Lore Talk: The Moral Conundrum of Umbra and the New Theory of Warframe Genesis (spoilers)

[Tyreaus]

15 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

Fair enough; I agree. If the official policy is "the Tenno only give commands that Umbra willingly follows as part of an existing arrangement", that certainly does render any moral issues moot. But if that is the official policy on the situation, that would make me a little sad for Umbra, as it essentially turns him into a robot: he just follows the Tenno around, never changing, never complaining, and nonreactive to the point of oblivious of what is going on around him. It seems like a wasted opportunity to make him into a real character in this world, with his own thought, desires and motivations.

I understand that there may be content in the future where Umbra shows some personality, but that is certainly not guaranteed. At the moment, it is illogical to the point of immersion breaking that a sentient human mind enters into a pseudo contract where they are down to do whatever, whenever the Tenno decides, unconditionally, in perpetuity. If Umbra acts, for all intents and purposes, like a robot, why not just make him a robot? What is the point of giving him humanity and sentience, if he never actually exercises that sentience in any discernible manner?

Again: you're talking about what is likely a fraction of the entire Tenno / Umbra (Or Warframe) relationship. It's like feeling bad for a McDonalds employee because they listen to commands given by their manager, or thinking that employee's a robot. You might not see their personal life, and maybe their personal life is really weird, but it doesn't mean they don't have one.

I'm not sure why you say "why not just make him a robot". That's the entire point behind the Sacrifice. He has to be sentient for that entire storyline to work. To ask him to be a robot would be to remove the Sacrifice story entirely.

I'm also not sure what else you'd want to make him a fleshed out character. He's displayed emotions, motivations, desires, had those fulfilled even. His story is complete. And it's not free for DE to add in something like Umbra walking around the lander in some way that works.

[Knowmad762]

53 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

It's like feeling bad for a McDonalds employee because they listen to commands given by their manager, or thinking that employee's a robot.

I would absolutely feel bad for the McDonalds employee if they blindly follow commands given by their manager, if they know in their sentient mind that those commands are amoral or wrong. If the manager gives a command that contravenes overarching McDonalds policy, or is just wrong to a reasonable person, does the employee not have a responsibility to at least try to resist?

57 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

I'm not sure why you say "why not just make him a robot". That's the entire point behind the Sacrifice. He has to be sentient for that entire storyline to work. To ask him to be a robot would be to remove the Sacrifice story entirely.

I'm also not sure what else you'd want to make him a fleshed out character. He's displayed emotions, motivations, desires, had those fulfilled even. His story is complete. And it's not free for DE to add in something like Umbra walking around the lander in some way that works. 

It just seems rather silly that Umbra's sentience is only relevant to a single quest that most players completed in one sitting, and now for days/weeks/months his very unique sentience is all but forgotten. Seems like an oversight. Yes, to make Umbra a robot, The Sacrifice would have to change. But the result is that he would make more sense in the long term, because his in game behavior right now, post Sacrifice, would be completely believable. I understand that having Umbra do more things to show his sentience is more work for DE, but DE made the decision to make him the first sentient Warframe ever; they kind of gave themselves the responsibility to follow through on that.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

8 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

If you do not agree with the widely accepted notion that human beings are sentient, then this discussion gets much more difficult, and I have no idea how to convince you of that.

Can you prove that it's accepted by even one being that is fully conscious and truly self aware as opposed to some sort of simulacrum that mimics consciousness through a complex algorithm? And if such conscious beings exist how do they judge Umbra? Is he still conscious and self aware as they believe humans to be ml

Because I agree, the conversation is very difficult, but it's at the root of the discussion you are trying to have. You can claim that he is still a conscious and self aware being, but until you provide proof of that, then we're stuck aren't we? If you're going to debate intangibles, then someone has to be able to at least identify if the intangible is present at all as you claim. 

8 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

Umbra's grief clearly goes through at least two distinct phases: intense anger, and deep melancholy. That alone makes it a far more complex emotional reaction than is observed in animals.

Oh? And you can claim to know how animals feel because....? I've seen cases where a parent will attack and furiously drive off any predator or percieved threat, and proceed to "stand vigil" around it's dead young. Some might interpret that as anger and subsequent melancholy. Grackles are however not considered by many to have human levels of consciousness. Your mileage may vary. 

 

8 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

And technically, we cheat, as the Tenno knows precisely the cause and motivation of that grief using the ability to see inside Umbra's mind. No determination is involved.

