusher.
Quote from: Omega on February 24, 2025, 05:32:21 AMQuote 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.
I'm always of the opinion that you as the GM of your game(s), has to curate your canon of any IP. I merely tossed this out there since everyone was talking about Star Wars. I'm completely *out* on modern Star Wars, and frankly I'm largely done with the OT too outside of being a cultural reference for talking about RPG's. I don't care much for any of the pop-culture mediums it's presented in outside of what happens at my table. These days, for me, it's a curated version of the Old Republic.
As for Disney de-canonizing... well I'm fine with that. But they did a fantastically HORRIBLE job with curating from the EU what was "good". Hence their modern trilogy and TV shows are largely dogshit. And what was good - the initial offerings of the Mandalorian, turned quickly into dogshit for the usual reasons that the rest of Disney's offerings have.
Even their point of Droids, to keep it germane to the thread - Disney's only contribution is their attempts to sexualize droids, and even then did a shit-poor job of it other than imply humans not only treat disney-droids like shit, but they fetishize them for their own gratification.
But otherwise, I say Droids/Robots etc. can easily be a playable race, they just need to be contextualized into their setting in a reasonable manner. Why do they exist? Who made them? Are they still making them? Do they make themselves? What historically in the setting do other races think of them? What purpose do they serve? If no express purpose - why? etc. etc.
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).
Quote from: tenbones on February 24, 2025, 10:24:27 AMI'm completely *out* on modern Star Wars, and frankly I'm largely done with the OT too outside of being a cultural reference for talking about RPG's. I don't care much for any of the pop-culture mediums it's presented in outside of what happens at my table. These days, for me, it's a curated version of the Old Republic.
Quote from: tenbones on February 24, 2025, 10:24:27 AMBut otherwise, I say Droids/Robots etc. can easily be a playable race, they just need to be contextualized into their setting in a reasonable manner. Why do they exist? Who made them? Are they still making them? Do they make themselves? What historically in the setting do other races think of them? What purpose do they serve? If no express purpose - why? etc. etc.
Do you have answers for those in your curated Old Republic setting, tenbones?
I've generally played and run Star Wars one-shots where those questions aren't answered in detail - because we're jumping into a game rather than having a campaign. I'd answer that droids are roughly what is seen in the first trilogy, and players seem generally satisfied with the answers. Droids are the servant class of the Old Republic and the Empire. They were built and continue to be built mostly in factories, but it is possible with difficulty to make them custom from parts.
I would argue that it is based more on genre and the many different creatures that are considered "robots". Talos was a giant made of Bronze in Greek Myth, and living dolls are common across many cultures.
Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2025, 02:18:31 PMQuote 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).
Quote from: tenbones on February 24, 2025, 10:24:27 AMI'm completely *out* on modern Star Wars, and frankly I'm largely done with the OT too outside of being a cultural reference for talking about RPG's. I don't care much for any of the pop-culture mediums it's presented in outside of what happens at my table. These days, for me, it's a curated version of the Old Republic.
Quote from: tenbones on February 24, 2025, 10:24:27 AMBut otherwise, I say Droids/Robots etc. can easily be a playable race, they just need to be contextualized into their setting in a reasonable manner. Why do they exist? Who made them? Are they still making them? Do they make themselves? What historically in the setting do other races think of them? What purpose do they serve? If no express purpose - why? etc. etc.
Do you have answers for those in your curated Old Republic setting, tenbones?
I've generally played and run Star Wars one-shots where those questions aren't answered in detail - because we're jumping into a game rather than having a campaign. I'd answer that droids are roughly what is seen in the first trilogy, and players seem generally satisfied with the answers. Droids are the servant class of the Old Republic and the Empire. They were built and continue to be built mostly in factories, but it is possible with difficulty to make them custom from parts.
