Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Leliel 03-09-08, 06:22 PM	A recurring thought I've had since about six months ago was wondering what it would be like to play a trans-human consciousness; an AI that was originally human, but became a machine through advanced technology. Over many weeks of having this thought, I began to wonder about what a FMAI (Formerly Human Artificial Intelligence) would be like in a fantasy world. Coupled with my misanthropic tendancies, this beacame a desire to create a character who was still good, but wants to rid himself as what he veiws as "human"-letting emotions get in the way of scientific analysis, the inability to allow one's self to be uncertain about things that are always uncertain, logic being overidden by fear, etc.-Essentially, to become a perfect computer, one capable of feeling emotion, but with a mind completely uninfluenced by anything other then pramatism and a desire for the common good. Although he isn't a FMAI yet, he desperately wishes to become one. And before you ask, yes, he's trying to help people out; he realizes his path is not for everyone. So, is this a good idea? Please post on this thread, eh? (Sorry about the "eh?", it's a leftover from my human days.)
kshade 03-09-08, 06:41 PM	[...]I began to wonder about what a FMAI (Formerly Human Artificial Intelligence) would be like in a fantasy world.[...] So, is this a good idea? Depends on how you do it, is the character going to be transformed into a Warforged / weird clockwork thingy? Anyway, probably would make for an interesting character, think Spock from Star Trek with his struggle against his human side.
Lincoln Hills 03-10-08, 03:22 PM	Aw geez, I foresee a flurry of threads about how "perfect logic" will "require" a Lawful alignment. In the words of St. Peter, "Oy vey!"
Sunic_Flames 03-10-08, 04:32 PM	Aw geez, I foresee a flurry of threads about how "perfect logic" will "require" a Lawful alignment. In the words of St. Peter, "Oy vey!" That, and Pragmatic is by definition non Good. Pure (cold) Logic would be Evil. The Lawful part is right though both because of the logical aspects, and because its opposite Chaos is emotion based.
jradd777 03-10-08, 04:42 PM	I like the idea and I can think of one very fitting PrC from Eberron. Renegade Mastermaker (Magic of Eberron, pg. 82)they eventually become "machines" (in D&D terms: construct traits).
jradd777 03-10-08, 04:48 PM	That, and Pragmatic is by definition non Good. Pure (cold) Logic would be Evil. Um.. actually, I think it's closer to neutral... if I remember anything about that portion of my Moral Philosophy course. It doesn't regard whether something is good or evil, at all (in other words goodness and evil are a spectrum that do not run along the same lines as pragmatism) but whether it is practical. So, yeah... Neutral with respect to good and evil, because it never favors one over the other for their values in themselves; pragmatism simply doesn't consider either side.
Sunic_Flames 03-10-08, 07:02 PM	Um.. actually, I think it's closer to neutral... if I remember anything about that portion of my Moral Philosophy course. It doesn't regard whether something is good or evil, at all (in other words goodness and evil are a spectrum that do not run along the same lines as pragmatism) but whether it is practical. So, yeah... Neutral with respect to good and evil, because it never favors one over the other for their values in themselves; pragmatism simply doesn't consider either side. And Neutral is non Good, yes? So why the disagreement? We're saying the same thing. Pragmatic = Practical. And what is Practical is as often as not non Good. Neutral. I then added that cold logic would actually be Evil, because while pragmaticism can result in something like 'Chance to kill one to save a thousand' = 'Where's my sword?' the cold logic would not regard the life as having any inherent meaning whatsoever, so it'd come down to usefulness and the like.
jradd777 03-10-08, 09:42 PM	And Neutral is non Good, yes? So why the disagreement? We're saying the same thing. Oh, I see what you mean now... No, we're not saying the same thing. I stated what I said more specifically than you. Here's a more extreme example to make the concept clear: An elephant is a non-dog. An elephant is a large, best known as African or Asian mammal, with an elongated nose, called a trunk, etc... What you said was confusing because it wasn't very specific, it didn't give a full picture of what you meant, which is why I responded in the way I did. I said what it was (Neutral)... you said what it wasn't (=/= to Good). Yes, your statement is not wholly incorrect... but you never actually asserted what category you meant. And is definitely not the same as what I said because of these reasons. Some might say it's close enough... but, on principle, I go to those extreme representations to show just how wrong that is to say. I mean... that's how crooked politicians fill your head with lies by telling you the truth. They let you construct whatever other information you want based off the little bit of truth they give you. Pragmatic = Practical. And what is Practical is as often as not non Good. Neutral. I then added that cold logic would actually be Evil, because while pragmaticism can result in something like 'Chance to kill one to save a thousand' = 'Where's my sword?' the cold logic would not regard the life as having any inherent meaning whatsoever, so it'd come down to usefulness and the like. And this is another problem with that sort of statement. You drew a much larger conclusion than that which your premise allowed. You committed a logical fallacy... and I think a rhetorical fallacy, too... Anyway, it's not important. In fact... your explanation/example make pragmatism and logic seem to be the same thing (you said pragmatism = practicality, and practicality means usefulness, which you were trying to relate to logic but at the same time saying one is neutral, now that you have specified a category for pragmatism, and one is evil). However, that's where I think the rhetorical fallacy comes in... you used the term "cold logic" which carries a negative connotation. You appealed to pathos, in such a way, that kind of invalidated what you were saying.
jradd777 03-10-08, 09:43 PM	To the OP, Again, I like the concept, too, I've thought about trying to play Renegade Mastermaker because of the implications of becoming a construct, etc. Also, do you think that PrC would accomplish what you want in a time-frame that you like.. or not... because I'm not sure what else could get you that close to being a robot...
Sunic_Flames 03-10-08, 10:55 PM	No, actually it was very clear. There are three possible options here. Good, Neutral, Evil. By saying 'non Good', I clearly rule out Good. By then going on and labeling evil as a variant of it I clearly describe it as Neutral due to process of elimination, as well as state how it could be neither Good nor Neutral, which once again due to process of elimination means Evil. Your example is invalid on the grounds there are far more than three types of animals. As for my wording, I needed something to clearly convey the difference between simply measuring cost/benefit ratio and doing what makes sense, and regarding life as no more valuable than what utility use it could provide. Mephistopheles is described as embodying 'cold logic'. Clearly he is Lawful Evil, as he is an Archdevil. And clearly, this is not the same as you'd see from say... an Inevitable who is Lawful Neutral. Whether this is an offshoot of Pragmatism or a more extreme form of it, or perhaps a mixture of the two is open to debate. Suffice it to say, it's worth the distinction. And of course good pragmatism can be ruled out on the grounds that the two contradict each other often. 'Save the child' can be a damn stupid choice, for example. That means the pragmatic doesn't save the child.
jradd777 03-11-08, 12:58 AM	Sunic_Flames: I'm not going to explain how I disagree again, because the OP doesn't want to hear these comments about moral philosophy and how logic works, whether it's lawful or neutral or chaotic or good or evil. It seems like he's got an idea of his concept of those things. He's asking about the overall character concept itself. His question is literally an explanation of his character concept followed by "Is this a good idea?"... unless I've misinterpreted his question... either way, I'm dropping the argument... unless of course, he wants to ask about the implications of any of the claims you made as a deeper question to elaborate his original question. If that happens, I'll go deeper into the fallacies of your claims.