PDA

View Full Version : A golem's intelligence



Shades of Gray
2008-12-06, 04:12 PM
If you told a golem or similar construct under your control to "Kill all the orcs in the room" what would happen if there was a Half-Orc? By RAW half-orcs count as orcs for all purposes of Items, and other stuff. Would the golem or other construct attempt to kill the half-orc?

Spiryt
2008-12-06, 04:20 PM
It's the question of how the golem percieves the reality what words and other things he exactly know. Such details aren't covered by any rules, and are up to DM.

I personally will say that he will attack Half orc - even if it was programed anyhow do discern races, half orc are too similar to orcs for poor golem.

Enlong
2008-12-06, 04:27 PM
Kill All Orcs.
Kill All Orcs.
*scanning*
Half-orc. Not An Orc.
..
..
Kill All Orcs.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-06, 04:31 PM
I'd assume a golem with such orders would easily be fooled by a disguise.

kamikasei
2008-12-06, 04:35 PM
I don't think a golem would be an "item" for this purpose, unless you want to open up the interesting possibility of using UMD to deceive golems as to your traits.

lisiecki
2008-12-06, 04:37 PM
If you told a golem or similar construct under your control to "Kill all the orcs in the room" what would happen if there was a Half-Orc? By RAW half-orcs count as orcs for all purposes of Items, and other stuff. Would the golem or other construct attempt to kill the half-orc?


If the half orc looks like an orc, id say yes. if its on the human side of looks id say no, of corse id also say that he would kill ANYTHING in the room that looked like an orc

arguskos
2008-12-06, 04:40 PM
If the half orc looks like an orc, id say yes. if its on the human side of looks id say no, of corse id also say that he would kill ANYTHING in the room that looked like an orc
This could get entertaining quickly. Wait for the rogue (not an orc) to enter the room. Then cast Silent Image on him and make him look like an orc. Watch the hilarity ensue.

Ooo, ooo, use illusions to make the golem look like an orc!! Watch it kill itself!

Man, I need to play an illusionist again. Good times, good times.

lisiecki
2008-12-06, 04:44 PM
This could get entertaining quickly. Wait for the rogue (not an orc) to enter the room. Then cast Silent Image on him and make him look like an orc. Watch the hilarity ensue.

Ooo, ooo, use illusions to make the golem look like an orc!! Watch it kill itself!

Man, I need to play an illusionist again. Good times, good times.

Ya I do tend to GM for the LULZ.
Still the Golem doesn't have access to the rule books, so hows it going to figure out what is and orc, and what isn't an orc.

I would feel quite O.K. thinking that the only way they can tell is by sight.

arguskos
2008-12-06, 04:46 PM
Ya I do tend to GM for the LULZ.
Still the Golem doesn't have access to the rule books, so hows it going to figure out what is and orc, and what isn't an orc.

I would feel quite O.K. thinking that the only way they can tell is by sight.
Nothing wrong with being the DM of the Lulz, my friend. :smallbiggrin:

Though I would reason that a golem has magical senses equal to a human's.

hamishspence
2008-12-06, 04:56 PM
Magic items, ranger special abilities, etc that work only on orcs, work on half orcs.

So, in that sense, Half orcs are, for the purposes of magic and feats, orcs, so you could make a case that it would attack the half orcs as well.

Magnor Criol
2008-12-06, 05:06 PM
I would probably say one of two things:

One, as has been suggested, it discerns the targets by sight, so if the halforc looks like an orc he's toast, but if he takes after his human side he'll be alright.

The other option, though, is a sort of technical analysis of magic: Because magic sees halforcs as orcs, and golems are animated by magic, then the golem would scan the halforc as an orc and attack, regardless of appearance. Whatever it is in magic that senses halforcs as orcs would do the same for the golem.

Honestly, which I choose would depend on my players, and the tone of the campaign we're playing.

starwoof
2008-12-06, 05:11 PM
I think the golem would chop the half orc in half.

lisiecki
2008-12-06, 05:27 PM
Nothing wrong with being the DM of the Lulz, my friend. :smallbiggrin:

Though I would reason that a golem has magical senses equal to a human's.

