Meet the Iconics: Iseph

Friday, May 12, 2017

The countdown to Starfinder is on! We're highlighting the iconic characters and core classes that appear throughout the pages and covers the Starfinder line. Today we meet Iseph, the iconic operative!

Illustration by Remko Troost

As biomechanical entities, androids can theoretically live forever with the proper repairs. While some embrace this form of immortality, most androids live what they feel is a full life—usually around a hundred years—and then voluntarily instigate a process called renewal, in which the android's soul leaves its body, allowing a fresh android soul to inhabit it. Most people consider this a joyous occasion, metaphorically equivalent to the old android giving birth to a child, and understand that a post-renewal android is an entirely new person who just happens to inhabit the same body. Yet not all people are willing to honor this change or forgive past debts and slights, and such is the case with Iseph.

Iseph awoke in an abandoned storage facility on the machine world of Aballon, standing upright in a black-market renewal crèche. Around them, the place was completely empty, save for a note and a pen left in the center of the concrete floor. Clearly hastily scrawled, the note read only: Run. Hide. Retaliate. Beware the mark. Next to the words was a drawing of a symbol—the same inexplicable design branded on Iseph's chest. Yet the biggest shock was when Iseph picked up the pen, as the note's writer had clearly intended—for the handwriting on the note matched Iseph's own.

Confused and disoriented, with only some basic downloaded knowledge of the world they'd just been born into, Iseph did as the note instructed, doing their best to disappear into Aballon's bustling android population. It was here that, among other things, they first met other androids and discovered that some identified with particular genders, though Iseph never felt any such personal connection. But the questions raised by the note continued to plague them. Who had worn their body before them? Who were they running from, and why? What was the mysterious symbol? Eventually, Iseph worked up the courage to begin making surreptitious inquiries into the planet's infosphere. All of these searches failed, yet in curious ways, as if the information was being actively scrubbed and redacted. Worse, Iseph began to get the sense of being watched, faces in the crowds that seemed strangely familiar. After a month of tentative forays into they city's silicon underworld, Iseph at last tracked down someone who claimed to recognize the mark, but who insisted on meeting in person at a nearby virus bar.

Iseph was almost to the tavern when it exploded in a massive fireball, the blast consuming an entire city block.

Thoroughly spooked, Iseph fled Aballon, taking passage on a ship to the Diaspora. Yet as they worked there, quickly finding themself a deft hand at piloting rock-hopper shuttles and mining tugs, Iseph's fear turned to anger. Wider Pact Worlds society proved far messier than Aballon's orderly machine culture, and Iseph was first confused and then disgusted by the prejudice and jealousy androids still encountered from some humans. They met android escapees from illegal colonies in the Vast, bearing blatant symbols of corporate ownership and scars from cruel disciplinary implants, and began to suspect what their own mark might say about their origins. Incensed, Iseph made contact with the Android Abolitionist Front, learning to fly more combat-oriented craft, to sneak through the shadows, and to put down the enemies of their people with ruthless efficiency. Under the AAF's guidance, Iseph became a black ops expert, until a disagreement with their handler over a messy job led them to go independent. Today, Iseph officially hires on with freelancer crews as an elite pilot specializing in dangerous transport or exploratory missions—and if those jobs sometimes require a little infiltration or a bullet from the shadows, well, that costs extra.

Though paranoia over being hunted by their mysterious enemy (as well as friends of former assassination targets) makes Iseph something of a loner, the android desperately craves companionship, and is fiercely loyal to those few who prove themselves trustworthy. As a result of their early days on Aballon and personal experience as an android in a largely biological society, Iseph questions or rejects many aspects of mainstream Pact Worlds culture, and enjoys exploring the countercultures on different worlds. Iseph believes the ends often justify the means, yet strives to only take on jobs that fit with their sense of morality. An initial focus on android rights has broadened into a tendency to identify with oppressed people and underdogs everywhere, no matter how alien, and to hate any form of slavery with a passion. While Iseph finds the most joy in flying any manner of ship or vehicle—usually too fast and recklessly for the comfort of their passengers—their infiltration abilities remain as sharp as they ever were, and the former assassin has no objections to pulling out their trusty sniper rifle again when the cause is just.

