Is this android "anatomically correct"?

[Kristopher]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

The question of how to create automatons with minds came up when we were trying to write Droids for a Star Wars conversion to HERO. I think we just ended up using Automatons with INT, and EGO for the higher-end models with some free wil.

[Lucius]

Is this android "FREdily Correct"?

 

I think the Rules As Written create a certain confusion about Automatons.

 

An Automaton is not defined as something that Takes No STUN. That and the other Automaton powers are neither necessary nor sufficient to define something as an Automaton.

 

Consider my fembot example above. It has none of the special automaton powers, but it is an automaton. It has no EGO, and therefore no free will; immune to mental powers and things like presence attacks (although if it makes the Acting skill roll, it will make you THINK it's reacting to a presence attack.) INT 20 enables it to follow up to 4 programmed instructions, which can be quite complex; it bleeds, it takes STUN damage, but in a very real sense it's an inanimate object like a vehicle.

 

It has 5 pts of INT devoted to a self preservation program, so it always remembers to, for example, feed and water itself, but if you somehow "erased" that and left it sitting around, it would eventually die of neglect.

 

Contrariwise, it is possible to give the Automaton Special Powers to a character that is NOT an Automaton. It is ILLEGAL to do so, in that the rules specifically forbid it (Something that shocked me - in that many things have warning labels in Hero, stating "this can be hazardous to your game balance" but few things are flatly forbidden) but if you leave EGO intact and give a character the Takes No STUN power, you do NOT have an Automaton - you have an "illegal" character, but what you have has free will, would probably pass a Turing test, is subject to mental powers (because it's not mindless) and can be played as a player character, assuming the Game Operations Director is prepared to deal with the implications of a character totally immune to one of the two major effects of taking physical damage.

 

A less unbalancing option would be to let a character with a high degree of control of his own body (Super Yoga perhaps) take Does Not Bleed with Requires Skill Roll (Contortionist or Simulate Death roll perhaps) or maybe Costs END. There was something like this is Justice INC or Danger International, I think.

 

 

Remember, "robot" does not equal "automaton." I think C3P0 and R2D2 have EGOs, and are not automatons.

 

Whether or not this means it has a "soul" is best left up to the G.O.D. although I personally approve the answer Humphrey gave in Piers Anthony's novel A Spell for Chameleon.

 

Also, I'm not sure robots should always take Takes No Stun. It seems to me robots and other sorts of automatons can be temporarily "short circuited" (stunned) or become temporarily inoperative without being destroyed (unconscious.) I think even I fell prey to this sort of confusion recently, in the thread Stunning News for Robots. Taking away the Takes No Stun power (if it could be done) wouldn't make an automaton free-willed - it just means it's now vulnerable to STUN damage.

 

Similarly, the wizard called Vivimancer has Takes No STUN, Usable on Others as part of an Invulnerability spell he casts on his loyal followers, but that does not make them automatons. If you make an Oratory or Persuasion roll at -10 you might make them disobey, or at least stop and think about it. If he bought it Usable as Attack and used it on you, it wouldn't destroy your Ego or turn you into a mindless minion. It would only make it harder for him to stop you, which is why he DOESN'T use it except on people he trusts.

 

Even if he deploys the foul Curse of Lucinda and drains your EGO to zero, you're not a mindless automaton - you still HAVE an EGO, it's just at 0 or negative. You know what you want, and can still struggle to do what you want. At -30 EGO you become very automaton-like, but are still subject to mental powers (are you ever!) Not to mention that you eventually get your EGO points back.

 

No, if he wants to actually turn people into automatons he needs a Major Transform like the one that turns a woman into a fembot. I'm not going to teach him how, either, and if he pesters me again when his minions dig him out of what's left of his tower, I'll just put a long-term Suppress on his Life Support next time I bury him in rubble.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reveals that the Magician Humphrey answered a manticore who asked "Do I have a soul?" by saying "Only those who have souls, are concerned about them."

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

For a lot of folks' date=' this would be just SFX... but assuming it isn't for the purposes of a particular game, how would you all represent the difference between a robot capable of "carnal relations" with a human and one that isn't? Would the Not Anatomically Correct (NAC) 'bot have a Physical Limitation, or the Quite Anatomically Correct (QAC) 'bot have a Power or Talent of some sort? (I'll probably be writing the character[s'] up as Automata, in case that makes a difference.) Or could the difference be as simple as letting the QAC 'bot use the COM Characteristic, but not the NAC 'bot?

 

Would make it a Disadvantage, possibly a Distinctive Features, Social Limitation, or Physical Limitation, depending. Probably not worth many points. (Easily Concealed, Noticed and Causes Reaction; Infrequent and Slight, etc.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

To my mind the ability to have sex, or not, is only important, and pointworthy (as a disadvantage rather than somehting you would spend character points building) if it is coupled with an appropriate unrealiseable desire (or a desire that is at least partially thwarted by your equipment/lack of it).

 

One character might have genitalia but no desire to have sex: it is not really worth a lot, anothe might have no desire to have sex INTELLECTUALLY but genitalia so realistic they simulate hormanal arousal - a problem - another might have the desire but no equipment - a problem of a different sort.