Acually

I've now decided that the golem would classify "orc's" has having to legs, to arms, and a head...

Defiant
2008-12-06, 05:57 PM
Acually

I've now decided that the golem would classify "orc's" has having to legs, to arms, and a head...

I understand "to arms", a phrase that tells everyone to get ready for combat... but I don't understand "to legs".

"Sir, the orcs are attacking!"
"TO LEGS!!!"

FMArthur
2008-12-06, 06:25 PM
It means "get the hell out of there!"

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-06, 08:39 PM
The thing is, the whole concept of a mindless automaton that only follows orders is a load of baloney. Genuinely mindless things can't follow orders, because they don't understand language. A mindless automaton doesn't know what an orc is or how to distinguish orcs from non-orcs because it doesn't know anything.

(Zombies are supposed to be both mindless and blindly obedient, and also to be Neutral Evil instead of Neutral or Lawful Neutral, just for added lulz.)

An intelligent golem would presumably do its best to guess exactly what its master meant by "orc". Of course, if it was just instructed to kill orcs, it would probably kill half-orcs just to be sure it was following orders. It gets more complicated if it's instructed to kill only orcs.

RandomNPC
2008-12-06, 10:08 PM
i'm reading a story called tales of M.U. based on a half demon going to get a degree in applied enchantments. There's the elf dorms in the woods, the dwarven dorms in the cellars (its a secret) the human dorms all over the place, and the "everyone else" dorms. In the everyone else dorms is the half demon, two nymphs, a swan maden, a human who was born with a permant stoneskin, a few half ogres, a cross dressing half elf, and a golem who was told "think for yourself"

this story is kind of influenced by D&D and at the begining the golem would read signs that were ment to be friendly reminders, like "please keep the loby clean" and spend hours doing things like cleaning the loby.

point is, you could rule the golem to have the preceptions of its creator (elves having keener ears and whatnot) and a memory of life experiences to fall back on. If the golem has never been shown an orc it doesn't know what to do and goes crosseyed for a moment before breaking down in tears, if the golem has been in a semesters worth of classes about anatomy, history, and religon, i think it could define an orc by looks, culture, and beleifs. so an orc is one of 3 things:
A: green with fangs
B: tribal
C: wearing a holy symbol of Grummsh

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-06, 11:43 PM
"Nobody says anything about my failure to comply." (http://www.talesofmu.com/story/bonus-stories/bonus-story-diary-of-a-golem-girl#more-98)

Two is an interesting character. She's so Lawful there isn't even room for Neutral. She is also more complex than she might seem at first glance. Her problem, initially, isn't her overwhelming desire to do as she's told, but her fundamental unwillingness to do anything else. But she doesn't want to only follow orders so much as she wants to always follow orders. She never walked off into the wilderness or tried to destroy herself to ensure that she's never given contradictory commands, and in fact had to be told not to follow people around just to receive instructions. She's clearly uncomfortable in situations where she has no standing orders to follow.

Um, anyway, Two is a good example of an intelligent artificial servant character. She's very much the opposite of a stereotypically resentful robot or golem compelled against its will to obey. Her maker did the smart thing to do when you're creating an AI, and made her genuinely want to obey, and not want anything else. (Oddly, this is supposedly unusual in the story universe, where there actually are a lot of resentful golems. Two longs to obey in addition to being magically compelled to obey her master.) At the time, he never expected that he would have cause to free her...

Starscream
2008-12-07, 12:29 AM
In my experience the answer is "Yes because the DM thinks its funny". If you tell it to "Watch this door for any sign of intruders" it will watch the intruders break in and then inform you when you next return. If you tell it "Kill everyone but me" it will begin murderously chasing butterflies around. If you say "Defend me from all threats" it will beat itself to death. If you say "Make me a quiche" prepare to see the inside of an oven. Your instructions should be detailed enough to put Roy's questioning of the Oracle the shame.

