Pathfinder Adventure Path: Iron Gods Player's Guide (PFRPG) PDF

Androids are sterile, but the ABSOLUTELY have gender.

The human-shaped robot with an apparent gender but not actual genders and are thus "its" are a different creature—mannequin robots (see Numeria, Land of Fallen Stars, page 57).

I would disagree, I would say androids aren't human and they aren't living beings which means to me that they should be "it" not her nor him...

Calling a sapient being with an obvious gender 'it', regardless of whether they are 'artificial' is basically racist b&#*&@~+. And generally a giant dick move.

It wouldn't be racist it would be specist(although I am not 100% sure that specist would be the proper term because a construct is neither a race nor a species, you could then call it lifist)... whether it is a dick move or not would generally depend on the gaming table, wouldn't it? What goes at your table vs. mine is up to your gaming group and conversely up to mine.

As a side note, you should probably refrain from saying people are racist anyway, which is prejudicial, by the way and I just was bringing up an interesting point, which may or may not be plain semantics anyways... :)

On the side, since Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game, I would also say that especially in the first adventure if you have a character from anywhere outside of Numera or even those within, it would be legitimate to treat a construct like a machine until the ice has been finally broken, an esprit de corps if you will has been established

Insnare wrote:

I would disagree, I would say androids aren't human and they aren't living beings which means to me that they should be "it" not her nor him...

Calling a sapient being with an obvious gender 'it', regardless of whether they are 'artificial' is basically racist b**+%!$+. And generally a giant dick move.

In fact I would recommend to Insnare watching the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of a Man", which deals with this exact issue in a masterful way.

It wouldn't be racist it would be specist(although I am not 100% sure that specist would be the proper term because a construct is neither a race nor a species, you could then call it lifist)... whether it is a dick move or not would generally depend on the gaming table, wouldn't it? What goes at your table vs. mine is up to your gaming group and conversely up to mine.

As a side note, you should probably refrain from saying people are racist anyway, which is prejudicial, by the way and I just was bringing up an interesting point, which may or may not be plain semantics anyways... :)

On the side, since Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game, I would also say that especially in the first adventure if you have a character from anywhere outside of Numera or even those within, it would be legitimate to treat a construct like a machine until the ice has been finally broken, an esprit de corps if you will has been established

except isnt the point of androids that they look more human than machine therefore at first glance they would appear as either a male or female human with strange tattoes.

At first glance, the art of the android I have seen looked more androgynous than female... I needed to look really close and then... hmmm think it may be intended to be a she. Sure, they look more human than a station wagon but they do look less human than a human. In anything but some sort of Plate armor with a helm, it would be easy ti discern at 20 yards.

I am not trying to be obstinate here at all but it seems that an amazing opportunity for RP is being thrown aside for some reason.

There are many points here:

1) Androids although more human looking than say a car, are still not human or humanoid.

2) RP should be fun

3) You shouldn't call other people racist without.

4) Debate is healthy and in this case there is really no right or wrong answer.

4) Debate is healthy and in this case there is really no right or wrong answer.

Except there is. Paizo have published an extensive article about the "ecology of the android" in Fires of Creation about the nature of androids, and the creative director has already contradicted your position in this very thread. Your view of androids is definitely not what androids in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Insnare wrote:

I noticed in the Player's Guide that androids are referred to as her which is very strange shouldn't they be referred to as it?

Uh...androids have sexes. They are anatomically correct and can have sex. They might not be fertile...but they have all other necessary prerequisites of having a sex. Why would you refer to them as 'it'?

Relevant

I imagine a lot of android characters would take offense to "it".

You read Freefall, the web comic from which that vignette was taken?

This is also true, and I'd imagine they would. But while calling them 'it' would still be problematic, it would at least make some sort of sense if they had no sexual characteristics. They have such characteristics...so it couldn't possibly make less sense.

Florence is a geneenginered she wolf. She is considered an A.I. as her brain was created and programmed.

