Strolen\s Citadel content. 
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-02-21 12:47 PM
>The advert part at the top makes it look like the unit is for domestic/ commercial other than >governmental/ institutional use. It just has the same feel as a toaster ad.

That was the feel I was going for actually, or something from a Soldier of Fortune magazine.

>Does this follow Asmovian Rules, or just can't be an offensive? Since it is really smart, it >gets to decide what it can do?

Not formally - the world view where this is invisioned had a bad experience with automated soldiers, so armed Robots are banned. It is smart within the domain of it's programming. It could be reprogrammed as a combat unit in defiance of the treaty.

>If this thing is smarter than your average human soldier, then why does need to be directed by a >human medic? Why not a soldier?

Primarily for the same reason as they can't be armed. They are smart, but not allowed to have initiative. As to why not soldiers and only medics, command and control reasons. Dumb Grunts are not trained to direct medical robots (for good or ill). They are intended to reduce the number of medics per unit and therefore reduce the training costs of larger formations. One human medic can direct numerous RR80's.

>And does it have to obey? So if you don't like your buddy, you can order this thing to jump on >him?

No - it would ignore that order unless your buddy was injured and required it's services. An NCO or officer could probably override this, but you bet there would be a note in the after action report. It is programmed with basic Military operations, so it is rank aware. One might even assign a rank to the robot, but again under treaty obligations, it cannot give orders to combat soldiers.

>Will it work on the opposition? Can I tell it to jump on another guy (who is hopefully injured)? >Or if he is about to kill me, he is obviously sick (in the head) and must be subdued and taken >for treatment.

It is not programmed for Human Medical (Psycological) so 'sick in the head' is beyond its area of knowlege. It could be ordered to help even the opposition, i.e. prisoners. It would be possible to use it offensively in this manner, but I think shooting the enemy would be simpler.

Since it is not extraordinarily effective as a combantant (at least without programming upgrades), using it offensively is not practical. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-02-22 04:08 PM
I've got a few more in mind. The response to modern+ seems less then for fantasy.
I like people poking technical holes in the subs - lets me be more through on the next ones.

I'll start marking the more way out ones with Science Fantasy I guess :) Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-02-23 02:15 PM
Which part of the sub do you consider a logic hiccup? The fact that it can be used to attack is not a hiccup in my mind.

Kineticite is another story, but I am not entirely convinced something like it is not possible. Perhaps not explosive, I'll grant. Since it is Sci-Fi, it needs to be somewhat plausible. Going further then that is actual design and if I figure out how to store energy with nanoscale flywheels, I'd better apply for my patent now! :) It's purpose it to provide a non-chemical explosive to a sci -fi setting. Sci fi is all about What If, not What is. Some of the best Sci-fi i've read is entirely implausable by todays (or yesterdays) physics (i.e. ANY FTL) and do not follow Newtonian Physics. (Which, are not in 100% concurrance with General Relativity anyway, at least at the larger end of the scale, at least according to some articals in Discover,etc, I've read...)

The setting that most influenced me was one where disputes were settled with low-tech mercenary battles (19th century arms only) and I just moved the timeframe for allowed weapons a little further, and added the rules against robots directly fighting. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-02-23 02:17 PM
As to Advice Requested, its a good idea, but nothing I've ever put there has received advice. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-02-23 04:03 PM
Okay, took that peice out of my comment - I was getting too defensive there. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-03-01 06:13 PM
Thanks Iain!
The Kineticite post got hammered over the science moreso then the two robots. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2007-06-07 12:30 PM
An ancestor robot...

http://www.time.com/time/2006/techguide/bestinventions/inventions/military.html Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
valadaar's comment on 2009-11-28 07:59 PM
Just realized that I posted no actual description here . :)

Need to add one! Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
Wulfhere's comment on 2007-02-22 02:59 PM
Not bad. I like the presentation and the suggested limitations on combat machines. I can't see such limits being consistently enforced, as there would be too much incentive for various forces to "skirt the rules". Despite this, in a universe where direct offensive capability is prohibited to robotic intelligences, numerous support functions could be taken over by robotic systems.

I could see a few minor programming changes being installed to produce the RR80-P (Pacifier) variant: A robot programmed to keep prisoners sedated, but maintain their health. Under human supervision, it would complete medical procedures designed to ensure that the prisoner could not escape, such as temporarily blocking the nerves needed for sight or mobility and inserting tracking devices into the body, or even administering brainwashing chemicals.

Once the medical procedures were completed, it would maintain a medical watch upon the prisoner, ensuring that he was kept sedated and compliant without unduly damaging his health.