Demented
2008-12-07, 01:04 AM
Master: "Kill all orcs in this room."

Golem: "...."

Master: "What are you waiting for?"

Golem: "Are you an orc?"

Master: "Ulp!"

Dervag
2008-12-07, 02:22 AM
The thing is, the whole concept of a mindless automaton that only follows orders is a load of baloney. Genuinely mindless things can't follow orders, because they don't understand language. A mindless automaton doesn't know what an orc is or how to distinguish orcs from non-orcs because it doesn't know anything.Actually, it's reasonable if you look at the stories that all this magic is based on. Golems come from Jewish mythology, and they do have problems with literal obedience to orders.

A golem is assumed to be able to observe its world and react to its surroundings, but not to have an internal awareness of how it is acting. It cannot tell whether its actions are right or wrong, smart or stupid, effective or ineffective. In this sense it is "mindless" because it doesn't have an internal train of thought, only perception and action.

By analogy, consider a thermostat. A thermostat can 'sense' its surroundings (temperature-wise) and act to change them. But there's no internal thought process. If a thermostat is set incorrectly, it will produce absurd results like heating the house to tropical levels. Unlike mentally healthy humans and most healthy 'higher' animals, it doesn't stop doing something when it gets caught in a loop of inefficient or foolish action. It will follow whatever instructions you give it through the channels it is designed to accept instructions from.

Archetypal golems are supposed to be like that. Think of the broom carrying water in the story of the sorceror's apprentice- that's a very simple example of a golem.

Now, your golems don't have to be like that, but when considering the behavior of a D&D creature based in mythology, it's usually worth thinking about how it acts in the mythology.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-07, 03:48 AM
You seem to have mistaken my meaning. I'm not opposed to the idea of constructs that only do literally exactly as they're told, without regard for the consequences. What I have a problem with is the idea that a mindless construct can understand instructions. Knowing a language is supposed to be reserved for creatures with an Int of 3 or more. If you can tell your thermostat to start heating the house when Molly comes home, and the thermostat then actually does that, then you've got yourself a rather special thermostat.

A golem can lack emotions and desires other than to obey, but if it also lacks the ability to understand your orders, it'll just sit there doing nothing. It won't do what you say if it doesn't know what you mean. If it does do what you say, then it does know what you mean, which means that there's language-processing intelligence at work.

You could say, I suppose, that the golem obeys orders without understanding them. You could deny that human mental phenomena exist, either, if you wanted: I don't really think, my neurons fire and it gives the illusion that I'm thinking. But ridiculous philosophical wankery aside, one doesn't follow instructions that one doesn't understand, except by coincidence.

lisiecki
2008-12-07, 03:54 AM
Acually

I've now decided that the golem would classify "orc's" has having to legs, to arms, and a head...

:P

Please do forgive me
My hatred of the letter "w" made me mistake "to" and "Two"

Mastikator
2008-12-07, 05:19 AM
@Devils_Advocate, it's probably like a computer. It's mindless and can't think, but it does "understand" instructions.

Bouregard
2008-12-07, 09:15 AM
I would rephrase it as.

Kill anyone in this room as fast as possible except me and you.


but on the other hand. how does a golem know how to kill? A golem could think about it as force-feeding those enemys alcohol till they die. And the standart "ripping-the-head-off" is not universal appliable. I mean a orc will die, sure, a vampire not.

Dervag
2008-12-07, 09:22 AM
You seem to have mistaken my meaning. I'm not opposed to the idea of constructs that only do literally exactly as they're told, without regard for the consequences. What I have a problem with is the idea that a mindless construct can understand instructions. Knowing a language is supposed to be reserved for creatures with an Int of 3 or more. If you can tell your thermostat to start heating the house when Molly comes home, and the thermostat then actually does that, then you've got yourself a rather special thermostat.