It wouldn't be racist it would be specist(although I am not 100% sure that specist would be the proper term because a construct is neither a race nor a species, you could then call it lifist)... whether it is a dick move or not would generally depend on the gaming table, wouldn't it? What goes at your table vs. mine is up to your gaming group and conversely up to mine.

As a side note, you should probably refrain from saying people are racist anyway, which is prejudicial, by the way and I just was bringing up an interesting point, which may or may not be plain semantics anyways... :)

On the side, since Pathfinder is a Roleplaying Game, I would also say that especially in the first adventure if you have a character from anywhere outside of Numera or even those within, it would be legitimate to treat a construct like a machine until the ice has been finally broken, an esprit de corps if you will has been established

It is a great role playing opportunity, no argument about that, and can be a pleasure to play it at the table, on the other hand a lot of people have problems with de-personalizing creatures.

1) Androids although more human looking than say a car, are still not human or humanoid.

N Medium humanoid (android)

Of possible relevance for roleplaying androids: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick, adapted for movie format and retitled as Blade Runner.

At first glance, the art of the android I have seen looked more androgynous than female... I needed to look really close and then... hmmm think it may be intended to be a she.

So...calling androgynous people 'it' is okay? Because if not...this is completely irrelevant.

Sure, they look more human than a station wagon but they do look less human than a human. In anything but some sort of Plate armor with a helm, it would be easy ti discern at 20 yards.

So...calling people of a different species, like dwarves, 'it' is acceptable? Because, again, if not, this isn't relevant.

I am not trying to be obstinate here at all but it seems that an amazing opportunity for RP is being thrown aside for some reason.

I don't object to your character calling an android 'it'. I object to you doing it in real life or believing doing so is acceptable, reasonable, or unprejudiced behavior.

There are many points here:

1) Androids although more human looking than say a car, are still not human or humanoid.

Not human? No, they aren't. Technically, they are humanoid but I know what you mean. On the other hand...is calling a Dragon 'it' acceptable? What about a Glabrezu? Or a Solar? Because if not, this is again irrelevant.

2) RP should be fun

It should, I agree. I'm not sure that's relevant to the discussion either, but it's true.

3) You shouldn't call other people racist without.

I didn't call you racist. I said you made a racist statement, which isn't quite accurate, but if you replace 'racist' with 'prejudiced' it's pretty indisputably true by most reasonable definitions.

4) Debate is healthy and in this case there is really no right or wrong answer.

Yes, actually, there is.

Also, my android will cheerfully stab you if you call him "it." So there's that too.

With Shisumo's logic any dwarf would just destroy the android outright and melt the hulk chassis down as spare metal... auto engines have gold in them so I would assume something as complex as a robotic humanoid with inherrent gender also as well. LOL

@Walking, do you assume that a dog is male or female or do you call it 'it'?

With Shisumo's logic any dwarf would just destroy the android outright and melt the hulk chassis down as spare metal... auto engines have gold in them so I would assume something as complex as a robotic humanoid with inherrent gender also as well. LOL

I...what? The level on which this does not make sense (especially with how Androids work on Golarion) is profound.

Also, hurting people for being a dick to you and murdering people to sell their organs are, in fact, not equivalent acts.

@Walking, do you assume that a dog is male or female or do you call it 'it'?

Because comparing people to pets is absolutely valid, appropriate, and not insulting. Oh, wait, no it isn't.

Insnare, you clearly do not understand how Androids work in Golarion, because half or more of your commentary is in direct opposition to already-revealed official canon lore on the race. Androids are type Humanoid, not type Construct. Androids have souls and are sapient creatures - they are not unintelligent objects, they are people. They have gender, as James Jacobs himself just said. And so forth.

I heavily suggest you research the race and actually educate yourself on what you're talking about before attempting to continue this conversation.

