In Star Wars most droids have life preservation programming which prevents them from acting to harm/kill a sentient. However, in my long standing experience with Star Wars roleplaying everyone who's ever played a droid wanted to be able to use a blaster or man a gun during a space battle. I always GM'ed this as those characters being the exception through some event in their history where their programming was corrupted (such as a long existence with no memory wipes leading to developing unique characteristics).

In Edge of the Empire is this question addressed anywhere? I did read a reference in the CRB that life preservation programming still exists but it was within a section describing NPC droids.

Just curious if you folks have encountered this before and if you have an official ruling on it. If not I'll adjudicate the issue with my groups as I always have.

I don't think that in Star Wars most droids have life preservation programming.

I've never seen it said that Asimov's laws of robotics apply to the Droids in star wars.

The large scale existence of battle droids pretty much means that idea is DOA.

Some droids may have such programming as part of their function because that particular make and model was designed with it. But I don't see it being standard.

I don't think C-3P0 has a "Do no harm" bit in his programming. His programming does dispose him away from violence, nor is he physically capable of doing much harm, but I don't think he is prevented on a basic level from causing harm.

While the canon sources never explicitly state that anything like Asimov's Laws apply to in-universe droids, I think that as a society one would have to be collectively insane not to include such a provision with droid AI. Obviously it would not apply to security/battle/assassin/medical droids, but I can't imagine a society of living beings would want to be constantly surrounded by potential murder-bots.

Now, as for player character droids there are multiple options. They could be one of the above listed types of droids that are allowed to harm organics ("harm" being relative for medical droids, but still) or they could have had said programming altered at some point in the past. Or they could have been made in some underground droid factory where such things aren't considered important.

For my own Star Wars campaigns, regardless of system, I have always worked on the assumption that Asimov's First Law applies to all droids unless there's a really good, logical reason for it not to. To me it's the only thing that makes sense.

I think the problem with assuming that Asimov's law would apply is that it is a bit of a logical jump.

The rule would obviously only apply to droids where harming people would either not be part of, or would be disruptive to, the droids purpose.

Now such a droid would also most likely not be programmed with anything that would be capable of harming someone deliberately in the first place, which makes the Life Preservation Programming totally unnecessary. If a droid isn't inherently dangerous, why have pointless programming.

You're not insane if you don't have such mandatory programming. You're simply not putting in pointless code.

And any droid which has achieved sentience likely has the ability to rewrite its own code, thus making any Life Preservation Programming worthless as a preventative measure.

I guess it really depends on what we consider to be "Canon" anymore. WEG went into this pretty deep back in the day, and the vast majority of the EU was based off what WEG was doing at that time.

In the SW universe there are 5 degrees of droids. I don't have my books with me at the moment, and I'm too lazy to look it up but if my ailing memory serves me;

Fist degree: medical/science type droids...basically used to preserve life.

2nd degree: Technical/engineering/astrogation droids...again, not really programmed for violence and destruction

3rd degree: Protocol/serving type droids again, made to serve not destroy

4th degree: military/police/security droids...made to serve, protect and destroy if necessary. These are highly regulated and controlled in the Empire's time.

5th degree: labor/maintenance droids, not programmed to interact with most organics, let alone hurt them.

So according to early SW gaming aspects, most of which have remained intact to this day, yes, Asimov's law of robotics do apply to most droids in the SW universe. I can't recall once where R2-D2 was blasting away the bad guys with an X-wings guns. Can he shoot them yes, but I think he could not target a know living person or ship where he knew there where organics.

Are there exceptions to these rules, heck yeah. I remember one protocol assassin droid that C-3P0 was mistaken for. So in the strictest sense of the "rules" of Star Wars, yes almost all droids are programmed to not take or harm life forms or each other. In your games, GMs can do what they want to.

I don't agree that just because a droid is sentient that it can overcome its inherent nature. Would it be possible, yes, but definitely not the norm. I would think that the Empire would put tight regulations and restrictions on droids now. Plus most Organics despise droids, and think of them as nothing but an appliance. After the clone wars, vast areas were put under tight control by the battle droids. No one wants to repeat that again. So life preservation programming would not be a waste, but a necessity.

