Based in part of talk about roleplaying posthumans, I'm trying to plan how to roll with good hard sci-fi using Sorcerer. So here's the thoughts I've got so far, and I've appreciate more brainstorming.

Setup The players are baseline humans in the Orion's Arm universe. They will live in a world that is populated with important being that are very much beyond their control - evolved nanoswarms, AI-Gods, cyborgs, transcended humans. They are baseline humans, and will be likely living mainly among them, but this technology is omnipresent, and seems to present means of power, transcendence, ascension, and certainly destruction if one is not careful.

Premise How much of your Humanity will you give up to get what you want? How "human" will yo ube at the end? What does "human" mean anyway?

Humanity & Lore Humanity is very literally "human-ness", i.e. how well you identify biologically, empathically, morally, intellectually, socially with your fellow baseline humans. Lore is your ability to understand and interact with this higher-level world. I may use Humanity as the primarily ability for a challenging act of empathy with a fellow human, and use Lore rolls when there is difficulty interacting with higher level beings.

Demons All transhumanist augmentations that increase your power, but push you away from "humanness". Most of these are obviously Objects or Parasites (cyborg augmentations, genetic modifications, powerful items), some are Inconspicuous or Passers (mainly virtual-only AIs, perhaps some autonomous robots), and even Possessors (certain memes). You bind these to yourself to enhance your power, but certainly at a cost to your humanity.

Angels If I use them at all, Angels would represent powers that are autonomous and greater than you - god-like AI nanoswarm things and the like - that you can try to draw power from, but certainly can never bind to yourself as Demons can be.

Challenges:
- Can this promote the thematic question of examining what humanity means, precisely?
- Would this entail changing what humanity means? Is "human-ness" too vague? Will this collapse partly into simple Empathy? (I would also consider humanness to be "treat others and oneself as an end and not a means", such that becoming a tool of others (like Demons) or making others your tool (like Angels) weakens your Humanity.)

Neat idea! I have a few criticisms though:

Angels: The way you describe them, paticularly about how using them damages your humanity, doesn't seem very 'angelic'... What I think Angels would be in this universe, would be beings that went beyond being human, but somehow, still human, like if because after transcending mundane existence they discovered something very human. Don't know if it would work in the Orion's Arm universe because I'm not familiar with it.

I really like your concept of Lore & Humanity, and think you could expand it a little bit, to where you could use Humanity to understand human behavior, or motivate others/yourself based on human concepts. It hits me that in most cases it should be a Humanity vs. Lore roll or a Lore vs. Humanity roll.

I like the idea of humanity connected to not treating others like a tool... it connects the concepts of posthuman and empathy rather well, and is something that works for Sorcerer.

What this sort of game seems to ask for, is a scenario that is either a power play or a moral dilemnia, depending on how Human the players are going to approach it.

My take on Angels (thematically, in this setting) is leaning less towards "positive" Angels, with Grace and the like, and more towards simply Powerful Folk who you want backing you. If you're familiar with Babylon 5, I would see the Angels as being Vorlonesqe. I think the big difference is: Demons (personal augments, like a robotic arm or backup brain) can be used as tools, albeit dangerous ones, and you think you're in control. Angels (planet-running AIs, powerful posthuman powerbrokers, think "Wintermute") are autonomous with their own unfathomable agenda, and you more or less get owned by them (they bind you). Basically, I'm not looking for Angels as a source of Humanity leverage (i.e. Grace), or in general making the characters' life any easier.

It hits me that in most cases it should be a Humanity vs. Lore roll or a Lore vs. Humanity roll.

Why can't you just model the powerful beings as powerful passing or inconspicuous demons instead of Angels? Its seems to me that Angel vs. Demon should have more to do with the goals and methods of the entity rather than the form it takes. Essentially, demons are super-human beings with selfish, usually destructive desires and needs that don't care about humanity. Angels are super-human beings who, while not themselves human, do care about the fate of humanity and actively work for the betterment of humans. The only problem with Angels is that they are very concerned with the big picture, and have little concern with what they see as the unimportant concerns of individual humans.

Hiya,

Chapter 3 in The Sorcerer's Soul is very explicit about the many options for using Angels, including the most basic one of simply treating them as demons.

But isn't that getting away from the post-human issue, or at least veering from it slightly?

Dev, let's get to the sorcerers themselves. If the person organizing a sorcerer game presented you with the synopsis you posted, then what sort of character might you propose?

Best,
Ron

Alright; for now let's shelve the Angels in the setting, since thematically I was really more interested in the Demon angle besides.

Dev, let's get to the sorcerers themselves. If the person organizing a sorcerer game presented you with the synopsis you posted, then what sort of character might you propose?