 

Personally I think it can not be seperated from sfx, in practice...

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

This is one of the best threads I've seen on the boards in months.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

How about it actully has hit locations?

 

I mean, if you are gonna give a robot nuts, someone is bound to kick them from time to time...

 

....well, if you are going to give him bolts, you'd best give him nuts or he'll fall apart.

 

 

Sorry Bloodstone. Sorry Ben. Sorry everyone for lowering the tone...

 

Who's not thinking about fembots?

 

Wouldn't the be Gynoids?

 

In fact, the name Android does impute a degree of maleness. Mind you so does Action man and...well, you can see where that one is going....

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

To my mind the ability to have sex, or not, is only important, and pointworthy (as a disadvantage rather than somehting you would spend character points building) if it is coupled with an appropriate unrealiseable desire (or a desire that is at least partially thwarted by your equipment/lack of it).

 

One character might have genitalia but no desire to have sex: it is not really worth a lot, anothe might have no desire to have sex INTELLECTUALLY but genitalia so realistic they simulate hormanal arousal - a problem - another might have the desire but no equipment - a problem of a different sort.

 

Personally I think it can not be seperated from sfx, in practice...

In that line of thought it could easily require Social Limitations dependong on how the ability to have sex is viewed by both Andriods and Humans.

 

If NACs are viewed as little more than toaster due to a lack of anatomical correctness they shoulddefinitely have SocLim's - doubly so if they have Sapience.

 

Likewise a QAC should have a Social Lim from the POV of other Andriods (specifically NACs) of being able to have sex. This rings more true if there are more NACs than QACs. And of course there's the stigma of possibly overlapping the realm of Realm Humans who are unhappy with QACs (prejudice) and their abilities (the "why would he want me when he can turn the toaster over there on and off at will?"), assuming any of that is part of the focus of the game, or a social stigma.

 

There's a realm of possibilities in here regarding Physical, Social and Psychological Limtations that could define NACs and QACs within a Game.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Even for those that do, sex isn't an emotional issue for QACs -- they don't reproduce, so they don't experience the same emotions regarding sex that we do.

 

I disagree. First, it is not a universal "given" that robots are incapable of reproducing. Second, even among humans, sex has been effectively decoupled from reproduction for as long as most of us have been alive. We have various methods of birth control up to and including surgical sterilization which leave both men and women incapable of reproducing, but still capable of sex.

 

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of human sexual activity takes place without reproduction as a goal (in fact, I'd say that reproduction is an undesirable side effect for most sexual encounters!).

 

Properly equipped robots could have sex for all the reasons that humans do.

 

Regarding the issue of robots vs. automatons, I agree with Lucius. As an example of robots taking STUN, consider the Terminator movies. We see robots not only taking STUN, but being Stunned and even knocked out.

 

I also agree with the fundamental distinction between an automaton and a character being the lack of an EGO score. Not taking STUN doesn't make a character an automaton, and taking STUN doesn't make an automaton a character.

 

Furthermore, I ALSO agree that making automaton powers illegal for characters is a bad move. Some of them are appropriate or even necessary for proper representation of some characters. If I have an amorphous shapeshifter who can make himself look human, but is still a continuous volume of undifferentiated goo on the inside, No Hit Locations is the best way to model that.

 

Zeropoint

[Zeropoint]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Wouldn't the be Gynoids?

 

In fact, the name Android does impute a degree of maleness.

 

Technically, yes. In practice, however, the term "android" is effectively a gender-neutral term for any biomimetic robot. Well, if it mimics a human, anyway.

 

Hmm. Would a robot that mimiced a non-humanoid sapient species still be called an android? A robot Thranx or octopoid?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Technically, yes. In practice, however, the term "android" is effectively a gender-neutral term for any biomimetic robot. Well, if it mimics a human, anyway.

 

Hmm. Would a robot that mimiced a non-humanoid sapient species still be called an android? A robot Thranx or octopoid?

 

Octnoid?

[Lethosos]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Not to divert the topic, or anything, but... more of an exploration (again, concerning Techs from my fictional Poseidon Force reality, as if I was running a Heroic game in it,) about the question of sex/reproduction...

 

Pretty much all Techs are built as "mechanical humans"--I can think of a way to effectively "ghost" a human into a Tech body (and vice versa, due to positronic brains and mapping "software".) The only limiting component behind it is the issue of natural Sterility--I'd rule that the scientists are still looking into this option; but it isn't out of the question as the medical tech is pretty good for organics (bio-tanks, anyone?) The remaining question is generating the DNA code for each built Tech--should they carry around their own copy, embedded in an appropriate location; or be held by Tsunami, the main mother-AI that built the initial programming for the first generation of Techs? I think that, if the players wanted to explore that issue, that's fine--the thing to remeber is, will it impact the locality (as in all of PF involved,) or be rendered moot, as the organics involved are actually getting used to them being "metal" and putting them on an even playing field? (For game-purposes, I would say that the second generation is starting to "grow"--no human/Tech unions, but the emotional maturity of first-generation would have been near ready for such couplings at this time.

 

Given that I was gonna out-phase the necessity of Techs once PF hits the stars, it's still a valid question.