A golem can lack emotions and desires other than to obey, but if it also lacks the ability to understand your orders, it'll just sit there doing nothing. It won't do what you say if it doesn't know what you mean. If it does do what you say, then it does know what you mean, which means that there's language-processing intelligence at work.

You could say, I suppose, that the golem obeys orders without understanding them. You could deny that human mental phenomena exist, either, if you wanted: I don't really think, my neurons fire and it gives the illusion that I'm thinking. But ridiculous philosophical wankery aside, one doesn't follow instructions that one doesn't understand, except by coincidence.Your argument is eminently logical.

This appears to be a case where the problem is that the way magic works in-setting punches holes in what would be an ironclad argument in real life. By all appearances, one of the things that the magic which animates golems and other mindless creatures does is act as a sort of high-level programming language. It allows you to issue commands to the creature in normal speech and have them be understood and obeyed.

Thus, the golem does understand your instructions, in the sense that it can interpret them as inputs that result in appropriate actions. But from a philosophical standpoint, this does not require that the golem be capable of self-awareness or introspection. And those two traits are what it takes for golems to react the way sane intelligent beings do, to be subject to mind control, and so forth.

By analogy, with modern voice recognition software it is actually possible to build a machine that will recognize your voice and obey a defined list of commands. However, the machine will not anticipate your orders, will not innovate on its own, and will not be able to tell when it's doing something stupid.

The computer can in fact recognize your vocal commands as signals to do things, but by all evidence it lacks the internal awareness that we think of as "mind."
________

Your argument is based on the assumption that any being capable of processing language must have an intelligent mind. This is debatable, and is not a claim that all reasonable people agree on.
________


@Devils_Advocate, it's probably like a computer. It's mindless and can't think, but it does "understand" instructions.The idea that what computers do isn't thinking is also not a claim that all reasonable people agree on. A fancy enough computer could quite possibly do something that can only be called "thinking." And if a fancy computer can do it at all, then a simpler computer can do it to- more slowly.

That's actually been proven. Given the way computers work, their behavior can be described in terms of the actions of a "Turing machine." And anything one Turing machine can do, all Turing machines can do... eventually.

Jack_Simth
2008-12-07, 10:34 AM
You seem to have mistaken my meaning. I'm not opposed to the idea of constructs that only do literally exactly as they're told, without regard for the consequences. What I have a problem with is the idea that a mindless construct can understand instructions. Knowing a language is supposed to be reserved for creatures with an Int of 3 or more. If you can tell your thermostat to start heating the house when Molly comes home, and the thermostat then actually does that, then you've got yourself a rather special thermostat.

They've actually got face and voice recognition software now (although both tend to be a bit buggy). You *could* build a thermostat that could do that (it'd just be very, very expensive).

It still won't talk back to you (outside of pre-defined phrases), it won't suggest that you might want a coat if you're going outside (unless it's got some defined triggers for saying that), and it won't anticipate your orders (although you can set it up to do certain things on a schedule, and include assorted "override" situations).


A golem can lack emotions and desires other than to obey, but if it also lacks the ability to understand your orders, it'll just sit there doing nothing. It won't do what you say if it doesn't know what you mean. If it does do what you say, then it does know what you mean, which means that there's language-processing intelligence at work.

You could say, I suppose, that the golem obeys orders without understanding them. You could deny that human mental phenomena exist, either, if you wanted: I don't really think, my neurons fire and it gives the illusion that I'm thinking. But ridiculous philosophical wankery aside, one doesn't follow instructions that one doesn't understand, except by coincidence.
Your television doesn't understand orders either. Unless you do it in a way it's designed to respond to - like, say, the TV remote. The intelligence was a long time ago, in the design of the device. The device itself isn't intelligent.

Clever programmers have built machines that can handle a small amount of conversation (call up FedEx's help line sometime; it's got rudimentary voice recognition, and will route your call based on you saying particular stock phrases - "Customer Service" at the main menu followed a moment later by an answer to it's next question will get you to an actual person, if you don't have a task the computer can handle, and you're in a hurry), but nobody's yet built a computer that can carry on a conversation properly (the Turing Test).

