Why do you think warforged = robots?

[cignus_pfaccari]

The easy hooks for warforged are all robots. You know, Terminators, Cylons, Bender, Transformers (if they're druids), etc.

Of course warforged are constructs, but construct encompasses a pretty broad category, from animated terra cotta statues* to golems to robots. Since they look more metallic in art than they're actually described as being in text, it's not an unreasonable assumption.

Brad

* - If they're not able to move, they're just statues.

 

[Umbran]

So the terra cotta soldiers found in Chinese tombs are robots? That seems a rather extreme reductionism.

Well, given that the terra cotta soldiers were, last I checked, inanimate, and so at best only mirror the behavior of human corpses and couch potatoes, I don't think I'm going that far.

The first known printing of the Rabbi Loew/Golem story was 1847 - and a construct built to help mankind, but doing things normally only men can do then going berserk seems to me to have signs of Industrial Revolution issues all over it. So I don't think I'm all that far off

 

[billd91]

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that the only difference between something like Adam (Ravenloft) and a Warforged is physical composition. That's it. Period. Ditto Juggernauts versus Warforged. There's a very stupid double standard here. Since they're made of metal they're robots and therefore unfit for D&D? That's a very poor argument, no matter how much the haters try to dress it up.

Personally, I don't see the double-standard. Frankenstein's monster, Ravenloft's Adam, always struck me as more reanimated undead, built by a necromancer, than a robot. But then, I've always considered one significant difference to be organic materials vs inorganic materials. Physical composition matters when it comes to perception, particularly of the differences between undead and robots.

 

[shilsen]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I figure a fair percentage (though not all) of the people doing the "warforged=robots" stuff are using 'robot' as an easy pejorative term, just like the use of 'computer game' or 'anime' in "D&D is becoming too anime/much like a computer game".

 

[Glyfair]

Since they look more metallic in art than they're actually described as being in text, it's not an unreasonable assumption.

I've always been disappointed that more artists didn't emphasize the non-metallic parts of the warforged. Even our own resident artist drew the warforged as almost pure metal.

The original picture makes those elements standout. The rest, not so much (but it usually is visible).

 

[Voadam]

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that the only difference between something like Adam (Ravenloft) and a Warforged is physical composition. That's it. Period. Ditto Juggernauts versus Warforged. There's a very stupid double standard here. Since they're made of metal they're robots and therefore unfit for D&D? That's a very poor argument, no matter how much the haters try to dress it up.

Wait, the image of robots is that they are made of artifical parts. Metal and maybe plastics work. Flesh, straw, stone, baked ceramics, etc. are not part of the archetype image of robots.

Appearance and composition is enough to make a distinction.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that Frankenstein and Adam are similar to robots in many ways but are not themselves robots.

People can be conflicted and think about their place in society as well but this does not make us robots either. Take an origin story of people being made out of clay by God/a god. This does not make people robots even if they are thinking humanlike creations.

 

[werk]

They are called robots because they used to be slaves.

Like robots are.

They were emancipated, so now they are living constructs.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, random person on the Internet, my PhD professor in American Lit (which is what The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is) said explicitly there was no evidence that L. Frank Baum had any desire to write a parable about the gold and silver standards, despite generations of grad students looking for it.

Your professor is allowed whatever conspiracy theories he likes about children's literature, though.

Looks like we both get to bring out our profs and sit at a standstill then. Just shows that the debate is still open and that experts disagree (I mean, I know there were two sides--we learned both sides of the debate in class. I was just making a joke in response to Glyfair's post ). Anyway, given two experts who disagree, I would tend to trust the 'it is still being debated' assessment more than that it is closed in either way, anyway.

 

[Shayuri]

I guess I should say that when I say robot, I mean "artificial sentient people," not mindless metal automata. I'm not using the term perjoratively.

 

[Mallus]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I figure a fair percentage (though not all) of the people doing the "warforged=robots" stuff are using 'robot' as an easy pejorative term, just like the use of 'computer game' or 'anime' in "D&D is becoming too anime/much like a computer game".

Strangely enough, I do think that is a touch cynical, shil. 'Robot' is a just a far more common term/conceptualization. 'Robot' is the 'Xerox' of simulacra terms. Even to an audience of gamers who ought to up on all that old-time Golem of Prague lore and it's like.