Implement Synthetic Law Order

[Zelmana]

I have been reading a lot of Isaac Asimov lately.

Browsing the forum this morning I saw a complaint about how a cyborg was complained about lawset. A brief discussion of the default lawset was made, but a good point was made offhandedly about our lawsets. They do not, in traditional scifi fashion, follow an order of operations or a hierarchy of importance. I think this is a flaw and is something that I think should be discussed and possibly tweaked.

This would of course need some rework from the original Asimov ideology but I think it could work to drive some interesting roleplay scenarios. As a reminder, the three Asimovian laws are:

 

First Law

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[Marlon P.]

Asimov laws since their inception have been throughly explored. They have innumerable flaws and contradictions for even the simple dumb robots Aasimov envisioned.

This suggestion to return to hierarchy seems strange to me given the history of law conflicts in aurora itself in our server history.

An alternative should be to remove laws entirely and replace them with technobabble that achieves the goals of what we want from synth behavior while allowing human judgement calls that traditional lawed synths get catch-22'd by.

I guess since this rejects the status quo and your suggestion it is a -1; I dont think hierarchied laws will solve the problem more than bring back the problems caused by hierarchical laws

We oocly dont want flawed robots outside anyags or events.

Laws make flawed robots.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Marlon P.

[Zelmana]

@Marlon P. The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps we are wrong in assuming we want flawless synthetic play. The situations discussed in I, Robot are examples of this, of course. 

Asimov's laws of course are flawed. I think that would be an interesting narrative and space for roleplay.

[Marlon P.]

@Zelmanai understand. It sounds like you want flawed rulesets allowing flaws robots - something totally valid.

How would that affect people's gameplay as synths and alongside synths, do you think? 

Are there histories of player complaints about synths "following their laws" in ways that frustrate players?

[Zelmana]

53 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

@Zelmanai understand. It sounds like you want flawed rulesets allowing flaws robots - something totally valid.

How would that affect people's gameplay as synths and alongside synths, do you think? 

Are there histories of player complaints about synths "following their laws" in ways that frustrate players?

The preexisting lawset is similarly flawed- you can look at a complaint by Playbahnosh.
The interpretation of lawsets is always something that can cause some sort of conflict. Primarily it is IC conflict, but of course there are sometimes instances where players are frustrated. Same with corporate regulations.

I believe that if we allow for a hierarchical lawset that would allow for more synthetic expression and ultimately choice on how to roleplay and interpret those laws. Since it's a flawed system there is room for interpretation. A big part of this will allow for more nuanced synthetics when it comes to decision making, a in character narrative of what it means to be lawed, as well as a in universe philosophical issue.

Gameplay alongside of synths that have a hierarchical lawset will allow for the synths to interpret the laws and perhaps even have catch cases or complex exceptions. In antagonistic roleplay this can be expanded, and is currently to some degree.


Overall it's just flexibility in roleplay scenarios and adds some fluff to "the big question" synthetic roleplay.

[Zelmana]

And something I would say, Marlon, is that our current lawset does not 'solve the problem' that were preexisting with hierarchical laws. When we had hierarchy laws we had some great cyborg/synth roleplay that focused around the very nature of lawset order. A lot of that was lost with every law is equal mechanics.

With any system of laws, no matter how concrete, there will be catch cases, exceptions, and bending of words. It would be better to allow this to happen in character and still address problematic incidents as one off bad rp.

[Marlon P.]

I understand; it sounded like this was a fix to a more perfect system. It sounds now you also know that hierarchy-laws is flawed but in a better ic way.

I think im at a 0 for endorsement instead of a -1; I've developed a desire for replacing ss13's cliché of lawsets completely so flaws are done thru RP and not a checklist, so swapping back and forth I don't have strong opinions on. I do agree with most everything you've said though....

Actually idk a +1 since a hierarchy gives a more clear chain of decisions for a synth to follow. Maybe its more player friendly.

+1 i talked myself into it thru my post

[Arrow768]

Moved to policy suggestions as you want to change a standing policy.

We used to have ai/borg laws that were similar to asimov.
It resulted in the borgs attacking any non-human antag and generally interfering with the antags (playing bullet sponge, rushing into hostage situations to pull out hostages, attacking changelings, ...)

Given all the problems we had with that lawset and law priorities that value the life of the crew above the borg, I am opposed to returning to that lawset / law priorities.

I have no interest in returning to a situation where borgs are again allowed (and required by their laws) to rush into situation and try to meddle with the antags.
I am voting for dismissal unless you can come up with a lawset that accounts for these issues and explain why it is a better option than the current lawset.

[Scheveningen]

Opposed. Equivalent priority lawsets lead to much more complicated situations for synthetic players to have to handle and logic-box their way out of the issue or otherwise resolve the conflict that is originally causing the situation to arise in the first place. This leads to much deeper and more interesting character choices on the synthetic side than if they were ordered in terms of priority.

Taking away the intentional difficulty of handling certain social situations from a stationbound synthetic perspective while offering nothing meaningful in return isn't a good policy change.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Scheveningen

[MattAtlas]

Voting for dismissal for the reasons that Arrow outlined.

[Zelmana]

I would argue that the issues that Arrow detailed still occur and are dealt with as standard fail rp as evidence by complaint lodged by Playbahnosh yesterday.

These problems can exist in both lawsets.

I would say that as for which lawset permits more logic box and interesting roleplay than the equivalent lawset. It is easier in Asimov's to get out of the "logic box", allowing for better situations. Note that in each lawset you can logically do whatever you like with enough reasoning and logic. It's just that Asimov provides a better standing and lore for it, be it antag or trinary perfection awakening the synth soul.

 

Would Restate that this is not at all below.

8 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

Taking away the intentional difficulty of handling certain social situations from a stationbound synthetic perspective while offering nothing meaningful in return isn't a good policy change.

The current lawset is also intentionally flawed. There is hardly a change here. What is changing, however, is the in world mode of the logic. You are equally able to out-logic both lawset as we've seen time and time again. Those who are unable to provide sufficient logic for their actions are no better than a commander rushing an antag.

A lawset provides lore fluff, quality of rp is determined by the player and enforced by rules. The lawset exists in universe.

 

As for "much deeper and interesting character choices", I would argue that Asimovisn literature would disagree. Conferences, books, plays, movies, research papers, and more stem from Asimov conflict of law order. It is a trope we are missing out on.

 

At the end of the day players can defeat both lawsets with enough paid, but by reverting to Asimov we provide a better in universe platform for doing so. Not easier, but certainly more flexible. Those who are likely to abuse it would have done so under our current lawset, which is just as restricting as Asimov. By introducing the order of laws we add a layer of complexity to the roleplay which is more than current standards. Note that any situation now where players logically escape the lawset are still possible under Asimov, so discussion points that state "this will remove complex rp arcs" are moot, as Asimovisn literature would enhance this roleplay not revert it.

 

 

 

 

[Zelmana]

+ Funny