The 3 Laws of Robotics - Android Scenario Discussion

[Scott Nichols]

I plan on running an android at game three and have had thoughts on most of these things. The ability to not harm a human i think should mean physical only. If you want to play an android like Bender from futurama you may be causeing characters emotional harm with the mean things you say ( which i would reserve for people you know OOG). So I think androids would be able to hack with the best of them, which they can if spec's are right.

If you are in a situation where you as an android may be harmed or killed (by Humaniods) I would suggest a more diplomatic solution. You should try to talk your way out of the situation and figure out a compromise that lets everyone walk away unharmed. Acting as a negotiator would be beneficial to both parties because they can't turn and shoot the opposition.

I recently posted asking if the obey action would cancel out the first law, and the answer is yes. I plan on having all three standard AI ranks so I could disobey the obey order if needed and had the required EN. I am worried that if I break the obey to kill that I may get killed myself for disobeying. I may suggest that breaking the OBEY would stun the person that cast it on you so you could have time to get away, or that rank 1 standard AI be a stun attack that does not harm the person/people it affects, just a thought.

The third law is self preservation which may be hard against humanoids. It may just mean that you run away instead of engage, but you could not leave any human team members behind then you would be breaking law 2 by letting humans come to harm by inaction. If androids were giving a non-lethal stun they could better follow laws two and three. It could be like an electrical discharge that stuns humans and aliens for a short time like 30 seconds to a minute. when it comes down to it though Law 1 is the end all be all of robot laws.

Whatever the outcome I plan on adhering to the three laws and if that means that I die let it be. As long as I get to kill plenty of Dromanae before that point I am happy.

[Marc DeArmond]

I'd agree with you that not harming a human refers specifically to harm that your android programming understands. Physical harm is obvious but various kinds of emotional/social/psychological harm are up to the individual character. You could decide to play an android that only says positive things for fear of emotionally harming those around them. Or you could play the snarky, lock the humans inside while you fight Drom kind of Android. These are the things that makes a android a unique and interesting SIC.

Choosing to resist an attack is generally considered an OOG action. It is not your character deciding to break the obey command, it is the player choosing to use a character's power to alter the path of the story. If a character has the ability to resist an attack and the player choses not to use it, it is not the character's failing but a story choice by the player.

Androids laws make interactions with humanoids incredibly complex. This is intentional. An android player is constantly attempting to balance the needs of friends vs enemies and their own survival with the survival of other humans. It often times leads to difficult situations which are at the very heart of playing an android in SPITE. I feel that giving them an easy out for these situations would significantly lessen the android experience.

[dartoftruth]

Apologies for reviving an old thread if that's not kosher, but this seemed closest to a question i had. 

An android may not injure a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

I know there's been a bit of back and forth on letter of the law and spirit of the law, and I have a hypothetical in mind. 


I'm an android. I'm in a squad with my commander. We run into enemy bandits. My commander orders everyone to attack and they open fire. 


Now, i could stand there and allow a human to come to harm, but that's inaction. 

So wouldn't I be bound to either try and stop people from shooting or throw myself in front of the enemy, etc? 


Obviously there's some interpretations that can be made of how to prevent harm here, but I guess my main question is: does having an android in a group that has to violently engage hostile humans mean that android is 'required' to basically disrupt and possibly get itself killed?

[Mark Osten]

It would be situational, but I believe that the course of action would be to take whatever action will minimize loss of human life however you can. for example if you have the medic skill, when enemies go down you go and stabalize them. Or if you have melee skills or/and a shield, you engage them and block their attacks but do not actually hit them.

But it all depends how you interpret the laws. No one is going to call you out for playing your character in the moment, another just as valid option is you turn to the commander and say "I am unable to comply with your orders, it goes against my programming".

The not allowing a human to come to harm through inaction is more meant for situations like if you come across a bleeding out person and you dont take them to a medic. or you see a civilian getting chased by bugs and do nothing to help them. those are the situations in mind with reference to inaction.

So to answer your question, no the android is not required to disrupt and get itself killed.