That's actually been proven. Given the way computers work, their behavior can be described in terms of the actions of a "Turing machine." And anything one Turing machine can do, all Turing machines can do... eventually.
That's not completely accurate - a computer isn't a Turing machine. The classic Turing machine assumes infinite available memory, for one. For another, while you can create a set of states for a Turing machine which, with the correct input, will let it duplicate any Turing machine, defining something as a Turing Machine does not in and of itself grant the machine that particular property.

But what you say is accurate for a certain Turing machine, which is close enough....

kamikasei
2008-12-07, 10:44 AM
That's not completely accurate - a computer isn't a Turing machine. The classic Turing machine assumes infinite available memory, for one. For another, while you can create a set of states for a Turing machine which, with the correct input, will let it duplicate any Turing machine, defining something as a Turing Machine does not in and of itself grant the machine that particular property.

But what you say is accurate for a certain Turing machine, which is close enough....

A universal Turing machine can be programmed to do whatever any Turing machine can do. A computer (well, pretty much any computer you would call such) is an approximation to a universal Turing machine, but with limited memory.

So if you can build a sophisticated computer which is recognized as having thought, understanding, and a mind, you can emulate it on any Turing-complete machine if you can feed it enough memory. It'll probably be grindingly slow and therefore not function as an actual intelligence in the real world, though.

Draco Dracul
2008-12-07, 11:36 AM
I beleive the golem would beat the half-orc half to death.

Flickerdart
2008-12-07, 12:09 PM
I beleive the golem would beat the half-orc half to death.
Haha, awesome.

So, it would give a very distant fractional orc a good stern talking-to?

Shades of Gray
2008-12-07, 12:11 PM
Now, what about the order "Kill all the orcs in the room but leave and humans alive"?

MALFUNCTION

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-07, 04:20 PM
Turing machine! (http://xkcd.com/505/)


This appears to be a case where the problem is that the way magic works in-setting punches holes in what would be an ironclad argument in real life.
I'm not seeing how. If magic is the means of implementation, that just makes a golem's intelligence magical in nature. It doesn't make the golem non-intelligent.


But from a philosophical standpoint, this does not require that the golem be capable of self-awareness or introspection.
Quite so. I'm just saying that they should have Int, not that they should any more than the minimum Cha of 1 that lets them understand what their master means by "you".


Your argument is based on the assumption that any being capable of processing language must have an intelligent mind. This is debatable, and is not a claim that all reasonable people agree on.
"Intelligent" is a relative term. Fortunately, D&D treats intelligence as a quantifiable trait, not just an absolute, so that's not a problem here.

Toads, lizards, and snakes have Int scores of 1. What are these creatures capable of attempting that a golem cannot attempt if instructed to do so? Is not a golem generally assumed to be capable of actions more complex than the simple tricks that these animals can be taught?

Getting a machine to implement relatively simple natural language instructions is such a complicated task that it's pretty much going to be impossible to understand its program as a whole except as bunch of abstract modules. Getting it to be able to follow all of the orders that a human can is even more complicated, and means giving it human-level intelligence pretty much by definition.

Our minds do so much information processing subconscious that it's easy to think of mental phenomena as simple when they really, really aren't. I mean, think about it. In order to follow the command "Pick up the ball and bring it to me", a golem has to know not only what is meant by "pick up", "the", "ball", "bring", "it", and "me", it also has to be aware of a plethora of empirical information, like "Walking towards an object brings me closer to it."

A level of stupidity so severe that it could even quasi-legitimately be described as a total lack of intelligence is extremely limiting. Knowing what an orc is and how to recognize one, for example, is right the hell out. Mindless creatures automatically fail Knowledge(local) checks, period. Loads of categories, like e.g. "table", are sufficiently fuzzy that a mindless creature isn't going to have them, at least not like humans do. It will have extremely simplified versions of them at best.


