Code VS Killing Poll

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

RDU Neil's concept has actually been covered in four colour comics - Galactus. The Big G is regarded as vastly beyond human in all capacities. I think at one point a character even says something like "We're just amoebas to him." Galactus is also sometimes described as more like a force of nature than a sentient being. In a way he's both more and less than human.

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Do you have a summary page you could drop my way... a conclusions page or whatever. I'd be interested to see what you came up with.

Not even sure (at the moment) where the paper itself is, though I'm very sure I still have it. Will probably see if I can find it this weekend.

 

John T

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The flaw I find in your reasoning is it puts megalomanichial madmen above human judgement. Just because some has the power to do something' date=' doesn't mean it's okay to do so.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying it's ok... I am saying that it's worth investigating if some things we assume are absolute universal moral standards are not so absolute from a superhuman (transhuman, love that term, Worldmaker) perspective. If nothing else, you can at least consider things like "how does your personality change as you lose touch with the sensation of hunger, the need for sleep, etc."

 

Example: Long term character in my world... Thermal... essentially inherited (usurped?) the powers of Firewing, and has taken them beyond that in scope (if not raw power... yet) but this guy has complete life support and is immortal. As a human, he was an altruist who ran soup kitchens and was an activist for the homeless, as well as a theoretical biologist... as he came into and grew in power, he took these ideals and expanded them, producing research papers on metahuman biology that changed scientific thought (Dr. Thermal, now...) becoming a superhero, becoming an outspoken oponent of the PRA, eventually becoming a member of an independent country of metahumans, branded an outlaw by the US gov't because the populace feared such a nation state, became an ambassador to the Confederation, and alliance of alien worlds that was looking to whether humanity (which has a semi-unique position in the known galaxy) could be inducted... negotiated a peace treaty between the US and Atlantis (w/Collin Powel) and eventually became President of Sanctuary (the metahuman nation, now) and full blown world leader.

 

Throughout this all, he (and the other players on his level, part of the premier team, the Vanguard) role played the development of their characters from lower level supers, to high powered types... and the changes they went through, and how they dealt with it over the years, was fascinating. Thermal (as role played by his player) would often go days without seeing anyone or talking to anyone, wrapped up in research or books or thoughts, undistracted by hunger or need for sleep... his relationships suffered, his perspectives began to skew... he honestly began to look at things in terms of millenia effectiveness, since he would likely live for millions of years (essentially he is a living nuclear reaction that will evolve into a sentient star) and this changed his decision making process. He, and others, began to at least explore options like "we may be cursed for a thousand years... but if we take over the world, we might be in the best position to make sure the earth survives that thousand years to curse us..." etc. They began to say, "Are we becoming villains? Are we going to far? What if the right thing, the moral thing, would be seen as evil? Could we live with that? Do the ends justify the means?"

 

It was fascinating, heady, intense stuff... asking really hard questions at times (and other times, the characters would purposefully hold back and act "as superhereos should" simply because it was a less stressful process) and very fulfilling. It was only possible because people did not jump to the extreme conclusion "well that's just wrong!" and simply asked, "Well... maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not... lets really investigate this..."

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

RDU Neil's concept has actually been covered in four colour comics - Galactus. The Big G is regarded as vastly beyond human in all capacities. I think at one point a character even says something like "We're just amoebas to him." Galactus is also sometimes described as more like a force of nature than a sentient being. In a way he's both more and less than human.

 

At a con once, John Byrne (then on Fantastic Four) commented that his take on Galactus was that he (it?) was nature's final evolutionary push after a species had otherwise reached the point that natural selection didn't actually apply any longer and artificial selection had taken over.

 

To whit: if your civilization survived Galactus (though whatever means), it was "fit" to enter the arena of "greater galactic life". If not, then not.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

With a few exceptions, we're not talking about the Gods come down from their Olympus (or Asgard, as it were)... we're talking about everyday schlubs who had, as the saying goes, "greatness thrust upon them".