A couple good sources for this kind of stuff:

Psion, and the sequel Catspaw, by Joan D. Vinge.
Dream of Glass, by Jean Mark Gawron
Radix, by A. A. Attanasio

Particularly the "backup" selves you mention play a big part in Dream of Glass, in which if you are revived with less than a certain percentage of your original persona intact, you are considered a new monad, the "causal antecedent" of your previous self, and inherit all of your prior incarnation's belongings... but are legally a whole new person. Also lots of nifty stuff about AIs on the brink of sentience, all that sort of thing. The Vinge stuff has lots about cybernetics, psionics, and the exploration of the interface between them. And Attanasio's absolutely amazing epic Radix covers pretty much every territory you could possibly want to mine for this kind of thing.

Enjoi ^_^

Dev wrote:
Premise How much of your Humanity will you give up to get what you want? How "human" will yo ube at the end? What does "human" mean anyway?

Humanity & Lore Humanity is very literally "human-ness", i.e. how well you identify biologically, empathically, morally, intellectually, socially with your fellow baseline humans. I may use Humanity as the primarily ability for a challenging act of empathy with a fellow human [...]

Challenges:
- Can this promote the thematic question of examining what humanity means, precisely?
- Would this entail changing what humanity means? Is "human-ness" too vague? Will this collapse partly into simple Empathy? (I would also consider humanness to be "treat others and oneself as an end and not a means", such that becoming a tool of others (like Demons) or making others your tool (like Angels) weakens your Humanity.)

I think I tried to make "human-ness" (as evidenced by Jury) a very vague "good", if it's good at all. There are a cluster of things that are "human" - accepting the fact of one's flesh and physical nature, desiring autonomy, treating others as sentient equals, feeling affinity and loyalty for other humans and especially those of your "tribe": a mixture of human-ness as primal and some basic ethics. I worry this might make for an overly vague definition of Humanity, and it also means that I will have to come down firmly on issues that are indeed vague.

How about: "Humanity: I am a human being, and I primarily empathize, identify, relate and affine to other humans, more than others. Zero Humanity: I can no longer relate to humans or accept them as equals." Replace "human being" with "non-transcendent sentient" as needed.

You make a good point about the "machines of loving grace" angle. That side should be presented because I don't want to just come off as a Luddite; evolution is not evil, it's merely potentially not-human. Certainly, seeing an ascended human or sentient AI act with Humanity will do powerful things for broadening how your character interprets "humane". (Indeed, such an event could even lend Grace if you wanted to go that way; relearning your Humanity once you've lost your grip.)

Nev the Deranged wrote: A couple good sources for this kind of stuff:

Hi Dev,

You're pinpointing the source of much of my frustration with transhuman-SF, most of which I don't like very much.

Basically: is being a human being good or bad? Is becoming transhuman dehumanizing, in the moral sense? And if so, is that good or bad?

I think these questions are independent of one another, which would seem, to me, to yield some really excellent opportunities for thematic, even disturbing conflict. Or at the very least, plain old intriguing imagery, like at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey, or (better) Altered States.*

Nearly all of the fiction I've read along these lines not only fails to provide answers, but even fails to bring out the shot-to-the-heart questions into the characters' situations. All too often, whether it's Iain Banks or Michael Bishop or Walter Jon Williams or whoever, I'm just goin' ... yeah, so? And?

So I guess what I'd look for in a Sorcerer game of this type is a little sense of what "transhuman" actually adds to the picture, in terms of ethical input and choices during play. It seems very likely to me that many current authors are merely throwing the term in there and, basically, using it as an excuse not to have any sort of outcome worth reading 500 pages for.

Whooo, it's such an evolved consciousness, it's soooo incomprehensible, and man, it's got nanotech and mystic shit and holograms ...

... and so what? I am convinced that many SF authors have addressed this, wonderfully, but it's not the trappings and pop terminology that really interest me - it's the situation.

I suggest considering that what the characters, in-game, would consider "transhuman vs. human," and that what SF-fans, as readers/viewers, would consider "transhuman vs. human," not actually correspond with how Humanity is applied as the game mechanic.

Best,
Ron

* Yes, I know this is heresy, but I really do think that Altered States is the better movie, despite the amazing middle sequence in 2001.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Dev,
You're pinpointing the source of much of my frustration with transhuman-SF, most of which I don't like very much.

Basically: is being a human being good or bad? Is becoming transhuman dehumanizing, in the moral sense? And if so, is that good or bad?

Prospero spread his arms in a conciliatory gesture. “An archetypal quest narrative must be kept simple. To burden it with technicalities — ”

Sachio inclined his head briefly, fingertips to forehead, downloading information from the polis library. “Do you have any idea what archetypal narratives are?”

“Messages from the gods, or from the depths of the soul; who can say? But they encode the most profound and mysterious — ”

Sachio cut him off impatiently. “They're the product of a few chance attractors in flesher neurophysiology. Whenever a more complex or subtle story was disseminated through an oral culture, it would eventually degenerate into an archetypal narrative. Once writing was invented, they were only ever created deliberately by fleshers who failed to understand what they were. If all of antiquity's greatest statues had been dropped into a glacier, they would have been reduced to a predictable spectrum of spheroidal pebbles by now; that does not make the spheroidal pebble the pinnacle of the artform. What you've created is not only devoid of truth, it's devoid of aesthetic merit.”