Kristopher Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? It kind of is a thin line' date=' 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.[/quote'] Little or nothing? Huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrosshairCollie Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? the act in itself means little or nothing to you' date=' but the effect it has on the recipient can be very satisfying.[/quote'] So, it's kind of like the reverse of married sex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? An alternative approach: Press Me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 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? My take is that the rules work with the "human template", so those robots unable to reproduce need the Disad, taking your assumption this is game-relevant. Other robots can reproduce. Or if you say that all robots have the disad of not being human with non-reproduction part of that, just reduce that Disad 5 points for those robots with the reproductive/sexual abilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vondy Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Sfx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? It's going to come down to the campaign in question and the desires of the robot. As mentioned in the "pregnancy" thread, being physically unable to become pregnant is a disdvantage if the character wants to, and an advantage if she doesn't want to. How much does not being able to have sex limit the robot character? If it's a robot monk, nun, or priest, being physically unable to break a vow of celibacy would actually be an advantage for the character. If the robot doesn't have a sex drive, the fact that it can't have sex won't matter to it, because it will never want to. The robot won't be able to make sex-based seduction rolls (or will do so at a penalty) but will also be immune to such influence directed at it. I'd say that this boils down to an issue of special effects. It might come out as a social disadvantage, though, or a Phys. Lim.: Has Trouble Understanding Human Sexual Behavior Zeropoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? (2) robots' motivations for sexual activity are considerably different than humans' -- they derive no pleasure from it themselves' date=' but do it to serve and/or become emotionally close to their owners.[/quote'] And in this case, if they act on perception of sexual impulses in a partner (owner) and are programmed to respond as though they did recieve pleasure, it is likely to generate emotional or pseudo-emotional responses in both partners which are indistinguishable from human ones. At which point, you have to ask how different are they? Academic psychologists would have a field day with this one in class. There'd also be aniche for people who repair old 'bots to which people have become emotionally attached. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? (Ghost In The Shell' date=' Motoko Kusanagi was a full conversion who couldn't have sex).[/quote'] Oh yes, she could - the fact that she could (and did) was brought up several times in the manga (the neighbour complaining that she and her partner of the moment were "making too much noise last night"). In GiTS - Innocence, why do you think Batou spent so long doing moody Harrison Ford impersonations? It's ain't because he missed the Major bouncing objects off his skull, lemme tell ya. Come to think of it multiple plotlines in GiTS arise from the facts that even full conversion cyborgs are anatomically correct - and in Man-Machine Interface you get to see that Kusanagi has - ahem - naughty bits. Still, more on topic, my take on it is that the default is to be anatomically correct. An android who lacked that function should take a Phys. Lim, just as any other character would. Androids presumably don't pay for a perk to be able to run, or see in the visible spectrum or do any of the other default activities, but do pay for "non-default" activities - superrunning, IR vision, super-sexual abilities (I leave the exact statting out of those to the GM ) etc. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Interestingly the term 'anatomically correct' is making assumptions about what is correct BTW as to reproduction presumably an android COULD reporduce sexually by simply building an offspring and programming it with a combination of memories from itself and another. OK, not DNA sexual reproduction, but nonetheless creating a new individual by mingling the essence of what makes the parents unique. Same difference. I imagine the only androids with an actual urge to have sex would be ones created from the memories of someone who formerly had the ability, or, possibly, also androids with extremely cruel creators. Mind you they might as well have a craving for the taste of chocolate and no taste buds.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted March 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? And in this case, if they act on perception of sexual impulses in a partner (owner) and are programmed to respond as though they did recieve pleasure, it is likely to generate emotional or pseudo-emotional responses in both partners which are indistinguishable from human ones. At which point, you have to ask how different are they? Academic psychologists would have a field day with this one in class. There'd also be aniche for people who repair old 'bots to which people have become emotionally attached. Oh, you bet there would (originally wrote this referring to the psychologists, but it also works for the repairmen -- though that one's true even without the sex involved). But just think of it this way.... whatever their emotional makeup, androids (in the setting in