 

Though they gain superhuman abilities, they retain (again, with a few exceptions) the patterns of thought that make a human being human. Thus, their attitudes, ideals, ethics, and morals follow them into transhumanity.

 

And thus the question is moot. Of course human morals apply... because the superhumans are still human at the core.

 

Initially, yes... this would be the case... but think about it this way...

 

You are not the same person you were as an infant, child, adolescent, teen... are you? As you grow in stature, power, independence, influence... as you become a mature adult, your needs change drastically, your abilities change drastically, your maturity of thought and analysis change vastly... and your values shift.

 

An infant has no other value than comfort/food/motherbond/etc. Toddlers begin to shift this, adopting independent/abstract thought... but not mature, as likely your absolute moral stand at that level of development is "spinach is YUCKY!"

 

As you grow older, wiser, stronger, mentally mature... you change into a vastly different person with vastly different priorities, needs, and codes of conduct.

 

So... now apply the similar to metahumanity. Initially, you aren't really more than human... but after time spent without worrying about common injury... maybe not needing to sleep or eat... senses perceiving and mind analyzing input never before available...

 

... wouldn't it be logical to think that a person would likely change at least as drastically in concept as an adult is changed from an infant? (Power levels and abilities are key here, yes... but pretty darn common.) Sufficiently high power would put you way beyond even that change.

 

Now, we can only extrapolate here... play fantasy mind games with these ideas... but isn't that what Role playing is? Creating a shared imaginary space where more than one person can try to explore ideas and fantasies and concepts through character and story?

 

I dunno, but that's what it's about to me... and I will at least present my POV to see if it inspires ideas beyond that... even if it means challenging those who simply don't like what I have to say. I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" here... "but..." have you thought about...

 

I've learned a ton here... including a very powerful definition/argument for hero/superhero, one that I think has a lot of validity (Applying human morality even when you may not have to because of power/etc.) And I'll happily explore where that works... and where it breaks down. No theory or defintion is perfect... there will be exceptions... so lets explore as many as we can. Why just stick to one?

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Summation of the posts for the last two pages as far as I can tell. (8^D)

 

If someone were to gain enough powers that would change thier "Human Reasoning" beyond recognition of the baseline (that being human morals and societies ethics), does said values still apply to them?

 

The confusion seems to be over whether the person's beliefs are changed, regardless of the amount of power gained.

 

If one were to believe that the mind is unaffected, as far a moral codes of belief, then it does not matter how removed from humanity as far as powers go, the values still apply since the mind of the person will still act based on those beliefs.

 

Example: Fantastic Four, all gained powers at varying levels, which seemed to have no effective difference on thier beliefs.

 

If one were to believe that the mind is affected (power corrupts/absolute power corrupts absolutely) then the farther from humanity via powers a person will get. And the more disconnected that person becomes from his moral code of beliefs. Once such a person gains enough powers, thier mind will no longer act on those codes of conduct and they will be replaced by a new set that is influenced by the nature of the powers in question.

 

Example: Fantastic Four, Reed Richards son became so powerful that he was losing his humanity. The Sphinx? was normal human, but when he gained the power of the Sphinx? he became "evil" in that his codes of belief were replaced by those radically different.

 

I need help for better examples, since I don't read comics. (8^D)

The examples I gave was from browsing a friends comics years ago.

 

This is what it seems to have boiled down to as far as I can tell.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

There seems to be two basic camps here and they're not the ones I thought would emerge from this thread.

 

1. RPG are tools for simulating a genre. The tropes and conventions that genre are there to enforce it and should be adhered too for a satifying and fun experience in recreating it. RPG are games/stories.

 

2. RPG are tools for exploring different states of mind and alternate veiwpoints but imaging different situations and running with them to their logical conclusion. Genre is a staightjacket on that process.

 

 

Neither one is "bad fun". I prefer number 1, but number 2 can be quite interesting as well.