Unrelated Starfinder Note: We've been doing a lot of previews recently, both here on the Paizo blog and on other websites. There's more than we can contain on the blog, so if you want to see more of the neat stuff that's been revealed (including new art for planets, races, ships, and more—and that's just in the last week!), be sure to bookmark the new Starfinder News Hub thread!

James L. Sutter
Creative Director

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Iconics Iseph Meet the Iconics Operatives Remko Troost Starfinder
51 to 100 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Set wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Agreed. And remember in Neuromancer where Armitage replaces Case's pancreas and modifies his liver so he can't get high any more? I'm picturing the same scenario, but with installing MacAfee or Symantec Antivirus...
Ha, that's cool. "Y'all go to the virus bar without me. My anti-virus protection is too advanced, because of my government job. I can't get wasted anymore."
And you could get really snooty android sommeliers: "I recommend the Windows 97... it has a bouquet like winter berries and oak, with an insouciant hint of mint and a bright, fulsome finish. Would you care to sniff the CD case?"

Or shuffling up to the Stuf-U-Self kiosk and buying a memstick for a cheap hit of M!crosoft Bob just to quell the delirium tremens.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ConanTheGrammarian wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's a friggin' plural.
Oh, I see what you did there! Repurposing a word that started with a different lexical value as a colloquially acceptable substitution for a more common, but taboo, profanity word with its own distinct etymology and meaning--to pretend to object to a linguistic change of the same type! Clever... ten thousand spoons clever...

I'm...not getting it. "Friggin'" to my understanding, is also a rude word (though clearly less so than "f$*+in,'" since Paizo censors one and not the other), and I didn't mean to convey anything by it except annoyed emphasis. I may be completely off-base here, but it sounds like you're trying to catch me undermining my own argument because of my use of a moderate expletive. Sorry, but no dice. I'm objecting to a plural term being used as a singular (as well as adding to the workload of a single word that already sees much common use, which is no great sin but is still preferably avoided), and in no way whatsoever does the expletive I used, nor its stronger sibling, contradict that in any way.


I like his back story, it is very similar to what i was thinking of for an Android Solarion, glad to know the concept would work in the setting :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/third-person-gender-neutral-p ronoun-thon

I like the old word 'thon' for gender neutral references.


If for no other reason than contrast I hope that at least one of the Iconics fits in just fine with the current culture of the Pact Worlds.

Instead of being a defiant rebel thumbing their nose at the establishment.

A Centrist if not a Right leaning character.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
ConanTheGrammarian wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's a friggin' plural.
Oh, I see what you did there! Repurposing a word that started with a different lexical value as a colloquially acceptable substitution for a more common, but taboo, profanity word with its own distinct etymology and meaning--to pretend to object to a linguistic change of the same type! Clever... ten thousand spoons clever...
I'm...not getting it. "Friggin'" to my understanding, is also a rude word (though clearly less so than "f@%&in,'" since Paizo censors one and not the other), and I didn't mean to convey anything by it except annoyed emphasis. I may be completely off-base here, but it sounds like you're trying to catch me undermining my own argument because of my use of a moderate expletive. Sorry, but no dice. I'm objecting to a plural term being used as a singular (as well as adding to the workload of a single word that already sees much common use, which is no great sin but is still preferably avoided), and in no way whatsoever does the expletive I used, nor its stronger sibling, contradict that in any way.

gentlemen, please. We are in the starfinder forums.

It's "fragging". Or "fraking" if you're feeling more galactic.

God.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Thrice Great Hermes wrote:


If for no other reason than contrast I hope that at least one of the Iconics fits in just fine with the current culture of the Pact Worlds.

Instead of being a defiant rebel thumbing their nose at the establishment.

A Centrist if not a Right leaning character.

I have hopes for Raia and Altronus to not be the defiant rebels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thrice Great Hermes wrote:


If for no other reason than contrast I hope that at least one of the Iconics fits in just fine with the current culture of the Pact Worlds.

Instead of being a defiant rebel thumbing their nose at the establishment.

A Centrist if not a Right leaning character.