Measures like this could become a bone of contention between the different sides of a conflict, as they argue about whether such behavior is prohibited by treaty. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
Wulfhere's comment on 2007-02-23 01:13 PM
It's almost impossible to anticipate every possible error or objection: Few of us are minds of the "Buckaroo Banzai" mold, able to do brain surgery in the morning, set a new land speed record in the afternoon, then have a rock concert in the evening. There will always be something to overlook, whether it's a quirk of social dynamics or a wrinkle of fluid dynamics, no one will consistently see everything.

This is where a group like this can really shine, however. I would suggest that Science Fiction pieces be routinely thrown into the "Advice Requested" bin; we need to then make an effort to give more feedback to authors trying to develop these pieces.

The robotic corpsman suggests a setting post to describe the historical and technological forces that led to its development. Go to Comment
RR80 Corpsman
Lifeforms  (Constructed)   (Any)
Wulfhere's comment on 2007-02-23 03:28 PM
"As for needing to build a whole setting to support the sub, I'm not in agreement."

You misunderstand my intent: I didn't think that a setting post was necessary; I thought that a setting post would be a worthy follow-up to the piece. Future settings where independent AI has been tried and found too dangerous have often been seen before (Dune comes to mind), but new variations on the theme are always welcome, and might suggest other, companion pieces about the technology and cultures of such a setting.

"As to Advice Requested, its a good idea, but nothing I've ever put there has received advice."

I found that I need to specifically ask people to comment before I get much feedback. We are all guilty in that regard and need to take more initiative. Until we establish a way to encourage thoughtful feedback, I recommend that authors actively solicit such. Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
manfred's comment on 2007-02-20 02:21 PM
Found myself nodding in agreement as I was reading it - all seems to fit together; it makes for a good race to populate the mountainous or arctic regions, the amount of detail is just fine to get the feel, whether they are a long-dead race, or still existing.

Strangely enough, after refreshing my memory of the 'Boots', I like them more than this post - though they both compliment and improve each other. Good work done here! Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
manfred's comment on 2007-02-21 02:52 AM
Actually, if this is/can be a remake of the Yeti, you could link it into the 'New Take On...' codex. How about that? Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
CaptainPenguin's comment on 2007-02-20 09:23 PM
Very interesting, very cool... Reminds me of my "House of the White Apes" adventure that I did, though the white apes in that were quite different Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
MoonHunter's comment on 2007-02-21 12:08 PM
Nicely done new take. It gives a nice spin on what we expect for yet a Yeti.

In many ways, the "monsters" we expect Yeti to be are the remains of the destroyed race - The Uneaten Ones. These undead creatures go along and continue to attack those who brought it (and its species) to an untimely death. Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
Cheka Man's comment on 2007-02-20 07:14 PM
I wish I could make good posts like this. Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
Murometz's comment on 2007-02-20 07:19 PM
I like how you structured the sub. It never bogs down. Love the opening air toxicity misconception!

As manfred said, you managed to include all the necessary details, on an interesting race. Nice Yeti remake indeed! Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
Murometz's comment on 2009-01-27 10:58 AM
BUMP. Another good one. New take on Yeti, or even a new take on ad&d's "Taers" :) a culture added to monster is always nice Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
axlerowes's comment on 2014-04-05 03:20 PM
First of all I have group called the Theosians in one of my campaign worlds. There home is Theosia not Theos. It wasn't very digital campaign so not a lot gets posted here but still I guess some words just sound the part.

Second, this is excellent, I love the story of the naturalist, the uneaten, everything
Go to Comment
Asrok (New Take on Yeti)
Lifeforms  (Fauna)   (Mountains)
valadaar's comment on 2007-01-08 11:39 AM
Religion

The Asrok enjoy a very close relationship with their patron dieties. The low population of the race has also served to limit the power of their pantheon, and their gods are viewed (at best) as demons by the dieties of Human religions. The Shamans of the Asrok have moderate powers granted to them, but the age of miracles for the Asrok has long past.

The Asrok pantheon is small, consisting of four major dieties and a swarm of minor spirits:

Dieties of the Asrok

Luukos -'Father' diety
Meluuna - 'Mother' diety
Karuun - Lord of the beasts (Literally, anything non-Asrok)
Sharuun - Gaurdian of Spirits

The Spirit Hosts

In addition to the major dieties, the Asrok have hundreds of spirits tied to most animals, natural phenomena, emotions and tasks. These minor sprits are invoked in much of Asrok speech.

Burial Customs

The Asrok do not burn or bury their dead. If the death is not associated with sickness they practice ritual cannibalization. Those who die of disease or poisoning are carried out to the edge of their lands and left for the scavangers. In both cases the process is accompanied by much ritual and mourning.

The need for these rituals is so strong with the Asrok that those who die and do not have this performed are likely to raise as Eer'Shak, or 'Uneaten Ones'. This is the only known form of undead derived from the Asrok. Go to Comment
Total Comments:
2407

Join Now!!




Fatal error: Call to undefined function top_menu() in /home/strolen/public_html/lockmor/application/views/citadel/vfooter.php on line 2