RuneScape Forum Archive | The Player's Humanity

Farming Egg

Posts: 639 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Deltaslug said :
As much ad i hate to say this to a lore thread, you might want to pull out any comments based off the Ashdale Tutorial.
The jmods are seriously looking at pulling it with a return to the older Tutorial island...

...Perhaps your pc is an orphan that grew up with others that were "like family"
Or pergaps the player character is psycho and imagined that past as a justification to become the greatest serial killer and thief in history, all to the tune of "saving the day" (given the quest story lines, i kinda

I've cut down what you've said for space sake, but I will be replying to all of your points.

Regarding the use of dialogue from Ashdale, I didn't see anything regarding the Lore QA and them not being involved. I may have missed it, so please let me know the source so I can add it to what I've said. Regardless, I think its fair to say so long as it remains in the game, it can be considered canon. If Ashdale is removed, I will remove that point. Also, the point is rather weak when compared to other dialogue I found, it can be summed up as "The PC is special".

Your second point about the PC's past is 100% correct. Jagex have been leaving things vague to make sure people can build their own backstories. That is among other things such as limited evidence, why this is just a theory. The vagueness of the PC's past make it impossible to really say who they are outside of theory and what little is said in dialogue, at least in my opinion.

Finally, you could be correct, maybe the PC is a liar and made up all the facts we know about their past. Again, we simply don't know. However, we currently don't know a reason why the PC would lie, so its fair to say we can take what they've said with a grain of salt.

01-May-2018 12:19:33

Dec

2023

Mewzard

Posts: 954 Gold Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Byzantinist said :
However, I'd like to stick to your thesis we're just a superhuman for now - until Jmod confirmation or some NPC or litterature states that we're some other race instead: explicitely .

Well, while I do think we're human...we're more than Superhuman at this point. We've crossed every boundary this universe has to offer, we've gone toe to toe with the mightiest mortals, faced off with monstrous creatures that defy the imagination and put our foot down when gods got in our way.

We've mastered the Physical, the Mental, the Spiritual, we're craftsmen and artisans so gifted we'd be spoken of in legend for all time just because of that (just wait until Mining/Smithing lets us make that godly Tier 92 armor), much less our Arsene Lupin levels of thievery, masters of parkour, peak apothecaries, and even inventing devices that will revolutionize the future of humanity.

*random quest spoilers ahead*

We've been welcomed into cultures by trails of combat, opened up a massive ocean-wide trading empire long closed off, restored lost civilizations, became the ruler of a Kingdom, befriended Death, become the Chosen of a god, and even been given by that god the ability to resist divine powers to change us or overly harm us without our will.

We may not be gods, but at this point, I'd say power wise, we should at least fall on Tier 7.

I mean, I keep an Elder Artifact in my bank for laughs, plus the remains of two others in the Armadyl Battlestaff and the pieces of the Stone of Jas.

*end Spoilers*

This is not something normal people do. But I don't think we're abnormal because of bloodline. I feel we were born all too ordinary. We earned our amazing destiny, unrivaled skills, and unforgettable adventures via our own two hands.

We're a bit naive at times, and occasionally do dumb things...but we've got a good heart, and a drive that pushes us to exceed the bounds of mortality.

01-May-2018 20:22:20 - Last edited on 01-May-2018 20:23:55 by Mewzard

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

^
Most people don't have prophecies written about them long before they were born (fremmy questline), nor are they destined to be chosen by guthix to be the world guardian as a result of a bootstrap paradox, and most importantly, they are not known by Xau Tak, who has had an unknown amount of influence on the events of history and the pc's life.

The PC was far from being born ordinary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@OP

As much as I can see a lot of hard work was put into this thread, I also cannot see it ever coming to a conclusive answer until you develop a definite description for what the word "human" refers too. The word is not as intuitive as you may like to think; modern debates on abortion are point and case. This is because the meanings behind words are arbitrary and not universal; though they are usually dictated by social norms.

If you really think about a word is I suspect that you will find that they are simply empty variables, like the variables "x" or "y" you might find in an algebra question. As variables, they possess a range in which values may either fall under or fall outside of. This range, as long as the speaker is speaking informatively and beyond mere intuition, can be defined as the speaker sees fit.