So there is my 2 credits worth.

There is a droid in Jewel of Yavin where they mention that it is inhibited from killing. They don't make it sound like such an unusual thing.

The Laws of Robotics as set forth by Asimov are clearly NOT in effect in the Star Wars Universe. If they were, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have droids in star fighters or capital military ships as they would interfere with the killing/injuring of others. Based on the canon (movies), only combat type droids even seem to use weapons. Granted, we only see R2-D2 use his arc welder to zap an ewok and never really see him do anything else. Same with C3PO. So, we really don't have much to go on from the movies for the thousands of other kinds of droids that are probably out there.

And players wanting to get involved in combat as a combatant, well, then they shouldn't play droids. Or they should try to come up with something more creative to do and not fall back onto the D20/D&D mindset of "killing things is the only way".

There is a droid in Jewel of Yavin where they mention that it is inhibited from killing. They don't make it sound like such an unusual thing.

It might not be unusual, but then again I doubt its the normal status quo for all droids everywhere.

I think any non-violence on the part of a droid would be more because the droid has simply not been programmed for combat, it's not that its prevented from killing. Its just that it isn't programmed to kill, nor is it equipped to do so.

My Stapler is not explicitly prevented from killing me, but at the same time its not very capable or inclined to do so.

First stating that becuase there are military droids that kill, that Asimov types robotic laws can NOT exists is a little naive. The Geneva convention forbids the use of chemicals weapons, but we still have them. The laws are there, they don't apply to the fourth degree droids.

I am pretty sure that in the Star Wars Sourcebook published in '87, it does state Asimov type laws for the droids. So like it or not, agree or disagree, it is in the Star Wars universe. There was also a droid sourcebook that went into the laws and programming of droid, same stuff in there, D20 also went along this same route. So it is a fact in the SW universe there are Asimov type laws for droids. In individual games, it is up to want people to bring into their games. So if you don't want to use this type stuff don't, but you can't say it is not out there.

I am pretty sure that in the Star Wars Sourcebook published in '87, it does state Asimov type laws for the droids. So like it or not, agree or disagree, it is in the Star Wars universe. There was also a droid sourcebook that went into the laws and programming of droid, same stuff in there, D20 also went along this same route. So it is a fact in the SW universe there are Asimov type laws for droids. In individual games, it is up to want people to bring into their games. So if you don't want to use this type stuff don't, but you can't say it is not out there.

Whether or not any of that is true, Disney/LucasFilm has made that point moot. Anything like that which might have been published way back then is now considered "Legends", unless it was actually used and referenced in one of the movies or in TCW.

That issue aside, if reference to Asimov-like "Laws of Robotics" hasn't been made recently in published material, I think we can safely conclude that there's not much support for that in the EU. Find the references in recent material, and I'd be happy to see that discussion happen.

Until then, I'm with ZachAttack and his Stapler at #9 above (see http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/109194-pc-droids-and-life-preservation-programming/#entry1129673).

First stating that becuase there are military droids that kill, that Asimov types robotic laws can NOT exists is a little naive. The Geneva convention forbids the use of chemicals weapons, but we still have them. The laws are there, they don't apply to the fourth degree droids.

I am pretty sure that in the Star Wars Sourcebook published in '87, it does state Asimov type laws for the droids. So like it or not, agree or disagree, it is in the Star Wars universe. There was also a droid sourcebook that went into the laws and programming of droid, same stuff in there, D20 also went along this same route. So it is a fact in the SW universe there are Asimov type laws for droids. In individual games, it is up to want people to bring into their games. So if you don't want to use this type stuff don't, but you can't say it is not out there.

As I pointed out, the movies never make mention of any Laws. That was added by WEG as filler and therefore became part of the EU without really thinking through what they were adding, other than a way to explain why Droids don't get used in combat.

The laws wouldn't work for Class 1, 2 or 4 at the very least. Medical droids dealing with surgery or traumas would rapidly shutdown from the conflicts with the First Law of Robotics: A robot may not, knowingly*, injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. They'd have to let some patients die, or cause them harm to help them. The class 2's include the Astromechs... and we clearly see R2 units in starfighters that are shooting at and killing other beings. Same issue with maintenance droids should a ship run into issues. Close those blast doors and kill some people or leave them open and more die... crap, there's that First Law again.