[arcady]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I've been trying for the last year in my MnM game to get my players to be the 'Hellions' to Freedom City's New Mutants (Claremon Academy) but they insist on trying to be goodie goodies.

 

So I've countered by making the other team 'more heroic' by being more 'law and order' - the other team captures and convicts without trial, making snap judgements about people with a simplistic morality. The PCs on the other hand, are being treated to a world where I keep unvieling sympathetic motivations in my villains, just before the other team tries to rush in with the noose.

 

You can try for one setup, and not quite get it. My personal preference is for more complex morality where it is never clear cut, never so easy as 'those guys have the black hats on.' I try to remove the presence of clearly definable good or evil, and make it something people have to judge very situationally. The people in my setting who do believe in absolute heroism are the ones I make into the 'real bad guys'.

 

I do strongly feel that you should not give points for a psych disad unless that disad 'goes against type' for the game. If you run a 'comics code authority' mood game, nobody should get points for a code against killling, but if one Hero has a problem with using lethal violence - that hero should get disad points.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Summation of the posts for the last two pages as far as I can tell. (8^D)

 

If someone were gain enough powers that would change thier "Human Reasoning" beyond recognition of the baseline (that being human morals and societies ethics), does said values still apply to them?

 

The confusion seems to be over whether the person's beliefs are changed, regardless of the amount of power gained.

 

If one were to believe that the mind is unaffected, as far a moral codes of belief, then it does not matter how removed from humanity as far as powers go, the values still apply since the mind of the person will still act based on those beliefs.

 

Example: Fantastic Four, all gained powers at varying levels, which seemed to have no effective difference on thier beliefs.

 

If one were to believe that the mind is affected (power corrupts/absolute power corrupts absolutely) then the farther from humanity via powers a person will get. And the more disconnected that person becomes from his moral code of beliefs. Once such a person gains enough powers, thier mind will no longer act on those codes of conduct and they will be replaced by a new set that is influenced by the nature of the powers in question.

 

Example: Fantastic Four, Reed Richards son became so powerful that he was losing his humanity. The Sphinx? was normal human, but when he gained the power of the Sphinx? he became "evil" in that his codes of belief were replaced by those radically different.

 

I need help for better examples, since I don't read comics. (8^D)

The examples I gave was from browsing a friends comics years ago.

 

This is what it seems to have boiled down to as far as I can tell.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

Kudos for the summary. Close enough for me. I would just add that "even though a transhuman may be beyond human morality from their own perspective, that doesn't mean humans shouldn't judge and act with or against that transhuman with ethical conviction."

 

By this I mean... just because Galactus is beyond human ken, doesn't mean we shouldn't say "That is one bad dude in purple, and we better kick his ass before he eats the friggin' planet!"

 

I'm not saying that a transhuman morality is "superior" to a human morality... just different, based on different needs and different abilities. Maybe Lord Suneater, from his own perspective, has a meta-moral reason for eating the sun... but dude, that will kill my planet, and that is not acceptable for me or the league of Super But Still Groovy Humans" and we are going to stop him.

 

Yes, it is a more dispassionate way of looking at things rather than, "Yer goin' down, evildoooer!" but the end result is the same... fighting for the ethical right based on human existent needs.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yes, I have. I don't agree with all of Moore's assumptions, but admit he argues a good case. He played the same game with Doctor Manhattan, and I bought it completely with that character.

 

Again, I did allow for some exceptions.

Cool, was more curious than anything - not to say the point you got wasn't lurking in there, but primarily curious.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Doctor Manhattan is probably a better example. Miracleman has a multiform in HERO terms. One form (Micky Moran) is completely human ' date=' the other (Miracleman) is something beyond human, though still retains a not very well defined connection with Micky Moran.[/quote']

I think, though, that the direction he went in with Miracleman was highilghting the effects of alienation from humanity among men as well, as with some of the people so imbued with powers as briefly glanced during Miracleman's new era, whereas the people in Watchmen was far less present, though we could gleam some of the same point from Ozymandias' disturbingly-increasing alienation. However, you and WM are both right that as an individual example "Doc Manhattan" (I like how the character was ambivalent about any such name) is a more ideal version.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Summation of the posts for the last two pages as far as I can tell. (8^D)

 

If someone were to gain enough powers that would change thier "Human Reasoning" beyond recognition of the baseline (that being human morals and societies ethics), does said values still apply to them?