[Lucius]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

....well, if you are going to give him bolts, you'd best give him nuts or he'll fall apart.

 

 

Sorry Bloodstone. Sorry Ben. Sorry everyone for lowering the tone...

 

 

 

Wouldn't the be Gynoids?

 

In fact, the name Android does impute a degree of maleness. Mind you so does Action man and...well, you can see where that one is going....

 

With Bloodstone and I around, I hardly think YOU need to worry about lowering the tone.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I mean, I ride around on a palindromedary.....

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

This is one of the best threads I've seen on the boards in months.

Thanks' date=' Ben... It should generate some ideas for the issue once [i']The Ultimate Automaton[/i] is under way.

 

Or, if nothing else, it should get more hits to the board as people use Google and other search engines to find their kinky porn. (All we need to do now is mention something like underage lesbian incest... oh, wait, I just did that, didn't I?)

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Wouldn't the be Gynoids?

 

In fact, the name Android does impute a degree of maleness. Mind you so does Action man and...well, you can see where that one is going....

Technically, you're correct. However, "Android" is also used as an overall generic term, just as "man" also denotes "mankind" (either gender).

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

I disagree. First, it is not a universal "given" that robots are incapable of reproducing. Second, even among humans, sex has been effectively decoupled from reproduction for as long as most of us have been alive. We have various methods of birth control up to and including surgical sterilization which leave both men and women incapable of reproducing, but still capable of sex.

 

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of human sexual activity takes place without reproduction as a goal (in fact, I'd say that reproduction is an undesirable side effect for most sexual encounters!).

 

Properly equipped robots could have sex for all the reasons that humans do.

As I've already mentioned, (1) it is a "given" for the setting in question that robots are incapable of reproducing, in this sense, and (2) robots' motivations for sexual activity are considerably different than humans' -- they derive no pleasure from it themselves, but do it to serve and/or become emotionally close to their owners. (In the setting androids have no legal standing as "persons," though by the end of the play there's a legal case under way to change that.)

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Would a robot that mimiced a non-humanoid sapient species still be called an android? A robot Thranx or octopoid?

The current terminology, as I've seen it, is "Robot-"whatever (such as robot-Thranx or robot-octopoid).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

The current terminology' date=' as I've seen it, is "Robot-"whatever (such as robot-Thranx or robot-octopoid).[/quote']

 

I usually hear such things as a truncated version of the original word with either 'robo' as a prefix or 'bot' as a suffix, e.g. robopus or octobot.

 

Assuming one doesn't go for the simple 'robodog' or 'dogbot'.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Thanks' date=' Ben... It should generate some ideas for the issue once [i']The Ultimate Automaton[/i] is under way.

 

Or, if nothing else, it should get more hits to the board as people use Google and other search engines to find their kinky porn. (All we need to do now is mention something like underage lesbian incest... oh, wait, I just did that, didn't I?)

 

Bad Bob.

 

No Biscuit.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

As I've already mentioned' date=' (1) it is a "given" for the setting in question that robots are incapable of reproducing, in this sense, and (2) robots' motivations for sexual activity are considerably different than humans' -- they derive no pleasure from it themselves, but do it to serve and/or become emotionally close to their owners. (In the setting androids have no legal standing as "persons," though by the end of the play there's a legal case under way to change that.)[/quote']

 

Do the robots derive emotional pleasure/satisfaction?

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Do the robots derive emotional pleasure/satisfaction?

Not from the act itself -- only from the effect it has on the human partner(s).

[Kristopher]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Not from the act itself -- only from the effect it has on the human partner(s).

 

IMO, that's a really thin line to draw...if they derive something from the closeness the act can generate, why not from the closeness of the act?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

As I've already mentioned, (1) it is a "given" for the setting in question that robots are incapable of reproducing, in this sense, and (2) robots' motivations for sexual activity are considerably different than humans' -- they derive no pleasure from it themselves, but do it to serve and/or become emotionally close to their owners.

(emphasis added)

 

Ah, my bad. I had been considering the subject from a non-setting-specific viewpoint. Obviously, a specific setting will dictate a robot's capacity for reproduction and/or enjoying sex--although those capacities may not be what the humans of the setting believe them to be!

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

IMO' date=' that's a really thin line to draw...if they derive something from the closeness the act can generate, why not from the closeness of the act?[/quote']It kind of is a thin line, but it's a distinct line nonetheless. Think of it as somewhat like giving someone a backrub -- the act in itself means little or nothing to you, but the effect it has on the recipient can be very satisfying.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Obviously' date=' a specific setting will dictate a robot's capacity for reproduction and/or enjoying sex--although those capacities may not be what the humans of the setting believe them to be![/quote']That is quite true. Within the play, there's an implication that the emotional motivation for sexual activity is an unexpected (but not altogether unwelcome... at least, not usually) side effect of artificial sapience.

[Publius]

Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"?

 

Think of it as somewhat like giving someone a backrub -- the act in itself means little or nothing to you' date=' but the effect it has on the recipient can be very satisfying.[/quote'][Vinnie-Vega]Would you give a guy a backrub?[/Vinnie-Vega]