I don't think that concept is going to work in a setting like this one...company men are likely frowned upon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Thrice Great Hermes wrote:


If for no other reason than contrast I hope that at least one of the Iconics fits in just fine with the current culture of the Pact Worlds.

Instead of being a defiant rebel thumbing their nose at the establishment.

A Centrist if not a Right leaning character.

I don't think that concept is going to work in a setting like this one...company men are likely frowned upon.

Plus, it's hard to murderhobo while also having to keep up with the correct cover sheet on your TPS reports...


Thrice Great Hermes wrote:


If for no other reason than contrast I hope that at least one of the Iconics fits in just fine with the current culture of the Pact Worlds.

Instead of being a defiant rebel thumbing their nose at the establishment.

A Centrist if not a Right leaning character.

I would sort of expect the Vesk iconic would be representative of standard Vesk beliefs and culture.


Truthfully, I'd rather know more about normal pact worlds culture than lizard-Klingon culture. I can extrapolate the latter.

On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

gentlemen, please. We are in the starfinder forums.

It's "fragging". Or "fraking" if you're feeling more galactic.

God.

Yotz! It's "frelling", you zarking drannits!


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.

Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.
Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.

Is there a button on this contraption bigger than "favorite"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why am I not surprised this is dissolving into an argument over preferred pronouns? Paizo has decided that Iseph, like many people, prefer the singular they. Your own "linguistic" beliefs don't matter.

Also not surprised to see people disregarding the obvious lack of gendered pronouns and inserting their own idea of what Iseph's gender is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
ConanTheGrammarian wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's a friggin' plural.
Oh, I see what you did there! Repurposing a word that started with a different lexical value as a colloquially acceptable substitution for a more common, but taboo, profanity word with its own distinct etymology and meaning--to pretend to object to a linguistic change of the same type! Clever... ten thousand spoons clever...
I'm...not getting it. "Friggin'" to my understanding, is also a rude word (though clearly less so than "f@%&in,'" since Paizo censors one and not the other), and I didn't mean to convey anything by it except annoyed emphasis. I may be completely off-base here, but it sounds like you're trying to catch me undermining my own argument because of my use of a moderate expletive. Sorry, but no dice. I'm objecting to a plural term being used as a singular (as well as adding to the workload of a single word that already sees much common use, which is no great sin but is still preferably avoided), and in no way whatsoever does the expletive I used, nor its stronger sibling, contradict that in any way.

gentlemen, please. We are in the starfinder forums.

It's "fragging". Or "fraking" if you're feeling more galactic.

God.

Fragging is like shagging and frakking is like the F-word with a K, but if you want to get really, freakin' nasty the word is Frelling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
quibblemuch wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Thrice Great Hermes wrote:


If for no other reason than contrast I hope that at least one of the Iconics fits in just fine with the current culture of the Pact Worlds.

Instead of being a defiant rebel thumbing their nose at the establishment.

A Centrist if not a Right leaning character.

I don't think that concept is going to work in a setting like this one...company men are likely frowned upon.
Plus, it's hard to murderhobo while also having to keep up with the correct cover sheet on your TPS reports...

Then you are obviously not familiar with the Corporate Overmind's standard operating procedures. The correct TPS (Terminal Pharasmin Sanction) cover sheet is a requirement for any ambitious Murderhobo whose star (and stock) is rising within any sacred syndicate or company cult. You'll never make it as an Industrial Inquisitor with that gap in your training. You should report to HR (Heuristic Reeducation) immediately!


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.
Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.

Technically isnt Android a gender specific term to begin with? So it would Androids, Gynoids and... i dont think i have ever encountered a non gendered term for sentient artificial life before.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.
Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.

the term they could also be respectful of those who came before iseph in that body. An interesting way of connecting with ones ancestors.


Freehold DM wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.
Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.
the term they could also be respectful of those who came before iseph in that body. An interesting way of connecting with ones ancestors.

Note to self, make an android with tattoo representing their shell's past lives and who self refers as "we and I"


Torbyne wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.
Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.
Technically isnt Android a gender specific term to begin with? So it would Androids, Gynoids and... i dont think i have ever encountered a non gendered term for sentient artificial life before.