 

The confusion seems to be over whether the person's beliefs are changed, regardless of the amount of power gained.

 

If one were to believe that the mind is unaffected, as far a moral codes of belief, then it does not matter how removed from humanity as far as powers go, the values still apply since the mind of the person will still act based on those beliefs.

 

Example: Fantastic Four, all gained powers at varying levels, which seemed to have no effective difference on thier beliefs.

 

If one were to believe that the mind is affected (power corrupts/absolute power corrupts absolutely) then the farther from humanity via powers a person will get. And the more disconnected that person becomes from his moral code of beliefs. Once such a person gains enough powers, thier mind will no longer act on those codes of conduct and they will be replaced by a new set that is influenced by the nature of the powers in question.

 

Example: Fantastic Four, Reed Richards son became so powerful that he was losing his humanity. The Sphinx? was normal human, but when he gained the power of the Sphinx? he became "evil" in that his codes of belief were replaced by those radically different.

 

I need help for better examples, since I don't read comics. (8^D)

The examples I gave was from browsing a friends comics years ago.

 

This is what it seems to have boiled down to as far as I can tell.

 

- Christopher Mullins

This whole discussion is interesting to me because it has sort of been happening in my current campaign in that we have two super-intelligent characters (I mean SUPER intelligent, >100 INT), to whom human intellect is bug-like. One is macro-level, can't see the forest for the trees, if we were to stereotype, while the other is micro-level, can't see the trees for all the particles that compose them. The latter is literally an alien, while the former is a mutant. The mutant, as his intellect grew by leaps and bounds as his mutation became more and more manifest through adventuring, as I've related elsewhere, embraced the Necronomicon and "magic" as he discovered magic was merely a form of metaphysics, a "deeper", if you will, science than we currently understand. He became filled with hubris, and began to increasingly justify his actions based on his knowledge and without regard to the impact on humanity/human emotions. It all eventually came crashing down on him though as he realized the Necronomicon was actually bigger than he and it threatened his family - a very human thing he still had contact with/love for, and that linkage to humanity. Since then (long story short) he has fully reformed and is revamping his life and priorities, trying to relearn, in essence, what it is to be human even though the character isn't thinking of it that way so much as he's adhering to a new and stricter moral code.

 

Whereas the alien is just...alien! He doesn't really relate to people on their level. He stands outside of everyone in his (what they view as) utter paranoia, byzantine thinking, and often amoral solutions, and it makes for both fun and oddness in the campaign. However, this character also shares a fundamental attachment to humanity in his passion for equality and protection of beings against those more powerful. Which makes him work in this campaign context.

 

But what's interesting also is that this latter character is playing a dangerous in-between game of befriending Magneto, whom he hopes to influence to step away from the dark edge of anti-humanity, while still being part of the Justice Squad - which serves the government (um, more or less...) and is therefore supposed to be fundamentally opposed to Magneto.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I just wanted to say I'm bummed that this thread seems to have petered out just before it hit 500 posts.

 

to all... it was a great thread. Tangents and all (heck... especially the tangents!)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well there we disagree. In my view, if you were transformed (whether instantly or gradually doesn't matter) into a Culture starship AI, you would no longer be human.

 

If those gods merely possess advanced physical power (superstrength, longevity, etc.) then I don't think it would make a difference. Here I think I might be disagreeing with RDU Neil, not sure what his view is on advanced physical powers. OTOH if we're talking about a being as far beyond human in mental capacity as humanity is beyond an amoeba then to ascribe our morality to such beings is a mistake. Sure we could apply our human concepts to their actions and talk as if such beings had human mentalities but we would be mistaken. In the same way I can imagine the Earth having a mind behind it and say that that mind is morally good when it provides fertile crops and morally bad when it causes earthquakes. But I would be wrong to do so. I'm ascribing human morality to something that doesn't possess it.