Even Asimov had to create a workaround for his own Laws, the 0th Law - A robot may not, knowingly, injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

* The First Law was changed in The Robots of Dawn when it was discovered that robots could kill someone. The first inkling of the clarification was when the main character asked a robot to open the roof of the car he was in. The robot did so, not realizing that the passenger who'd given the order suffered from agoraphobia and so would be harmed by seeing the wide open sky around him. The crime he came to solve was resolved when the human in question realized that you could convince a robot to put poison in someone's food by crafting the order so it would think the issue would be taken care of. "Put this poison in the bowl in the kitchen and then leave the room. Another robot will clean it up." Then give the second robot the order to serve the food from the bowl. The second robot has no idea that poison has been added, so does so as the simple act of serving the food satisfies the First and Second Laws (obey and cause no harm).

From my experience and perspective, there is a bit of bigotry towards droids after the clone wars, especially ones that carry weapons and are willing to harm sentients. Some people can read other Sentiants and can tell if they are up to no good. But with a Droid it can be programed or ordered to kill someone and do it without hesitation. Would you want to trust a droid that could do that?

Even R2 was willing to harm an ewok or Jabba's monkey after being treated rather rudely.

I think Asimov laws were programmed into Star wars droids to begin with, especially non-4th degree droids, but it also can be easily removed.

I just finished digging through The New Essential Guide to Droids for an answer. Oddly, there is nothing mentioned about inhibitions towards harming others until you get to the Class 4 droids. Here we just see that two types of Class 4 droids - security droids and gladiator droids - have restrictions that prevents them from killing/using lethal force against organic beings.

If the Three Laws were in full effect, wouldn't that mean astromechs would be unable to assist starfighters? The First Law states that a robot, through action or inaction, cannot allow a human (sentient) to come to harm. If one of Asimov's robots sat in R2's place in an x-wing, it would do everything in it's power to keep the ship from firing and get the pilot out of harm's way. That clearly doesn't happen in the movies, so we can be completely sure that the Three Laws in their traditional universal form simply do not exist in Star Wars.

As has been suggested above, however, I do think it is reasonable that some droids would have specific programming built in. Does the barely-sentient cook droid need complex lines of code detailing appropriate and inappropriate behavior towards living beings? No, because it is only capable of preparing and serving meals. For something like an R2 unit, and most general use droids, I could see programming that basically says, "Obey your master and don't harm him". That way Vader can have his Interrogation droid do horrible things to Leah, and not worry about it sticking him with needles when he meditates.

Another thought I had is about droid personality. It is often mentioned that different lines of droids have or develop similar personalities, being somehow mechanically predisposed to certain outlooks and behaviors. For instance the EV line of supervisor droids were infamous for their cruel natures, due to faulty motivators. It therefore seems to me that a droid's avoidance or interest in harm comes more from its personality, rather than specific lines of code. This, I think, makes them more like organics, in that there's no specific wrinkle in the human brain that prevents one from hurting someone else. C-3PO doesn't need to be ordered not to punch people in the face, because his programmed personality is predisposed to self-preservation and to running away.

All in all, my personal take on this is that, much as with sentients, a droid's behaviors should be interpreted from their personality. It makes sense for sassy R2 to give the Ewok a zap. It wouldn't make sense for him to use his flamethrower to turn him into a crisp.

Sounds like a Motivation to me.

With a little digging I found where this originates. West End Game's "Cynabar's Fantastic Technology: Droids" states on page 10 that the Empire requires that all droids, with the exception of some fourth degree droids, are required to be equipped with life preservation programming. It goes on to explain how to override life preservation programming if someone tries it during the game.

Anyway, that's where the rule I've used comes from. Since it's legends now I imagine most will ignore it. I plan to continue to use the EU material in my EotE game so it will continue to exist in the games I run. There are "trap doors" written into my games for player droids to get around this for the sake of everyone's good time.

Thanks everyone for the commentary; I hope to hear more. I hadn't considered Asimov's laws (but I should have since that's classic sci-fi).