They've actually got face and voice recognition software now (although both tend to be a bit buggy). You *could* build a thermostat that could do that (it'd just be very, very expensive).
Sure, I'm not saying you couldn't. I'm saying that such a thermostat would be unusually smart. :smallamused:


Now, what about the order "Kill all the orcs in the room but leave and humans alive"?

MALFUNCTION
"Two, how do you prioritize conflicting orders?"
"As I am instructed to."

Irreverent Fool
2008-12-08, 06:20 AM
While I agree that the functioning non-intelligent golem doesn't make sense, I feel that I once again must point out that golems are animated not strictly by magic but instead
The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.

This is true of all golems that do not specifically say otherwise. I don't understand why this is not an evil act or why channeling willing negative energy into a dead body to animate it is an evil act, but that's an argument for other threads.

If an earth elemental can tell the difference, I don't see why a golem can't.

On the other hand, the entry on golem also says they are incapable of any strategy or tactics. A less lenient DM may answer that differentiating between any individual opponents is impossible for the golem. If you're going this route, I would suggest limiting any commands given to one- or two-word orders.

Examples:
Kill them, Carry this, Follow, Stop Attacking

A meaner DM might pick up on that unwilling part and require specific instructions lest the golem follow directions literally but to the detriment of the commanding entity and/or his party.

Or you could limit a golem to the tricks you can teach an animal to do, including guard, heel, fetch, etc.

By RAW there is no clear definition of what 'simple orders' are, but using internal game logic noted by an above poster, it requires some sort of knowledge(local) ((covering humanoids)) to differentiate between any two humanoids and some sore of knowledge to differentiate between two creatures. Once you have directed a golem at a specific target, as long as it does not lose track of that target I see no reason it couldn't continue to pick it out from others, but aside from being magically compelled to follow the orders of the being it is bound to (its creator or someone else whom it has been ordered to obey), it isn't capable of any real perception. This would seem to be the closest answer by RAW and would make the creation and control of a golem very risky, which as has also been pointed out, is in concordance with the mythology.

This is why my wizard makes Tin Golems or golems with Rudimentary Intelligence.

obnoxious
sig

Zen Master
2008-12-08, 09:45 AM
Kill All Orcs.
Kill All Orcs.
*scanning*
Half-orc. Not An Orc.
..
..
Kill All Orcs.

Kill All Orcs.
Kill All Orcs.
*scanning*
Fleshbag-variant.
*kill-kill*
...
...
Kill All Orcs.

From a golem point of view, I'd say anything constructed from flesh and bones would be similar enough to warrant doubt - is that an orc or not? - and since golems don't much muck about with doubt, they'd just ... you know ... make sure.

I'd say the only proper command to the golem should be 'kill all orcs in the room - and do not kill anything else.'

Inyssius Tor
2008-12-08, 09:45 AM
Toads, lizards, and snakes have Int scores of 1. What are these creatures capable of attempting that a golem cannot attempt if instructed to do so? Is not a golem generally assumed to be capable of actions more complex than the simple tricks that these animals can be taught?
Learn. Golems are not capable of obtaining and utilizing new information except in very specific cases ("That creature is a 'manticore', and all creatures which match that visual appearance within a 75% confidence interval are 'manticores'. When you see a 'manticore', kill it with your axe;" alternatively, the wizard opens up the golem's head and manually inputs new programs). The key phrase is if instructed to do so. Technically I suppose it would be theoretically possible to give a golem this ridiculous full set of instructions that perfectly simulates a lizard's neural net, but that would be excruciatingly boring--you could just as well find an actual sentient henchperson in about that same amount of time.


A level of stupidity so severe that it could even quasi-legitimately be described as a total lack of intelligence is extremely limiting. Knowing what an orc is and how to recognize one, for example, is right the hell out. Mindless creatures automatically fail Knowledge(local) checks, period. Loads of categories, like e.g. "table", are sufficiently fuzzy that a mindless creature isn't going to have them, at least not like humans do. It will have extremely simplified versions of them at best.