Both "human" and "The player character" are variables with specific values. To prove your question, simply show that the value of "the player character" is not a value of "human." The riddle here is easy solve for analytics.

For example, if I define human as a featherless biped then the player character is undoubtedly human. If I define a human as an organism with their adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine arranged in such a way that it falls under the arbitrary range I have chosen to be the value of "human dna" then it simply becomes a matter of asking the jmod if the pc has human dna.

01-May-2018 22:29:21 - Last edited on 01-May-2018 22:32:13 by Cthris

Jun

2018

Vlad Bron

Posts: 373 Silver Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

I get the idea Egg's context implies "human DNA." "Featherless biped" would also include demons, mahjarrat, vyre, elves, etc.

For the reincarnation theory, the first couple people I'd suspect capable and most likely would be Death and Icthlarin.

The idea of being something other than human reminds me of Safalaan. How long did he go thinking he was human? Is that sort of the same idea? Is it more something like starting out human and changing over time?

02-May-2018 05:30:10

Farming Egg

Posts: 639 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Cthris said :
^
Most people don't have prophecies written about them long before they were born..."human dna" then it simply becomes a matter of asking the jmod if the pc has human dna.

I've cut down what you've said for space, but I will be responding to all of it.
________________________________________________________________________

I understand what you're saying but I think that you're over-complicating something that is simple. Defining a human in this context is as you say, necessary to come to a conclusion regarding the theory, but also easy to do. Humans in Runescape are obviously based on IRL humans, so its fair to say that for the most part both have the same build.

We can see this relation quite easily on a physical levels. Both RS and IRL humans have two eyes, ears, etc. At a deeper level, like DNA we simply don't know enough about RS humans to establish anything other then that they are again likely the same. We would need to ask the J-Mods about this, but I doubt they'd have any revelations.

There is one genetic difference between IRL and RS humans that I could find. The MoonClan have developed their magic use over consecutive generations, and as a result are the only humans who can use magic without a tool. Therefore, they obviously have a different genetic mutation when compared to other RS humans, but not enough to consider them not human.

You've also said that the word human doesn't have a universal meaning. While I could find debate about the world, it was more from a spiritual/philosophical perspective. There is no debate on what a human is in a physical or biological sense, and since that's how I've been looking at humans for this theory, I don't think those debates matter.

Lastly, I don't think I will ever come to a solid conclusion. There is simply too little evidence and I doubt Jagex want to impose on peoples backstories. I do think it worth consideration though as there is some evidence.

02-May-2018 05:56:49

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Vlad Bron said :
"Featherless biped" would also include demons, mahjarrat, vyre, elves, etc.

I only gave the featherless biped example out of reference to a 2 millennia+ argument between Plato and Diogenes. Plato was once praised for defining a human as a "featherless biped," and Diogenes the Cynic responded by presenting a plucked chicken and say "Behold, a man."

It's not meant to be taken as a serious suggestion for fixing the variable that 'human' is.

Farming Egg said :

I understand what you're saying but I think that you're over-complicating something that is simple.
On the contrary, I think it is you that is over-complicating things. By remaining at the intuitive level and not making up some arbitrary qualification for something to instantiate a class of humans, thereby recognizing that humanity is an empty variable, is to over complicate matters because it has serious ontological commitments. For one, you risk assuming that "humanity" is an actual thing that one can possess or not possess.

If you're trying to class ify whether or not the player character is a human is it really so hard to define the class you're using? If you just give the word "human" an arbitrary definition you could solve this whole thing as easy as figuring out if bachelors are unmarried men.

I am not asking you to deduce some ontological entity that humanity corresponds too or to come up with the "right" definition of "human" because there is no right definitions; they're all arbitrary. All I am saying is just make up a definition of humanity and state it.

02-May-2018 06:02:03 - Last edited on 02-May-2018 07:37:17 by Cthris

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Original message details are unavailable.

Therefore, they obviously have a different genetic mutation when compared to other RS humans, but not enough to consider them not human You come to this conclusion how? Unless you establish a fixed measure in which to judge whether a discrepancy falls inside or outside your classification of human this conclusion is pure dogma.

That being said, let's throw in the fact that rs humans can and do breed with multiple species. In real life, the classification of species is partly dictated by breeding compatibility and who species in question naturally breeds with. As rs humans breed with non-humans by their own volition and are genetically compatible, unlike rl humans, then by the scientific standards used in real life rs humans are not the same species as rl humans.