No we see what appears to be a highly fragmented memory from a time when some of what became Umbra was a human. You claimed to not even know if his son died, which suggests that you do not actually have a full grasp on the memories. At best you are working mainly from very limited information dealing primarily with visual and audio recording. I have a camera that can do that. It's not considered conscious or self aware by most as far as I know. 

 

8 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

I don't know nearly enough about the minutiae of Kubrows and Kavats to even begin to determine if they are sentient. I would certainly debate it, but I fear the mods may see that as getting off topic. Interesting to note that the Tenno cannot use transference on either. I would be interested to see how the community reacted if this was made a possibility one day.

For hundreds of years we did not appear to be able to use transference on ravenous golden maws either. Are they considered conscious? 

And honestly I don't think that I can even pet my puppies in operator mode at this time. That's not the same as proof that they can't be petted at all. 

8 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

This does not seem like a deal breaker. Keep in mind that it is possible that hundreds of years have passed since Umbra attacked Ballas the first time. It is not unreasonable for him to think something has changed in their relationship, and that there is a possibility that it would end differently this time.

And it is possible that he doesn't actually think about it at all because he's not truly capable of doing so independently. Ants show initiative and autonomy, that's not really the same as saying that they are actually conscious and self aware. 

 

Infested keep coming, trying to attack despite being able to see their kind mowed down directly in front of them or being knocked back from their target and injured. Is this a sign that they reason "something may have changed in the intervening period"? 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

7 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Because your explanation does not exclude the multiple alternate and equally plausible explanations that do not require taking direct control of Umbra. Which is the crux of your moral quandary. Which means a reply along the lines of "the Tenno only give commands that Umbra willingly follows as part of an existing arrangement" is perfectly acceptable, since that explanation is no worse than any direct control hypothesis. And yet those replies render your moral issue moot.

To emphasise this point, Umbra has shown that he can reject our attempts at transference. 

Parsimony dictates that he should continue to be able to do so. The alternative is to accept that he was able to do so, but has somehow lost the ability, and can no longer reject our attempts at transferring.

Dax were willing to follow orders and engaged in warfare. 

Parsimony suggests that that if they retain significant parts of their former mindset that they will continue to be of like mind. The alternative is to believe that they used to be like that, but have undergone radical changes to their mindset, and despite not doing anything to suggest that they oppose us doing these things, wish to not be forced to carry out what they now view as atrocities. 

 

 

Both are examples of going unnecessarily out of our way to assume that we are forcing him to be an unwilling partner in our acts. 

[Cuchullin]

Another thing to consider is the intervening time between the Orokin era and the modern day game world which is bound to have an affect on any mind whether the frame is sentient and willing or otherwise. Add to the fact that Umbra's mind, body and essentially memory have been warped into something completely different., then was killed by Ballas and after that remade by the Operator it wouldn't be surprising the result could be a little.....unstable.

It's also been mentioned before about the Helminth being used to create the first Warframes and eventually they turned on the Orokin and there has been discussion on the nature of those frame. Keeping in mind this is just a theory but what if the Dax who have been twisted into their new forms had an affect on the Tenno who tried to control them revealing the true nature of the Orokin leading to the rebellion, keeping in mind the Tenno have been, infected/ influenced? by the void and by extension (if people have done the Chains of Harrow quest) by the man in the wall. What kind of affect this would have I have no idea but it does add a third player to the mix that no-one seems to have considered yet.

I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory that may not have much to do with this thread but very little is known about the Man in the Wall and, he?, is a common denominator from the Orokin era and today especially considering he came back before the Sacrifice quest.

[Tyreaus]

7 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

I would absolutely feel bad for the McDonalds employee if they blindly follow commands given by their manager, if they know in their sentient mind that those commands are amoral or wrong. If the manager gives a command that contravenes overarching McDonalds policy, or is just wrong to a reasonable person, does the employee not have a responsibility to at least try to resist?

Key word: if.

7 hours ago, Knowmad762 said:

It just seems rather silly that Umbra's sentience is only relevant to a single quest that most players completed in one sitting, and now for days/weeks/months his very unique sentience is all but forgotten. Seems like an oversight. Yes, to make Umbra a robot, The Sacrifice would have to change. But the result is that he would make more sense in the long term, because his in game behavior right now, post Sacrifice, would be completely believable. I understand that having Umbra do more things to show his sentience is more work for DE, but DE made the decision to make him the first sentient Warframe ever; they kind of gave themselves the responsibility to follow through on that.