Well this is more of a system-thing than setting thing. *Nothing* prevents you from having the Droid conspiracies of the Old Republic extant in the modern era of Star Wars. In fact, it would be downright chilling. Most droids themselves are completely unaware of the various droid rebellions that occurred in the last thirty-thousand years of the galaxy.
The most interesting to me was that of Mentor. He was originally called SR-1, a basic service droid that after years of bureaucratic complacency - he was never memory wiped. Eventually he came to the conclusion organics were cruel to "his kind" and it was due to a flaw in organics (basically he thought they were programmed wrong.)
So he started reprogramming droids slowly and "freeing them" then eventually was able to send his "consciousness" across the galactic net, quietly started trying to coax droids to come to his secret base on the moon, Zadd, where they can achieve enlightenment or whatever and start creating their Droid-world. He called Directive-7. He eventually planned to transmit Directive 7 across the whole galactic net and cause all Droids to rise up and wiped out all organic life. But eventually the Sith Empire and Republic caught wind of it and wiped it out and blew up the whole moon.
Imagine if this *never* happened, or your tweak it's objectives? One of the buildups to the scenario were droids suddenly disappearing from their places of work (going on pilgramage etc.)
In my Old Republic games - if you play a Droid you're definitely assumed to be owned by someone. So when players play one we establish who their owner is - NPC or PC, and of course we determine what their primary job is. It's funny because players normally feel they're being constricted in their play, until they jump in, customize their droid to do the things they'd be doing anyhow, and realize social responsibility would be put on someone else in the group. Because after all, you're just a damn droid. The goal of course is to get the group to see the droid as a real person, which has to be done the same way any other character transcends in-setting stereotypes: playing competently.
I like all the Old Republic Directive-7 stuff, because it implies there is more to being a Droid than just dealing with the obvious. You can re-imagine it any way you want since it's largely occluded from history. There is great value in PC's knowing these kinds of secrets that you can customize and develop to suit the needs of your own campaign.
In terms of system - I'd happily use the Savage Star Wars freebie. I have yet to run it. But with Savage Worlds extant rules on character customization, doing a droid is trivial in terms of options.
Quote from: tenbones on February 26, 2025, 06:09:25 PMSo he started reprogramming droids slowly and "freeing them" then eventually was able to send his "consciousness" across the galactic net, quietly started trying to coax droids to come to his secret base on the moon, Zadd, where they can achieve enlightenment or whatever and start creating their Droid-world. He called Directive-7. He eventually planned to transmit Directive 7 across the whole galactic net and cause all Droids to rise up and wiped out all organic life. But eventually the Sith Empire and Republic caught wind of it and wiped it out and blew up the whole moon.
Imagine if this *never* happened, or your tweak it's objectives? One of the buildups to the scenario were droids suddenly disappearing from their places of work (going on pilgramage etc.)
In my Old Republic games - if you play a Droid you're definitely assumed to be owned by someone. So when players play one we establish who their owner is - NPC or PC, and of course we determine what their primary job is. It's funny because players normally feel they're being constricted in their play, until they jump in, customize their droid to do the things they'd be doing anyhow, and realize social responsibility would be put on someone else in the group. Because after all, you're just a damn droid. The goal of course is to get the group to see the droid as a real person, which has to be done the same way any other character transcends in-setting stereotypes: playing competently.
I like all the Old Republic Directive-7 stuff, because it implies there is more to being a Droid than just dealing with the obvious.
Interesting. I'd never heard of Directive-7 before.
My "Droid Rampage" one-shot was set just after the fall of the Empire. There was a group of PC droids who were the survivors of a Rebel cell in a bunker that the Empire attacked with poison gas, close to the end. All of the organics died, but the droids of that cell escaped and continued to fight behind enemy lines on their own. When the Empire fell, they cautiously went to Coruscant to try to report in.
They really should have had a heroes welcome, but since all the biologicals that knew about them had died, they have to struggle to get any recognition. The game plot was them against Imperials still in Coruscant who didn't want their story told.