question) don't feel physical pleasure. (Pain either, but that's a whole different question.) They're built to serve, and a programmed with a "service" personality. But the real, practical, in-setting difference between QACs and NACs is this: to build an "anatomically correct" android takes more labor, requires more parts, and generally costs more money. This, and the added "services" it can provide, make it worth more money. That is why it's an issue at all here -- if it's worth more money, it should (IMO) be worth more points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted March 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Interestingly the term 'anatomically correct' is making assumptions about what is correct The term derives from a controversy in (IIRC) the eighties, about "little boy" dolls whose "special feature" were described that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Oh yes, she could - the fact that she could (and did) was brought up several times in the manga (the neighbour complaining that she and her partner of the moment were "making too much noise last night"). In GiTS - Innocence, why do you think Batou spent so long doing moody Harrison Ford impersonations? It's ain't because he missed the Major bouncing objects off his skull, lemme tell ya. Oh, Batou has a thing for Motoko, all right, but she doesn't swing that way. In Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, she has a girlfriend. In the Japanese version of the Ghost in the Shell manga, you get to see exactly what she does with her girlfriend(s). Indications are that she is quite capable of participating in and enjoying sex. Zeropoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Side Note: Everyone contributing to this thread who hasn't read Asimov's, Robots series should seriously do so (particularly Robots of Dawn). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Oh, Batou has a thing for Motoko, all right, but she doesn't swing that way. In Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, she has a girlfriend. In the Japanese version of the Ghost in the Shell manga, you get to see exactly what she does with her girlfriend(s). Indications are that she is quite capable of participating in and enjoying sex. Zeropoint She plays for both teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Oh, Batou has a thing for Motoko, all right, but she doesn't swing that way. In Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, she has a girlfriend. In the Japanese version of the Ghost in the Shell manga, you get to see exactly what she does with her girlfriend(s). Indications are that she is quite capable of participating in and enjoying sex. Zeropoint Yeah, but she was also shacked up with a guy from section 6 (IIRC) and there are other references to boyfriends. I think the real reason Motoko doesn't go for Batou is ... well, would YOU go out with Batou? cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? . . . If i swung that way? Hmm . . . The animé Batou, maybe. The manga one - NO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? But the real' date=' practical, in-setting difference between QACs and NACs is this: to build an "anatomically correct" android takes more labor, requires more parts, and generally costs more money. This, and the added "services" it can provide, make it worth more money. [i']That[/i] is why it's an issue at all here -- if it's worth more money, it should (IMO) be worth more points. Disagree 110%. Sure, genitalia probably wouldn't be industry standard. But money and points have little or nothing to do with each other. A 1d6 HKA is a 1d6 HKA, regardless of whether the special effect is a saturday night special or a ladies' evening pistol carefully chromed with gold and sapphire insets. It costs 15 points active, 7 real, regardless of the fact that one costs 200 bucks and the other 2500. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? . . . If i swung that way? Hmm . . . The animé Batou, maybe. The manga one - NO! Bit of a difference between them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Bit of a difference between them? Maybe one is anatomically correct, but the other is anatomically top marks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Bit of a difference between them? Personality-wise I thought there was a huge difference. The animé Batou was a serious guy, worried about his boss, liking her in an almost (but not quite) Platonic way. The manga version was an immature almost-jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? The GitS:SAC version of Batou seems like he has a romantic interest in the Major, but realizes that it's never going to be reciprocated, and he accepts that, but continues to "love her from afar" as it were. At least, that's my impression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanguard00 Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? Skipped much of the intervening stuff, but since this is still going on I thought I'd offer my two pennies: At best I'd allows the NAC 'droid a Distinctive Feature disad that somehow conveyed his lack of human appearance. If that's only in regards to his nether regions, then it likely isn't going to net him any points. It won't matter if his 'down under' is as smooth as a GI Joe doll. If, however, the android was programmed to have carnal desires, or at least some sort of directive to have sex, but given no 'equipment' to handle such desires, then it'll be worth points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Re: Is this android "anatomically correct"? For sure. "Wants to have sex but is physically incapable of doing so" is definitely worth some points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.