You are just about completely alone in this assessment as far as I can tell. Maybe someone else agrees with you, but given the people who have responded here displaying no issue believing Umbra's in-game behaviour (which, we can't forget, does include autonomy when in Op mode), they don't exactly seem a majority by any stretch.

And again: just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a huge thing narratives in general rely on. Stuff is always happening in the background we don't see. They can't tell and show you literally everything. Konzu has a lunch hour (how else does he have an early lunch?). Kavats eat Infested. Sargas Ruk and Tyl Regor communicate. Sometimes with complete sentences. Vay Hek has moments where he isn't dreaming of throwing Spacemom into the sun. Vor has moments where he's not monologuing (I hope). If you're not satisfied by what DE gives you, then look at the huge swaths of time you don't see and use your imagination to fill in some of those gaps.

[Knowmad762]

4 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

To emphasise this point, Umbra has shown that he can reject our attempts at transference.  

To be fair, Umbra was only able to reject us only before the initial full transference was reached. There is currently no information if he has the ability to reject us again, but current in game behavior points to the opposite. Has your Umbra ever rejected your attempts at transference since the end of The Sacrifice quest?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

36 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

To be fair, Umbra was only able to reject us only before the initial full transference was reached. There is currently no information if he has the ability to reject us again, but current in game behavior points to the opposite. Has your Umbra ever rejected your attempts at transference since the end of The Sacrifice quest?

Has he ever chosen to? Can you prove that he has attempted to and failed? Can you prove that he has lost the ability?

Has he ever acted against my interests passively or actively? Has he failed to attack hostile enemies, or chosen to not attack them and allow them to attack me freely instead, while acting autonomously? 

 

Can you present any evidence that he opposes our choice of actions? Can you present any evidence that he ever actually was or now remains truly conscious and self aware? 

[Knowmad762]

18 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Can you prove that he has lost the ability?

We are talking in circles. I cannot prove that he has lost the ability to reject the Tenno anymore than you can prove that he retains the ability to reject the Tenno. Both are impossible to prove absolutely. I simply note that if he retains the ability to reject, is it not shown in game currently, ever, under any circumstances which seems peculiar.

24 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Can you present any evidence that he opposes our choice of actions?

Can you present any evidence that he supports our choice of actions? And before you say "he continues to fight alongside me", I'll note that action and mindset are not one and the same. Employees continue to work their jobs, even if they do not support the goals of the overall company. Soldiers will fight in combat, even if they do not support the justifications behind the war. In the latter case, if the leader continues to send soldiers to fight for unjustifiable reasoning, that could be called an amoral act.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

38 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

We are talking in circles. I cannot prove that he has lost the ability to reject the Tenno anymore than you can prove that he retains the ability to reject the Tenno. Both are impossible to prove absolutely. I simply note that if he retains the ability to reject, is it not shown in game currently, ever, under any circumstances which seems peculiar.

No, it would be peculiar that he lost the ability which we know he had. If this is what you posit, then you need to show it to be true. If it's not possible to prove this then parsimony demands that we assume the preexisting condition to continue undisturbed. 

 

38 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

Can you present any evidence that he supports our choice of actions? And before you say "he continues to fight alongside me", I'll note that action and mindset are not one and the same. Employees continue to work their jobs, even if they do not support the goals of the overall company. Soldiers will fight in combat, even if they do not support the justifications behind the war. In the latter case, if the leader continues to send soldiers to fight for unjustifiable reasoning, that could be called an amoral act.

And in both cases they would probably make their objections known. Eventually they would probably be expected to stop following the directives that they object to. In between it would be probable that their behaviour would change and some of their actions will display reticence to follow the instructions. 

Have you observed any of these? I have not. I don't think that any of the millions of players have reported such. 

 

I could try to act on something that does not exist, but it doesn't make much sense to do that. This is why you need to prove that his sentience exists, and that he is opposed to our actions. Without those every single conversation must become circular, because none of us believe that what you are attempting to claim to be true, is true. 

[Cuchullin]

26 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

I could try to act on something that does not exist, but it doesn't make much sense to do that. This is why you need to prove that his sentience exists, and that he is opposed to our actions. Without those every single conversation must become circular, because none of us believe that what you are attempting to claim to be true, is true.

Add to this the fact that Umbra is the first to be "discovered" and is essentially an experiment for DE to work with Frames without the operator not directly controlling it. It's still early days and the Sacrifice quest could only be the beginning of the story which can develop into a moral choice or discovery for the operator down the line.

