Dramatic Foundations - Computers as Theatre - page 73

terion is that characters be “good” (sometimes translated as “virtuous”).
Using the Aristotelean defi nition of “virtue,” a good character is one that
successfully fulfi lls its function; that is, one that successfully formulates
thought into action. A “good” character does (action) what it intends to do
(thought). It also does what its creator intends it to do in the context of
the whole action. Second is the criterion that characters be “appropriate”
to the actions they perform; that is, that there is a good match between a
character's traits and its actions. Characters may surprise us with their
actions, but we should be able to see in retrospect that the potential for
those actions was present. Third is the idea that a character be “like” re-
ality in the sense that there are causal connections between its thoughts,
traits, and actions. This criterion is closely related to dramatic probability.
Finally, characters should be “consistent” throughout the whole action;
that is, that a character's traits should not change arbitrarily. The map-
ping of these criteria to computer-based agents is quite straightforward—
be they “applications,” agents in the sense of personifi ed “helpers,” or
characters in a computer game.
Finally, we need to summarize the formal and material relationships
between character and the elements above and below it in the hierarchy.
Formal causality suggests that it is action, and action alone, which shapes
character; that is, a character's traits are dictated by the exigencies of the
plot. Including traits in the representation that are not manifest in action
violates this principle. Material causality suggests that the stuff of which a
character is made must be present on the level of thought and, by implica-
tion, language and enactment as well.
An old but good example is the interface agent Phil, who appears in
an Apple promotional video entitled “The Knowledge Navigator” (© 1988
by Apple Computer, Inc.). In the original version, Phil was portrayed by an
actor in a video format. He appeared to be human, alive, and responsive at
all times. But because he behaved and spoke quite simply and performed
relatively simple tasks, many viewers of the video complained that he was
a stupid character. His physical traits (high-resolution, real-time human
portrayal) did not match his language capabilities, his thoughts, or his ac-
tions (simple tasks performed in a rather unimaginative manner). In a later
version, Phil's representation was changed to a simple line-drawn cartoon
character with very limited animation. People seemed to fi nd the new ver-
sion of Phil much more likable. The simpler character was more consistent
and more appropriate to the action. Microsoft's paper clip, by comparison,
looked too stupid to do anything meaningful.