I second that suggestion. With the addendum that if you want to continue this particular conversation/debate, you do so in another thread, as this thread is for the purpose of allowing people to discuss the Iron Gods Player's Guide, not Human/Android relations.

There are Kellid tribes that are distrustful of technology and would destroy any androids they encounter. I can imagine these tribes referring to androids as 'its', precisely because it is dehumanizing.

I can imagine a number of NPCs doing similar things because they don't know/care/understand the difference between androids and robots (Especially if they've encountered things like mannequins that muddy the waters.)

But these characters would all have something in common: They're all a$#*#@#s.

The mannequin robot, from page 57 of Numeria, Land of Fallen Stars, is essentially the soulless construct version of an android. It's not all that appropriate as a player character though, since all those construct traits are too good... plus the lack of a Con score and the Charisma of 1 kinda makes it better suited as a monster—all by design.

I want a downgraded mannequin robot for PC race. Androids are too human for my personal subjective tastes. :(

I want a downgraded mannequin robot for PC race. Androids are too human for my personal subjective tastes. :(

Then the Advanced Race Guide's race builder rules (and your GM's permission) is where you'll want to head.

Thanks for the reminder, James. :)

I noticed in the Player's Guide that androids are referred to as her which is very strange shouldn't they be referred to as it?

If we look back at Star Trek: TNG, Commander Data, self identified as male, allowed his daughter to choose (and then be constructed) as female, and very early in the first seasons established both verbally and physically (off screen) that he is "fully functional."

I'm disappointed that this was never fixed to display properly on IOS devices.

It should also be noted that the campaign traits in the Player's Guide are slightly different than the ones presented in People of the River. The mechanics are the same for both, but with more space to play around with in the Player's Guide than People of the River, James provided a lot more flavor to help tie them closer to the story.

the guide states ....

CAMPAIGN TRAITS
The following campaign traits tie characters to the Iron
Gods Adventure Path. Each trait explains your link to
Numeria, and gives you a built-in reason to be in the town
of Torch when the adventure begins. If you’re from Torch,
you should pick one of the seven core races or android (see
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Bestiary or Pathfinder
Player Companion: People of the Stars) as your character’s race.
If you’re a recent arrival, feel free to choose a race from any
Pathfinder product (subject to GM approval, of course).
Deciding to be a local or a visitor to Torch has no other
effect on character creation.
Several traits refer to technological items or the
Technologist feat. Your GM has additional information
on these rules options, which can be found in Pathfinder
Campaign Setting: Technology Guide.

BUT I can't find any traits following that statement.

BUT I can't find any traits following that statement.

The traits are the bolded items in the text that follows (starting on page 8 of the Player's Guide). The trait names are Against the Technic League, Local Ties, Numerian Archaeologist, Robot Slayer, Skymetal Smith, and Stargazer.

Hope that helps!

Looks like something went awry with the colors on export. I'll be pushing a corrected version later today.

It looks like that update never materialized. Maybe you could look into it again? It would really be nice if this would display correctly on Linux, Mac OS and/or iOS devices.

Maybe, while you're at it, you could get some small issues fixed, that were noted earlier on this thread, i.e. remove/correct the Technology Guide page references in the skills section page 10–11, and list the Galvanic Saboteur (page 4) as a rogue archetype instead of a ranger archetype. However, I can understand if this is beyond the scope of simple update, but I would be very grateful for a fixed export of this Player's Guide.

Thank you!

More than three years later, but if someone still starts the adventure:
The Player's Guide recommends "construct, humanoid (android) and humanoid (human) as "solid favoured enemy choices".

I think that "humanoid (android)" is not a solid choice, because an android already counts as a construct "for the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger’s favored enemy and bane weapons)". With the favoured enemy "construct" you would cover robots, androids and all other possible constructs which is clearly a better choice than "humanoid (android)".

So all your links in your old pages are broken apparently. Actually finding 1st edition books requires more searching than should be necessary.