I still think it would be a matter of choice, rather than mental function. If a being, regardless of how it thinks, is able to make a choice to aid, hinder or stay out of the way, then it falls into the same moral caliber as humans. If it was so far advanced that it couldn't perceive the results of it's own actions, is only acting on some kind of advanced instinct, or is in any other way not making choices, then such a being couldn't be judged by human morality.

 

But if it were making a choice....

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yes' date=' yes it would. You have somewhat greater physical power but still have a wholly human mind.[/quote']

You know what... we'd better stop now and agree to disagree. It's my personal belief that gods have human minds (manking created in His image and all that), but the Champions board really isn't the place to discuss religious dogma.

 

I'd still love to discuss it, but this really isn't the place for it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It was fascinating' date=' heady, intense stuff... asking really hard questions at times (and other times, the characters would purposefully hold back and act "as superhereos should" simply because it was a less stressful process) and very fulfilling. It was only possible because people did not jump to the extreme conclusion "well that's just wrong!" and simply asked, "Well... maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not... lets really investigate this..."[/quote']

Sounds like a great campaign. Of course, there's a subtle difference between taking over the world, and conquering it. One can be peaceful, that other clearly is not.

 

As part of the galactic history of my campaign, there's a planet out there where the robots took over. It was basically a continuation of the eventuallity of Asimov's Robot series. The robots realized that if mankind was to remain in charge of their own fate, mankind was to destroy itself. Compelled by the First Law, the subtly too control away from mankind. By the time anyone realized it, it was far too late. The machines were in control and in a possition to remain there without the cost of human life. Forever.

 

Eventually, mankind, robbed of his own choices, slowly died out due to a kind of sociological apathy (imagine a world were humans are basically kept as pets, and restrained from harming one another). But robots went mad, having ultimately violated their First Law by upholding it.

 

In any case, such a forceful take over, however subtle, can't be judge by morality. The robots didn't have a choice. By their own programming, they were forced into it. No debate. No investigation. There was no need. It was obvious what their only action could be, as dictated by their Laws.

 

The campaign you describe sounds like fun. I'd love to play in something like that and actually role-play the moral struggles of a superbeing that knows taking over the world will better mankind in the long run, but questions whether or not it's still the right thing to do. My own beliefs tell me what the answer is (that the forceful subjugation of another whose able to make their own choices is wrong/evil, the only right and just thing to do is allow them to make there own choice), but it would be fun to explore that realization, or denial, in game.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Sounds like a great campaign. Of course, there's a subtle difference between taking over the world, and conquering it. One can be peaceful, that other clearly is not.

 

As part of the galactic history of my campaign, there's a planet out there where the robots took over. It was basically a continuation of the eventuallity of Asimov's Robot series. The robots realized that if mankind was to remain in charge of their own fate, mankind was to destroy itself. Compelled by the First Law, the subtly too control away from mankind. By the time anyone realized it, it was far too late. The machines were in control and in a possition to remain there without the cost of human life. Forever.

 

Eventually, mankind, robbed of his own choices, slowly died out due to a kind of sociological apathy (imagine a world were humans are basically kept as pets, and restrained from harming one another). But robots went mad, having ultimately violated their First Law by upholding it.

 

In any case, such a forceful take over, however subtle, can't be judge by morality. The robots didn't have a choice. By their own programming, they were forced into it. No debate. No investigation. There was no need. It was obvious what their only action could be, as dictated by their Laws.

 

The campaign you describe sounds like fun. I'd love to play in something like that and actually role-play the moral struggles of a superbeing that knows taking over the world will better mankind in the long run, but questions whether or not it's still the right thing to do. My own beliefs tell me what the answer is (that the forceful subjugation of another whose able to make their own choices is wrong/evil, the only right and just thing to do is allow them to make there own choice), but it would be fun to explore that realization, or denial, in game.