Original message details are unavailable.

You've also said that the word human doesn't have a universal meaning. While I could find debate about the world, it was more from a spiritual/philosophical perspective. There is no debate on what a human is in a physical or biological sense, and since that's how I've been looking at humans for this theory, I don't think those debates matter.
There certainly is a debate on what qualifies as human in physical or biological senses; close to 400 years of slavery are a testament to this; the courts are still arguing whether or not a fetus counts as humans; archaeologists still debate on whether pre-homo sapien sapiens count as humans.

02-May-2018 06:26:36 - Last edited on 02-May-2018 07:42:47 by Cthris

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

But you're right. As the range that you fix for a variable is arbitrary, the previous debates do not matter because it is up to you to come up with your own definition of what is a "human" is. Only then can anyone here agree or disagree with what you have said, and anyone who thinks they can agree or disagree without fixed variables is simply conflating their own definition of humanity with yours.

02-May-2018 06:29:59 - Last edited on 02-May-2018 07:37:50 by Cthris

Farming Egg

Posts: 639 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Vlad Bron said :
I get the idea Egg's context implies "human DNA." "Featherless biped" would also include demons, mahjarrat, vyre, elves, etc.

For the reincarnation theory, the first couple people I'd suspect capable and most likely would be Death and Icthlarin.

The idea of being something other than human reminds me of Safalaan. How long did he go thinking he was human? Is that sort of the same idea? Is it more something like starting out human and changing over time?

Its possible the PC is like Safalaan and simply doesn't know they aren't entirely human. However, based on evidence (the Azzy quote specifically) it seems we changed over time. However both are possible, and I'd like to include your point about Safalaan somewhere in my OP (you will receive full credit of course). Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

Cthris said :
I only gave...with yours.

I have a feeling that this discussion is a case of us agreeing to disagree, and for the sake of not turning this thread into one massive debate, I won't be replying to you regarding this again. I mean no disrespect with this, and I do greatly appreciate you contribution to the discussion. Thank you for participating.

I haven't defined what a human is because I don't think there is a reason to. That's because when I say human I believe its implied that I mean humans like you or me, as RS humans are the same as IRL humans. So when I say I'm trying to prove the PC isn't human I mean like what Vlad Bron said, if DNA testing appeared on Gielinor and the PC went to get tested, would their DNA be 100% human . I get that there may be debates happening IRL about certain aspects of what a human is, but those don't matter here and just make things needlessly complicated.

Also, I would like to retract the point I made about MoonClan genetics. We don't know how they use magic without a tool, genetics is only one possibility.

02-May-2018 08:41:36

Dec

2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Farming Egg said :
I get that there may be debates happening IRL about certain aspects of what a human is, but those don't matter here and just make things needlessly complicated.

I get that you will not be responding to me on this matter and it is your prerogative to be misological, but I think you misunderstood. I raised the issue of the debates purely to point out that one cannot simply use words intuitively in an intelligent discussion because even the most intuitive of words, i.e. human, possesses no universal meaning hence why people still debate it to this day. I wasn't trying to argue that you must deduce what a human actually is. The necessity of fixing variables is because intuitive terms can only be interpreted through conflation, i.e. a recipe for logical fallacy. For example, you might end up in a disagreement with someone because they interpret human by way shape or form, while you interpret human as being defined by dna.

Regardless, you still provided me with what I asked for, i.e. a guide to your requirements for what characteristics one must possess if one must be a human, as per: "if DNA testing appeared on Gielinor and the PC went to get tested, would their DNA be 100% human"

So I am happy to conclude we do not have to agree to disagree.

Edit:

Farming Egg said :
implied
Vlad Bron said :
implies
This is just a pet peeve of mine

but its better if you don't use the word "implied" as a term synonymous with "suggests". While layman usage has made it so the lexicon definition, i.e. the dictionary, reflects it being a synonym with suggests, "Implied" is a term with a rich history in logic and philosophy, and in these disciplines, only used when the antecedent necessitates the consequent. It makes it seem like you're arguing fallaciously when you use "implied' with no necessitating consequent.

02-May-2018 09:12:00 - Last edited on 02-May-2018 09:34:24 by Cthris

Forums

The Player's Humanity