I love gynoids. But could see why paizo did not include them.

Ah well. Time to homebrew.


Torbyne wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Voss wrote:
On the they/it discussion- singlular/plural/gender, don't really care that much. The elephant in the room is Iseph should be 'it' because it is a machine. Though a Geth style collective consciousness where they are the sum of the program's inhabiting their shell would be interesting.
Pathfinder androids are artificial sentients with genders (unless specified otherwise by individuals), not "its." You are yourself a machine, just made of flesh. If others respect your choice of pronouns, then you should respect Iseph's.
the term they could also be respectful of those who came before iseph in that body. An interesting way of connecting with ones ancestors.
Note to self, make an android with tattoo representing their shell's past lives and who self refers as "we and I"

or the names that came before them tattooed down the dominant arm they once used, or both if they were ambidextrous.


Ashanderai wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
ConanTheGrammarian wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's a friggin' plural.
Oh, I see what you did there! Repurposing a word that started with a different lexical value as a colloquially acceptable substitution for a more common, but taboo, profanity word with its own distinct etymology and meaning--to pretend to object to a linguistic change of the same type! Clever... ten thousand spoons clever...
I'm...not getting it. "Friggin'" to my understanding, is also a rude word (though clearly less so than "f@%&in,'" since Paizo censors one and not the other), and I didn't mean to convey anything by it except annoyed emphasis. I may be completely off-base here, but it sounds like you're trying to catch me undermining my own argument because of my use of a moderate expletive. Sorry, but no dice. I'm objecting to a plural term being used as a singular (as well as adding to the workload of a single word that already sees much common use, which is no great sin but is still preferably avoided), and in no way whatsoever does the expletive I used, nor its stronger sibling, contradict that in any way.

gentlemen, please. We are in the starfinder forums.

It's "fragging". Or "fraking" if you're feeling more galactic.

God.

Fragging is like shagging and frakking is like the F-word with a K, but if you want to get really, freakin' nasty the word is Frelling.

neg, omae. Fragging is the word that gets the eof across, you scan?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
the term they could also be respectful of those who came before iseph in that body. An interesting way of connecting with ones ancestors.
Note to self, make an android with tattoo representing their shell's past lives and who self refers as "we and I"
or the names that came before them tattooed down the dominant arm they once used, or both if they were ambidextrous.

"John G killed my last PC."

Dark Archive

I prefer "Drokk" myself mega city one feels like it may have some influence on the setting.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
jedi8187 wrote:


Also not surprised to see people disregarding the obvious lack of gendered pronouns and inserting their own idea of what Iseph's gender is.

Actually, some people may just be using very old-fashioned correct grammar. 'He' in old-fashioned grammar was both the masculine pronoun and the gender-neutral-but-not-neuter pronoun. And some of us still use it that way. If you are talking about a person but don't know their gender, by these old rules, the proper pronoun to use is 'he.' I always wondered why the feminists were offended by this, because it's the men who don't even get their own pronoun.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Redelia wrote:
jedi8187 wrote:


Also not surprised to see people disregarding the obvious lack of gendered pronouns and inserting their own idea of what Iseph's gender is.
Actually, some people may just be using very old-fashioned correct grammar. 'He' in old-fashioned grammar was both the masculine pronoun and the gender-neutral-but-not-neuter pronoun. And some of us still use it that way. If you are talking about a person but don't know their gender, by these old rules, the proper pronoun to use is 'he.' I always wondered why the feminists were offended by this, because it's the men who don't even get their own pronoun.

As I understand it, the idea of "he" being both the male-gender and neutral-gender pronoun reinforces the idea that male is the default way of being human. That every human being should be thought of as being a man unless other information pops up.

Which can be problematic.

Dark Archive

I though "E or it might have been Ey" was the gender neutral pronoun.


Are androids genderless (or sexless I guess) though? Since they are created, who's to say they aren't anatomically correct (like Wendy from Dark Matter)? Otherwise, why would some have the appearance of human males, while some have the appearance of human females? What I mean is, the android art from Bestiary 5 has a clearly female form android. Why? Are we back to the Clooney batsuit?