Magic. Magic magic magic. PROBLEM SOLVED! In D&D, it's perfectly reasonable to say that people don't have to do all that complicated stuff, and that "walking towards an object brings you closer to it" is just something that everything knows. Including animated tables.

Holocron Coder
2008-12-08, 10:04 AM
I think the answer is obvious. :smallamused:

It'll beat the half-orc half to death. :smallbiggrin:

-beaten to death by the ant-pun golem-

R4ph
2008-12-08, 10:31 AM
Golem: "Kill all orcs... Kill all orcs..."
Orc: "Oh, I'm not an orc."
Golem: "What?"
Orc: "No, I'm a elf. Y'know, elves. Tall, Green skin, red eyes, big teeth. Now that guy over there, he's an orc. The one with the pointy ears? Those are orcs!"
*Natural 20*
Golem: "Kill all orcs... Kill all orcs.."
Elf: "Arghhh!"

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-08, 05:59 PM
I don't understand why this is not an evil act or why channeling willing negative energy into a dead body to animate it is an evil act, but that's an argument for other threads.
It does not say anywhere that I'm aware of that it isn't Evil. Imprisoning a sentient being is a form of oppression and thus Evil by default, like killing is Evil by default. ("'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.") Like killing, it might be non-Evil in some specific cases. Binding an Evil elemental might not be Evil, if this prevents it from harming innocents.

I don't think that it says anywhere that casting [Evil] spells is inherently Evil, either. Barring such a rule, the [Evil] descriptor just means that a Good-aligned divine spellcaster or divine spellcaster of a Good deity can't cast the spell, not that casting the spell is an Evil act. But, as you said, that's a discussion for elsewhere.


Learn.
You say this, and then go on to give specific cases in which golems can learn. :smalltongue: I'm sorry, but there's a fundamental difference between limited intelligence and a total lack of intelligence. Being unable to use your intelligence in some standard ways doesn't mean that you lack a mind, it means that you have a mental disability.


Magic. Magic magic magic. PROBLEM SOLVED! In D&D, it's perfectly reasonable to say that people don't have to do all that complicated stuff, and that "walking towards an object brings you closer to it" is just something that everything knows. Including animated tables.
What "complicated stuff"? I'm not sure I get your meaning.

I don't have a problem with golems being magical. I have a problem with intelligent creatures being classified as non-intelligent. It's like how, if a character casually slaughters his way through some random village, the alignment line on his character sheet should not say "Good" or even "Chaotic Neutral". And if a character sheet says one of those things, that doesn't actually make a character who acts like that Good or Chaotic Neutral, it means that the character sheet doesn't actually describe the character in question, and that saying that it does is lying.

Similarly, if you put an intelligent but blindly obedient creature into the game, then a description of a mindless creature does not apply to it. A description of a mindless but obedient creature doesn't describe it either; it describes nothing because it's internally contradictory. Magic cannot make the logically impossible possible. Nothing can do the logically impossible. Because it's, y'know, logically impossible.

Magical intelligence is intelligence that's magical. It's not a form of non-intelligence; saying that is just kooky and completely nonsensical. Knowledge is a mental phenomenon. So are goals, so a mindless creature shouldn't be able to try to kill, for example. It would have to be told that "kill" means "swing your axe at." Except that it's not supposed to have a memory, so it shouldn't be able to follow instructions because it's no longer aware of them after you give them. And it also really should not be able to understand a language in the first place. I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point.

I feel that words -- "intelligent", "mindless", "Good", "Evil", whatever -- should be used to actually mean things. That is to say, there should be a right answer to the question of whether a given noun or adjective actually applies to a given thing. If you treat a word as a label that you can just arbitrarily stick on to anything without regard for the properties and behavior of the thing you're sticking the label on, then it means nothing, which defeats the point of having it.

Hopefully this clarifies my position.

