| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?"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."
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...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.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...
gentlemen, please. We are in the starfinder forums.
It's "fragging". Or "fraking" if you're feeling more galactic.
God.
|
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. |
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. |
I don't think that concept is going to work in a setting like this one...company men are likely frowned upon.
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.
Plus, it's hard to murderhobo while also having to keep up with the correct cover sheet on your TPS reports...
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. |
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!
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. |
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"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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...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. |
Plus, it's hard to murderhobo while also having to keep up with the correct cover sheet on your TPS reports...I don't think that concept is going to work in a setting like this one...company men are likely frowned upon.
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.
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!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.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.
I love gynoids. But could see why paizo did not include them.
Ah well. Time to homebrew.
Note to self, make an android with tattoo representing their shell's past lives and who self refers as "we and I"the term they could also be respectful of those who came before iseph in that body. An interesting way of connecting with ones ancestors.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.
or the names that came before them tattooed down the dominant arm they once used, or both if they were ambidextrous.
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.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.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...gentlemen, please. We are in the starfinder forums.
It's "fragging". Or "fraking" if you're feeling more galactic.
God.
neg, omae. Fragging is the word that gets the eof across, you scan?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or the names that came before them tattooed down the dominant arm they once used, or both if they were ambidextrous.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"
"John G killed my last PC."
|
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. |
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.
Also not surprised to see people disregarding the obvious lack of gendered pronouns and inserting their own idea of what Iseph's gender is.
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.
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. |
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.
|
|
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. |
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.
And here's the Pathfinder Bestiary #5 entry, also gendered.
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).
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.
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!
|
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.
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?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.
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.)