Iseph appears to have the physical body of a human male, but because of various reasons they, like many other androids, prefer a gender-neutral pronoun.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Has it been revealed whether or not they dream of electric sheep?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
Has it been revealed whether or not they dream of electric sheep?

Baa RAM ewe


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That'll do pig, that'll do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


And here's the Pathfinder Bestiary #5 entry, also gendered.

I wouldn't assume anything about Starfinder androids based on Pathfinder ones. We don't know yet if the Starfinder android "product line" has anything to do with the androids that came from the rain of stars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arutema wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


And here's the Pathfinder Bestiary #5 entry, also gendered.
I wouldn't assume anything about Starfinder androids based on Pathfinder ones. We don't know yet if the Starfinder android "product line" has anything to do with the androids that came from the rain of stars.

The article above does say some androids identify with specific genders. Also, for whatever it's worth, pathfinder androids had sexes too (although they could not produce children).

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Distant Scholar wrote:
Archmage Variel wrote:
Gender neutral pronouns are already a thing. Some prefer they.

Using "they" to refer to a generic or unknown person isn't too bad. Using "they" to refer to a specific individual was jarring. I kept wondering if androids had more than one consciousness, or something. I realize that "it" has connotations of non-personhood, but I think it would have worked better for me here.

I don't have a perfect solution, or even a better one.

I tend to agree. While I'm proud of Paizo's work in putting different identities front and centre, using 'they' is a little confusing, especially in a universe where hive minds are a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is all well and good however the mystery Iseph had thrust into their lap feels INFINITELY more interesting. Who are these people and what did Iseph's past life do to get them so cheesed off? If I was grading these biographies as a creative writing project, Navasi would be a C/C- but Iseph would be a solid B. There is little to Iseph's story that I haven't seen before as a fan of 80's sci-fi but it's presented in a way that's engrossing none the less. If you want to sell tie-in novels for these characters, this is how you do it.

I also have to second the call for characters that aren't "rebels against the system." For one, it helps define what the system actually IS. Two, this would give us some interesting inter-party conflict which would certainly make things interesting for the eventual novelization of this universe. Nothing major, but a spat between the one fighting for ideals (Navasi,) the one fighting for vengeance and answers (Iseph,) and the one just trying to pay their bills (working class stiff that falls in with the crew when even the odd jobs stop coming) would be amusing.


Redelia wrote:
jedi8187 wrote:


Also not surprised to see people disregarding the obvious lack of gendered pronouns and inserting their own idea of what Iseph's gender is.
Actually, some people may just be using very old-fashioned correct grammar. 'He' in old-fashioned grammar was both the masculine pronoun and the gender-neutral-but-not-neuter pronoun. And some of us still use it that way. If you are talking about a person but don't know their gender, by these old rules, the proper pronoun to use is 'he.' I always wondered why the feminists were offended by this, because it's the men who don't even get their own pronoun.

There was someone who used she, I was commenting on both.And the gender is known, or in this case the lack there of.


I think my first Starfinder PC will be an Android Operative. I find the idea of genderless androids to be very interesting! This is especially intriguing if that android's body has a gendered appearance.

Hmmm, I look forward to seeing more about androids when the Core Rulebook is released, but perhaps we could a little tidbit from the Paizo staff on this question. Do the older androids (the ones built by humans) have a gendered appearance? Or were they created to be more androgynous? I could see the newer bodies created post-liberation being more of a ungendered appearance, but what about the earlier models? Very interested to get more information!

Sovereign Court

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

"This trans woman is a fictional character, so it's okay for me to laugh at her and call her a man."

Even if the character is fictional, the real people who share that identity can still be hurt by your attacks. Something to consider.

Scarab Sages Developer, Starfinder Team

28 people marked this as a favorite.