I favor Irreverent Fool's approach. Just assume that the golem is being controlled by a bound Earth elemental with an Int of 4, magically compelled to obey the golem's maker. Bam. Problem solved.

One more issue to consider is whether a golem gives higher priority to orders given earlier or orders given recently. If the former, you could hand off control of the golem completely, by ordering it to obey its new master and to disregard further orders from you. The MM entry indicates that this is not the case: "the golem’s creator can always resume control over his creation by commanding the golem to obey him alone." That suggests that earlier orders get higher priority. That means that a golem's master can't prevent it from obeying him while he's under someone else's control. So ideally, you dominate the evil wizard, have him order the golem to obey you, then kill him. :smallamused:

Flickerdart
2008-12-08, 06:03 PM
Let's see. What if you were ordered to kill all the orcs in the room? Would you cap the Half-orc? What difference does it make whether the underling is a golem or not?

Draco Dracul
2008-12-08, 06:10 PM
I think the answer is obvious. :smallamused:

It'll beat the half-orc half to death. :smallbiggrin:

-beaten to death by the ant-pun golem-

I beat you to that joke.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 06:18 PM
Let's see. What if you were ordered to kill all the orcs in the room? Would you cap the Half-orc? What difference does it make whether the underling is a golem or not?

Well, if it were me, I would analyze the situation.

Is the half-orc much stronger than me? If so, I say "OK, he didn't tell me to kill half orcs, so I'll let him go."

If not, I club him until he's unconscious and take him to my master, asking what he wanted me to do about half orcs. If he didn't want me to kill them, I can brush him off and splash him with water. If he did, we can slit his throat while he's out.

(And naturally, I'd go through his pockets first, either way.)

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 06:21 PM
I think it depends on the specific example.

A smart master will give the golem more visually-simple ways to define an enemy. One might be "attack anyone who doesn't have the safe symbol" and show him the symbol. Or "attack anyone not wearing red".

If the master wants only orcs to stay away, he'd be better off using some magic ward that actually can detect orcish blood and repulse creatures that have it, which would include half-orcs.

But golems have no special detection abilities that tell them the man under the suit of full plate is half-orc, half-lizardman, half-Haitian, or half-assed.

Golems have limitations, but one of their greater benefits is their semi-autonomy. A golem should be able to carry out very complex instructions, with the understanding that the more complexity the master adds the greater the chance something will come along that screws it up.

I do not see golems as computer software. A computer program will come upon something that doesn't work right and just crash, unless it's increadibly sophisticated. But in D&D we skip straight from stimulus-response magic like Magic Mouth and Alarm to "master wants me to use my judgement in attacking intruders, employing various special abilities and selecting the most appropriate opponents, setting off alarms when necessary, healing or fleeing if I feel necessary to make sure I don't fall apart". That's such a huge leap that I can't explain it technologically, so I must assume it doesn't work technologically.

EDIT: Another answer is that the golem demands to examine intruders. If it spots an orc straight off, he attacks the orcs and anyone who attacks him. If during an examination he sees an orc under a hood, same deal. But then the golem pricks the intruders' arms one by one and tests the blood to see if it's orcish. All along the way the PCs might secretly prepare for a fight, knowing things could turn bad any time.

This is kind of like how I'd see human guards doing it. They'd stop everyone who came through, check them out, toss back their hoods and helmets, rough them up, and if none were the least bit orcish the guards would let them pass.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 06:24 PM
A computer program will come upon something that doesn't work right and just crash, unless it's increadibly sophisticated.

It doesn't have to be that sophisticated, depending on the problem anyway. Throwing in some error checking is done in all but the laziest (i.e. school project) programs.

I do think of them as technology, but magic technology. Sort of like superscience.

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 06:27 PM
Yeah I was thinking ahead to a different part. What I meant was that I see problems occasionally with MS Excel. I mean seriously, unless it's tested to the bone sophisticated software has problems. The more complex the software, the greater the chance at encountering problems. And artificial intelligence is ... ahem ... somewhat complex.