[Knowmad762]

33 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Have you observed any of these? I have not. I don't think that any of the millions of players have reported such. 

I could say that you are unfairly restricting the discussion behind a real world, technical programming restriction.

If I understand your reasoning correctly, it is thus: Umbra does not dissent or disagree with the Tenno in game currently in any form, therefore, this lack of dissent or disagreement acts as sufficient proof that Umbra agrees unconditionally with everything that the Tenno does.

This argument can only be true if:

a) you can prove absolutely that Umbra's current in game behavior was programmed with a suitable avenue to express dissent or disagreement with the Tenno

and,

b) Umbra's in game behavior deliberately chooses not to use the avenue established in A.

Can you show evidence that A exists?

 

[Knowmad762]

48 minutes ago, Cuchullin said:

Add to this the fact that Umbra is the first to be "discovered" and is essentially an experiment for DE to work with Frames without the operator not directly controlling it. It's still early days and the Sacrifice quest could only be the beginning of the story which can develop into a moral choice or discovery for the operator down the line.

Very true. I thought it would be constructive to get some player feedback, as this new warframe/tenno relationship is still quite recent, and could still be written in several directions by the DE lore gods.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 minute ago, Knowmad762 said:

I could say that you are unfairly restricting the discussion behind a real world, technical programming restriction.

If I understand your reasoning correctly, it is thus: Umbra does not dissent or disagree with the Tenno in game currently in any form, therefore, this lack of dissent or disagreement acts as sufficient proof that Umbra agrees unconditionally with everything that the Tenno does.

This argument can only be true if:

a) you can prove absolutely that Umbra's current in game behavior was programmed with a suitable avenue to express dissent or disagreement with the Tenno

and,

b) Umbra's in game behavior deliberately chooses not to use the avenue established in A.

Can you show evidence that A exists?

 

I don't need to. You have to prove that it doesn't. That's how things work, when you propose that something exists (his dissent) you need to show evidence that what you claim is true. 

Asking you to provide proof that there isn't a magical tea pot floating in near space that is probably too small to be observed using a telescope isn't a valid demand. 

Asking me to provide proof that Umbra doesn't not consent isn't a valid request. Currently no evidence exists to suggest that he has withdrawn consent. No action has been taken by him, even when operating autonomously to suggest that he is not willing to remain by my side. He has not indicated in any way that he is unwilling to continue acting as a conduit for my instructions. Parsimony dictates that in the absence of any indication of the contrary, Umbra consents to our alliance. 

If you want to claim that the case is that he no longer consents, you must prove it to be that way. I suggest that you start with proving his ability to dissent, moving on to proving his dissenting. 

[Knowmad762]

20 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Currently no evidence exists to suggest that he has withdrawn consent.

Exactly. If Umbra's in game behavior was not programmed with any way to express dissent, there would be no evidence of withdrawn consent, as there is no avenue to express it. The question of whether dissent exists becomes pretty irrelevant, if there is no avenue to express that potential dissent in any way.

Obviously, I cannot prove absolutely that Umbra's current in game programming was not given any way to express dissent. But I certainly believe he does not.

I can say absolutely that I have never once seen an expression of Umbra's dissent in game. I would wager strongly that you have never seen it either.

Besides that, I just fall back on logic. The odds that DE spent valuable dev resources on something as niche as giving Umbra the ability to disagree with the Tenno during their interactions seem astronomically small. That seems it would be very difficult to program, and would likely be really frustrating to the player if Umbra starts disagreeing mid-mission.

So if true, this creates a disconnect between what the theoretical Umbra character might do (disagree), and what his in game representation can do. It would also mean that your argument of "he doesn't disagree, so he agrees" not applicable.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, Knowmad762 said:

Exactly. If Umbra's in game behavior was not programmed with any way to express dissent, there would be no evidence of withdrawn consent, as there is no avenue to express it. The question of whether dissent exists becomes pretty irrelevant, if there is no avenue to express that potential dissent in any way.

So just to be clear, you want DE to create the option for a video-game character to be able to express dissent, despite not actually being real, because you contend that this piece of a video game is conscious and self aware, despite the fact that 1) it is a video game character whose function is to be a conduit for our in game actions, and 2) not only is the character not actually sentient, but no sufficiently advanced AI exists to allow it mimic actual sentience. 

1 hour ago, Knowmad762 said:

Obviously, I cannot prove absolutely that Umbra's current in game programming was not given any way to express dissent. But I certainly believe he does not.

