Klaus
First Post
Olgar Shiverstone said:Robot = any mechanical device designed to do the work of man.
Look! Robots!




Olgar Shiverstone said:Robot = any mechanical device designed to do the work of man.
Hamburger Mary said:What about it? I'm not talking about reincarnation or golems. I'm talking specifically about warforged. One of the key principles of the warforged is that unlike golems, even the people who are creating them don't really understand how they work. They aren't choosing to make the warforged in humanoid shape; humanoid shape is the only form they've been able to produce.
I'm not talking about some sort of universal principle of magic; I'm talking about a fundamental aspect of the warforged. They can only be made in humanoid shape. They appear to have souls. Which has led the kalashtar to conclude that they have humanoid souls.
I acknowledge this as a valid answer to the OP's question: "People think that they are robots because we're conditioned as a culture to think 'robot' when we see a humanoid figure made of metal." However, for the reasons given above, I'd argue that once you have a deeper understanding of the setting, their humanoid appearance is once of the things that distinguishes them from robots (in my eyes). IMO, one of the key attributes of a robot is that it is a being designed for a purpose... designed to serve the needs of the creator. If it would be more useful for my robot to have treads, he'll have treads. I certainly wouldn't give him a sense of taste or the ability to feel pain - how would either of these things prove useful? The warforged have a sense of taste and can feel pain, and cannot be designed with tracks - because their shape isn't a function of the designer's intent. It's the only shape that they can be made it.
So I see them as more "artificial humanoid vessels for souls of the dead" than "robots" - though that's certainly an opinion requiring insight into the setting, and not one anyone would get on first glance.
Glyfair said: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).
Dice4Hire said:The reason I do not like Warforged, or Eberron for that matter, is the elements of steam-punk it brings to the game. If I want steam punk, I will play deadlands where it is well done, and believable. It just does not make sense in D&D,
I totally agree - so much that I said the same thing in another thread! The addition of muscles, weapons, and armour just makes him wicked fun for a fantasy game.Grymar said:Warforged are closer to Pinocchio than C-3PO.
Very well said, sir! Very well said indeed!Grymar said:Warforged are closer to Pinocchio than C-3PO.
They are made of wood (plus stone and metal) and by reasons not totally understood by their creator, they have full sentient life.
Grymar said:Warforged are closer to Pinocchio than C-3PO.
They are made of wood (plus stone and metal) and by reasons not totally understood by their creator, they have full sentient life.
And I'll bet he wouldn't. When I think "Asimov" and "robot", the next two words that come to mind are "Three Laws". Warforged don't have anything like the Three Laws, because they can't be programmed (beyond indoctrination or teaching techniques that work on any living creature). It's the point I've been making along. Astromech droids are programmed to perform set functions and given restraining bolts. The same is true of Asimov's robots. The Warforged, on the other hand, have far more in common with Frankenstein's monster than an astromech droid. Frankenstein could bring the creature to life - but he couldn't bring him to life knowing how to speak the binary language of moisture vaporators, and he certainly couldn't preprogram him not to hurt humans or, through inaction, to allow humans to come to harm.Olgar Shiverstone said:I bet if you described warforged to Isaac Asimov, he'd vote "robot".