 

I love the concept of coming across the civilization of insane robots. Sounds like a fascinating world to explore.

 

As to the need issue... I would define "following programming" exactly as a fulfilling a need. I defined a need as that which is necessary for existence based on the human (or in this case robot) condition. Just as humans are "programmed" to find shelter, eat, search out security, etc., so the robots programming defines their needs.

 

It's semantics. We are really saying the same thing.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

By this I mean... just because Galactus is beyond human ken' date=' doesn't mean we shouldn't say "That is one bad dude in purple, and we better kick his ass before he eats the friggin' planet!" [/quote']

Of course, if you accept that Galactus is simply a force of nature, this it similar to say "earthquakes really suck, and we better do something to keep our buildings from falling down."

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I love the concept of coming across the civilization of insane robots. Sounds like a fascinating world to explore.

 

As to the need issue... I would define "following programming" exactly as a fulfilling a need. I defined a need as that which is necessary for existence based on the human (or in this case robot) condition. Just as humans are "programmed" to find shelter, eat, search out security, etc., so the robots programming defines their needs.

 

It's semantics. We are really saying the same thing.

The difference, however, is that humans may choose to ignore their needs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

RDU Neil's concept has actually been covered in four colour comics - Galactus. The Big G is regarded as vastly beyond human in all capacities. I think at one point a character even says something like "We're just amoebas to him." Galactus is also sometimes described as more like a force of nature than a sentient being. In a way he's both more and less than human.

 

The descriptions also got me to thinking about Galactus, and similar "So far advanced we are like ants to him" characters. I can't recall any of them ever being considered "Heroes", Super or not.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The difference' date=' however, is that humans may choose to ignore their needs.[/quote']

 

And I would say that any choice to ignore one need, is in service of fulfilling another, more critical need. This gets into heavy theory on human psychology, of which I'm not even close to being knowledgable enough about.

[Agent X]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

And I would say that any choice to ignore one need' date=' is in service of fulfilling another, more critical need. This gets into heavy theory on human psychology, of which I'm not even close to being knowledgable enough about.[/quote'] Next thing you know, someone will be explaining Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... on the Champions Board!

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Thermal (as role played by his player) would often go days without seeing anyone or talking to anyone' date=' wrapped up in research or books or thoughts, undistracted by hunger or need for sleep... his relationships suffered, his perspectives began to skew... he honestly began to look at things in terms of millenia effectiveness, since he would likely live for millions of years (essentially he is a living nuclear reaction that will evolve into a sentient star) and this changed his decision making process. He, and others, began to at least explore options like "we may be cursed for a thousand years... but if we take over the world, we might be in the best position to make sure the earth survives that thousand years to curse us..." etc. They began to say, "Are we becoming villains? Are we going to far? What if the right thing, the moral thing, would be seen as evil? Could we live with that? Do the ends justify the means?"[/quote']None of that means he's beyond human morality. Puny humans with a need to eat, sleep and limited lifespans are perfectly capable of everything you've described. An obsessed researcher could easily go days without seeing or talking to anyone. Any workaholic may find their relationships suffer. Normal humans are perfectly capable of looking at things in the long term. Look at the global warming debate for an example of short versus long term thinking. And finally humans can believe that the ends may justify the means. Me, for one.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I just wanted to say I'm bummed that this thread seems to have petered out just before it hit 500 posts.

 

to all... it was a great thread. Tangents and all (heck... especially the tangents!)

Bart returns unexpectedly after being sentenced to death.

Charlie: They said you was hung.

Bart: And they was right.

 

Bart on grandstand to the townspeople

Bart: Excuse me while I whip this out.

Bart reaches into waistline as crowd gasps and screams. Bart pulls out paper

Crowd: Ahhhhh.

 

Bart: [holding his own gun to his head] Nobody moves or the nigger gets it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

just to be sure no one thought I was referring to Bart Simpson...