In Starfinder, androids have souls. We ever reference that fact in this story. It's not symbolic of some programming glitch -- an android has a soul, can be raised from the dead through the same magic that raises people from the dead, you an go to the outer planes and visit the souls of dead androids waiting in line to be judged. You can be reincarnated as an android.
They are people, not just programs or machines. A human's body is created by a complex chemical process. An android's body is created by a complex technological process.
But they are both people, because they both have souls.
Of course there are people with biases against androids due to the manufactured nature of their physical form, and people who are bigoted for whatever hateful reasons people end up being bigots.
But there's no need for a Turing test in Starfinder.
If you cast raise dead on a typical computer that got broken, even one with an artificial personality, nothing happens. It has no soul.
Cast it on an android, and the android is restored to life.
Androids are people.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

In Starfinder, androids have souls. We ever reference that fact in this story. It's not symbolic of some programming glitch -- an android has a soul, can be raised from the dead through the same magic that raises people from the dead, you an go to the outer planes and visit the souls of dead androids waiting in line to be judged. You can be reincarnated as an android.

They are people, not just programs or machines. A human's body is created by a complex chemical process. An android's body is created by a complex technological process.
But they are both people, because they both have souls.
Of course there are people with biases against androids due to the manufactured nature of their physical form, and people who are bigoted for whatever hateful reasons people end up being bigots.
But there's no need for a Turing test in Starfinder.
If you cast raise dead on a typical computer that got broken, even one with an artificial personality, nothing happens. It has no soul.
Cast it on an android, and the android is restored to life.
Androids are people.

Where does that place things like an AI? Since we have an AI based god i assume that at some point what was a machine and some coding attracted a soul?


Torbyne wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

In Starfinder, androids have souls. We ever reference that fact in this story. It's not symbolic of some programming glitch -- an android has a soul, can be raised from the dead through the same magic that raises people from the dead, you an go to the outer planes and visit the souls of dead androids waiting in line to be judged. You can be reincarnated as an android.

They are people, not just programs or machines. A human's body is created by a complex chemical process. An android's body is created by a complex technological process.
But they are both people, because they both have souls.
Of course there are people with biases against androids due to the manufactured nature of their physical form, and people who are bigoted for whatever hateful reasons people end up being bigots.
But there's no need for a Turing test in Starfinder.
If you cast raise dead on a typical computer that got broken, even one with an artificial personality, nothing happens. It has no soul.
Cast it on an android, and the android is restored to life.
Androids are people.
Where does that place things like an AI? Since we have an AI based god i assume that at some point what was a machine and some coding attracted a soul?

Androids seem like something of a programmatic shortcut- instead of developing an AI, you use a soul. That doesn't mean that you can't program an AI- an intelligence independent of a soul. The AI deity may not have a soul. (Certainly, Trinity is beyond Starfinder's resurrection tests.)


QuidEst wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

In Starfinder, androids have souls. We ever reference that fact in this story. It's not symbolic of some programming glitch -- an android has a soul, can be raised from the dead through the same magic that raises people from the dead, you an go to the outer planes and visit the souls of dead androids waiting in line to be judged. You can be reincarnated as an android.

They are people, not just programs or machines. A human's body is created by a complex chemical process. An android's body is created by a complex technological process.
But they are both people, because they both have souls.
Of course there are people with biases against androids due to the manufactured nature of their physical form, and people who are bigoted for whatever hateful reasons people end up being bigots.
But there's no need for a Turing test in Starfinder.
If you cast raise dead on a typical computer that got broken, even one with an artificial personality, nothing happens. It has no soul.
Cast it on an android, and the android is restored to life.
Androids are people.
Where does that place things like an AI? Since we have an AI based god i assume that at some point what was a machine and some coding attracted a soul?
Androids seem like something of a programmatic shortcut- instead of developing an AI, you use a soul. That doesn't mean that you can't program an AI- an intelligence independent of a soul. The AI deity may not have a soul. (Certainly, Trinity is beyond Starfinder's resurrection tests.)

Right, i think that even Starfinder Androids will be derivative of the work of the Androffans who didnt even seem to know that souls exist, they were just making synthetic humans and apparently that was enough to create a shell that would draw in a soul but it was never intended and both the Androffans and now the Pact Worlds have tons of complex computers without souls. But there is apparently a line somewhere on that spectrum at which point the code gains a soul. Unless something without a soul can somehow attain godhood... which is a weird thought.

51 to 100 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Meet the Iconics: Iseph All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.