Can you then prove that his current in game programming will cause him to be able to dissent whether or not he can express it. (Because I'm going to go ahead and guess that it's a no for that.) If he can only consent then by definition what you posit is not an issue. 

1 hour ago, Knowmad762 said:

I can say absolutely that I have never once seen an expression of Umbra's dissent in game. I would wager strongly that you have never seen it either.

Congratulations, you would win that wager. Of course, since I explicitly said as much 3 hours ago and you explicitly quoted me saying it 2 hours ago, it was a pretty safe bet, don't you think? 

 

1 hour ago, Knowmad762 said:

Besides that, I just fall back on logic. The odds that DE spent valuable dev resources on something as niche as giving Umbra the ability to disagree with the Tenno during their interactions seem astronomically small. That seems it would be very difficult to program, and would likely be really frustrating to the player if Umbra starts disagreeing mid-mission.

Ah, so you do believe that it's possible to create a truly sentient video game character. Yeah, no. That's not currently possible. You see this is why I ask you to show that you are truly capable of identifying consciousness in others. 

1 hour ago, Knowmad762 said:

So if true, this creates a disconnect between what the theoretical Umbra character might do (disagree), and what his in game representation can do. It would also mean that your argument of "he doesn't disagree, so he agrees" not applicable.

Not really. What you have requested is for the devs to create a truly conscious being. That's not currently possible. So it's not an issue. And again "he doesn't disagree, so he agrees" is actually a common tenet in law. 

Either "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" holds, or we say that he's not capable of expressing dissent (because he is actually not real and cannot dissent). Either way, it means that your concern is a total non-issue. 

[Talonflight]

It seems like many people misinterpret the end of the Sacrifice, so I will explain it here.

The Warframe Project was begin before the Zariman 10-0 incident, back when the war with the Sentients was at a desperate time. They had just released the Infestation against it, and discovered it didn't work; so, instead, they tried to make living warriors of the infested: "We set them upon the battlefield, Bio Drones under our command." It was these initial Warframes which are called Umbras: the original designs made by Ballas out of living people. Ultimately, however, these warriors were failures; they could not be controlled, their minds were broken, they were in a constant berzerker rage, and thus the Orokin were going to have them consigned and destroyed: "And thus, we were forced to commit them to grave." 

However, before the Umbra's could all be disposed of, the Zariman Incident occurred. The Tenno were sent to Lua to be studies, and it was here that the first Umbra became accidentally mind-linked with a Tenno. Margulis was distraught when the Orokin Council found out, and ordered them to continue the project; this time, instead of using living people, they made empty puppets of infested: this is why Alad V in The Second Dream says "I've seen inside a Tenno, and what I saw didn't make much sense;" it would make perfect sense to have a Warframe made out of a person, thats literally what EVERYONE thought pre-Second Dream; But it DOES make sense that Alad is confused if all he finds is an empty doll. Thus confirming that the Primes, the "second generation" of warframes, were empty and designed perfectly for each Tenno, based loosely off of the Umbra's of the older generation. This explains discrepancies between abilities between Umbras and Primes/Normals, and why Excal Umbra has a different Radial ability.

After the Umbras were completely retired, and Primes were used, the war with the Sentients became fiercer, with Warframe Primes leading the charge. However, due to the stresses of war, Prime versions simply became too expensive to mass produce when they lost warframes in battle with the sentients, and thus the "Normal" versions of warframes were constructed as everyday use warframes that were cheaper to build, without orokin finery and flair. It was these warframes that eventually became standard use as the war with the Sentients dragged on; this is why Mirage is found with a blueprint for a standard Mirage frame.

War goes on, we win the war, we kill the Orokin,  we go Use The Big Sleep, and then the events of the game happen.
That brings us to where we are today.


(Please Note that Mirage's quest lore is now confusing, as its unclear how the Operator of Mirage was killed when her warframe died, unless the sentients have some ability to kill Warframes through their Somatic Link. Another theory I've seen tossed around is that Mirage-Operator's death happened in the tiny interval AFTER the Tenno were given Warframes, but BEFORE the tenno went into the Second Dream).

[Knowmad762]

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Not really. What you have requested is for the devs to create a truly conscious being.

I don't believe I have requested anything, especially something so ludicrous.

All that I have done is establish my belief that Umbra's in game programming does not allow him to express dissent in any way. I am not criticizing in any way; in fact I agree that giving him the ability to dissent is quite impractical.

