Difference between revisions of "Talk:Personality Overlay Unit"
(Question about destructive nature of personality scanning) |
(inconsistency is okay, multiple versions could co-exist) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* In MgT, The Robot Handbook, it says, "The process that creates an agent wafer is destructive, destroying the brain while scanning it...” | * In MgT, The Robot Handbook, it says, "The process that creates an agent wafer is destructive, destroying the brain while scanning it...” | ||
--[[User:Pontifex|Pontifex]] ([[User talk:Pontifex|talk]]) 22:45, 19 March 2024 (EDT) | --[[User:Pontifex|Pontifex]] ([[User talk:Pontifex|talk]]) 22:45, 19 March 2024 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps the simplest way to reconcile canon inconsistency (in this case) is to just mention the possibility of multiple distinct versions of the technology, each with separate capabilities, risks, and limitations, and indicate they likely arise from different manufacturing origins and different neuroprogramming implementations. Allowing them all to simultaneously co-exist (despite possible contradictions among the source materials) seems fine, because (as another editor so wisely remarked) "it's a big galaxy". Referees can make up their minds about what they will or won't permit. | ||
| + | --[[User:KevinHutchins|KevinHutchins]] ([[User talk:KevinHutchins|talk]]) 16:20, 21 March 2024 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:20, 21 March 2024
I'd like to add something to this article about the destructive nature of personality scanners. But the canon seems inconsistent:
- Agent of the Imperium says, "The scanning is destructive. You will die during the process.” At this time this was said, on Capital, it was TL13, BTW.
- In T5 core rules it mentions nothing about the destructive nature of scanning, and in fact things like relicts would not be very feasible if it was destructive.
- In MgT, The Robot Handbook, it says, "The process that creates an agent wafer is destructive, destroying the brain while scanning it...”
--Pontifex (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2024 (EDT)
Perhaps the simplest way to reconcile canon inconsistency (in this case) is to just mention the possibility of multiple distinct versions of the technology, each with separate capabilities, risks, and limitations, and indicate they likely arise from different manufacturing origins and different neuroprogramming implementations. Allowing them all to simultaneously co-exist (despite possible contradictions among the source materials) seems fine, because (as another editor so wisely remarked) "it's a big galaxy". Referees can make up their minds about what they will or won't permit.
--KevinHutchins (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2024 (EDT)