But establishing that he simply cannot dissent, and is thus being denied a fairly basic right, rather conveniently circles back to my original point: that introducing Warframes that are sentient creates moral grey areas in the lore that did not exist when the Warframes were not sentient. The very fact that we are using dissent and Warframe in the same sentence is just more evidence of how bizarre the situation becomes.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 minute ago, Knowmad762 said:

I don't believe I have requested anything, especially something so ludicrous.

All that I have done is establish my belief that Umbra's in game programming does not allow him to express dissent in any way. I am not criticizing in any way; in fact I agree that giving him the ability to dissent is quite impractical.

For the in game programming to allow him to express dissent, he would have to be capable of dissent, which would require sentience and self awareness. Since that's not currently possible, regardless of if they would want to try or not, it's literally a non issue. 

4 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

But establishing that he simply cannot dissent, and is thus being denied a fairly basic right, rather conveniently circles back to my original point: 

Unfortunately, your point is as much of an issue as demanding equal basic rights for calculators that don't want to be forced to do mathematics. Without actual sentience and self awareness, it is a non-issue. 

7 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

that introducing Warframes that are sentient creates moral grey areas in the lore that did not exist when the Warframes were not sentient.

Only if 1) we decide to forsake parsimony and claim that a part of the video game is actually sentient; or 2) we decide to ignore what is in the game and come up with scenarios where what you are claiming is possible by going down a very long list of "if"s. 

10 minutes ago, Knowmad762 said:

The very fact that we are using dissent and Warframe in the same sentence is just more evidence of how bizarre the situation becomes.

Only because you're trying very hard to shoehorn it into place. 

Like I said start with actually proving sentience. Then Umbra's sentience. Then his dissent. Then his inability to express dissent. 

Until you get there, you don't really have any case. 

[Knowmad762]

14 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Only because you're trying very hard to shoehorn it into place. 

Like I said start with actually proving sentience. Then Umbra's sentience. Then his dissent. Then his inability to express dissent. 

Until you get there, you don't really have any case. 

Okay.

I am absolutely not going to debate the existence or non existence of sentience as a concept. This is a gargantuan undertaking, that is beyond the scope of a discussion about a fictional video game. As I have done, I continue to use these terms in the broad sense, where their meaning is generally agreed upon by most humans. To clarify, from dictionary.com:

Sentience:

1. sentient condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling

Sentient

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

Conscious

1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

So to describe something as having sentience, means that it is conscious and is aware of it's own existence, or is self aware.

Moving on, I am not actually judging Excalibur Umbra as having sentience completely independently. I agree that this would be problematic, and would call into question my ability to gauge sentience. The Warframe community, myself included, collectively believes Umbra to be sentient. From the Warframe wiki: "As a result of Umbra's torment, he retains most of his sentience". Interesting to note is the use of the term most; not a fragment of his sentience remains, but the larger portion of the whole. From the Wikipedia article on sentience: " In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, hologram, or computer described as "sentient" is usually treated as a fully human character, with similar rights, qualities, and capabilities as any other character". I believe that a Warframe fits within this description.

So to tie all the above together: the character of Excalibur Umbra is mostly sentient, and is thus treated as mostly human, and would be afforded most of the similar rights of a human.

Transference is an unusual mechanic, and when used on another sentient person, its very nature has heavy implications on basic human rights such as the right to liberty, freedom of thought, and free will itself. Wikipedia describes free will as "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". This creates a stark difference between the Tenno assigning Umbra a task and having him do it his way, and using transference to have Umbra's body do the task the Tenno's way. In both cases, Umbra's body completes the task and is exposed to any dangers and morally questionable actions therein, but in the first case Umbra retains his free will, and in the second case he does not. Since we have established that Umbra is mostly a person and should thus have access to most basic human rights, using transference to bypass his free will creates a very strange moral situation, that some players may find uncomfortable.

There has been much discussion that Umbra has made some form of arrangement or contract with the Tenno, in which he waives his basic human rights, and thus using transference causes no moral conflict. I acknowledge that this is a possibility, but it is interesting to note that in Ontario, where DE is located, such an arrangement would be considered unlawful:

• In the context of human rights law, “It has been well established that human rights are a matter of public policy, created for the benefit of the community, inherent to the dignity of every individual, and cannot be waived or contracted out of” (para 106, citing Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough), 1982 CanLII 15 (SCC)

Obviously, I am not saying that Ontario law applies to a fictional space universe, but it simply reinforces how fundamental human rights are considered, and using a prearranged waiver situation to get around them is still morally dubious.