Code VS Killing Poll

[zornwil]

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.

Have you read any of the ABC Warriors stories, I think they were in 2000 AD? They're not insane, but they are robots with personalities long after the humans are gone. The ABC stands for "Atomic Bacterial Chemical"

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I think that the Q from Star Trek that we normally saw might be conisdered a hero among many in the Continuum.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Looking back at the thread, I wanted to apologize to anyone I might have offended. Basically, I'm just a genre type. I try to call things like I see them. I don't mean to insult anyone when I said I didn't consider some of their games "Superhero" games. Its just me being anal retentive, not making a value judgement.

[Hermit]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Possibly related to this topic, as an attempt to bridge the gap between traditional superheroes and vigilantes is made...

 

Hostess Fruit Pies make it all better...

 

 

(Found this on Super Hero Hype, posted in their forums by 'The Hero', credit where credit's due )

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Looking back at the thread' date=' I wanted to apologize to anyone I might have offended. Basically, I'm just a genre type. I try to call things like I see them. I don't mean to insult anyone when I said I didn't consider some of their games "Superhero" games. Its just me being anal retentive, not making a value judgement.[/quote']

A lot of people got heated; I wouldn't worry, it's cool. Thanks.

[Dust Raven]

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']

That's one way of looking at it, but I don't think so. Unfortunately I don't feel up to the research of digging up old human psychology studies. The gist of what I recall is that humans are capable of basing a choice on desire, rather than need. This is why some people never have children, are homosexual, commit suicide, refuse to eat meat, practice religeon and a number of other things that, technically, aren't needs at all. These choices are all based upon one's desires rather than needs, and some of them actually defy the "needs" of being human (such as suicide).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

None of that means he's beyond human morality. Puny humans with a need to eat' date=' 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.[/quote']

Not to mention that the differences between a metahuman who doesn't need to eat or sleep and lives a really long time and a normal human can be compaired to a normal human and someone who was born blind or crippled. One might have capabilities the other does not, but the mind is the same.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Possibly related to this topic, as an attempt to bridge the gap between traditional superheroes and vigilantes is made...

 

Hostess Fruit Pies make it all better...

 

 

(Found this on Super Hero Hype, posted in their forums by 'The Hero', credit where credit's due )

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Trying to come up with a definition of superhero that might be acceptable to both sides of the Four Color/Iron Age divide (and my own personal idiosyncrasies on the concept)

 

Superhero: "person with superhuman powers (or mundane abilities or technology so advanced that they look like superhuman) who strives to protect and/or improve the conditions of a community (humanity, the world, all living beings, the universe) through personal effort to an exceptional degree, and because of an altruistic ideal, morality, or motivation. Attitude about lethal force, striving to be a moral example, regarding oneself as the peer of the ones he helps or protects, deeming oneself accountable to their laws or morality, and use of classic comic book tropes such as a code name, costume, or secret identity, may or may not be relevant, according to the source material one uses for inspiration".

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Possibly related to this topic, as an attempt to bridge the gap between traditional superheroes and vigilantes is made...

 

Hostess Fruit Pies make it all better...

 

 

(Found this on Super Hero Hype, posted in their forums by 'The Hero', credit where credit's due )

That is SO wrong!

 

John T

[Kraken]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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' date=' eat, search out security, etc., so the robots programming defines their needs.[/quote']

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

Actually, I would argue that the difference is that a human (or any other living being) which ignores its needs necessarily brings about suffering or destruction (i.e. some actual change in its condition), whereas a robot (or a furnace with a thermostat, for that matter) which ignores its programming directives does not. Of course, such a machine might be programmed in such a way that failure brings destruction, but such a consequence would be as irrelevant to the robot as any other result of its programming, which it follows in any case.

 

What human choice adds is fallibility: i.e., a human can be mistaken about what constitutes its needs (choosing something of little or no actual consequence or failing to recognize something important) or, as you say, choose not to pursue what it considers its needs (actual or not). In this sense, human beings are not "programmed" in any way like robots. By contrast, a plant has needs but lacks choice: it always acts in pursuit of its needs, even though its range of action may be insufficient to do so successfully (so that it dies).

 

Bringing all this back to the thread, metahumans have needs which are often radically different from those of human beings. (Truly invulnerable beings have the same status as robots: the consequences of their actions are basically irrelevant to them. To the extent they choose to act at all, they are acting basically on whim or habit.) If a metahuman starts off as more-or-less a normal human being, then acquires his powers, will he even recognize if/that his needs have changed? How will his concepts of right and wrong as well as his motivations and other emotional reactions evolve as he learns? I fully agree with Neil that these questions are among the most interesting encountered when role-playing supers.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Truly invulnerable beings have the same status as robots: the consequences of their actions are basically irrelevant to them. To the extent they choose to act at all' date=' they are acting basically on whim or habit.[/quote']

I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion. In invulnerable human can choose. A programmed robot cannot. Consequences are relevant to everyone, though something without choice won't care, and even someone with choice may choose not to care. Basically, it's not that the consequences of the actions of superbeings are irrelevant, it's just that some superbeings might not give a crap about them.

 

Apathy is still a human concept, and applies just fine to the superhuman.

 

If nothing else, think about the terms we use; Superhuman, Metahuman, etc. All they are is human plus powers. The method of thinking isn't changed at all.

 

I will conceed that the sudden acquisition of superpowers, or being raised with them, could lead to severe psychological disorders, including sociopathy, megalomania and many other traits often attributed to villains. Just because a human, even a superhuman, goes insane, doesn't mean that morality doesn't apply (though the individual may believe it does not apply to themself).

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually' date=' I would argue that the difference is that a human (or any other living being) which ignores its needs necessarily brings about suffering or destruction (i.e. some actual change in its condition), whereas a robot (or a furnace with a thermostat, for that matter) which ignores its programming directives does not.[/quote']

 

You (but not just you) are completely ignoring emotional needs. Even Galactus got lonely. Even Superman gets the blues.

[Kraken]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion.

But you just saw me come to this conclusion!

 

In invulnerable human can choose. A programmed robot cannot. Consequences are relevant to everyone' date=' though something without choice won't care, and even someone with choice may choose not to care. Basically, it's not that the consequences of the actions of superbeings are irrelevant, it's just that some superbeings might not give a crap about them.[/quote']

My point wasn't that an invulnerable being might not have choice, only that choice would be irrelevant to him if nothing he chooses to do affects his condition in any appreciable way. Of course, his actions might have enormous consequences, positive or negative, for other beings. And (as bblackmoor points out), he might still be motivated emotionally, which I described as acting on whim. (If you don't regard Galactus' "need" for companionship to be a whim--after all, what would he have in common with anyone?!--I'm not sure I'd be able to convince you in a casual exchange on an RPG board! )

 

Apathy is still a human concept, and applies just fine to the superhuman.

 

If nothing else, think about the terms we use; Superhuman, Metahuman, etc. All they are is human plus powers. The method of thinking isn't changed at all.

 

I will conceed that the sudden acquisition of superpowers, or being raised with them, could lead to severe psychological disorders, including sociopathy, megalomania and many other traits often attributed to villains. Just because a human, even a superhuman, goes insane, doesn't mean that morality doesn't apply (though the individual may believe it does not apply to themself).

Whether or not the method of thinking changes depends on the nature of the powers. Typically, Champions characters are just human beings enhanced with powers (as you say), but the comic genre contains many examples of alien beings. If I am a being of pure energy whose senses do not directly convey the existence of solid objects, who is fed by electric fields of a certain pattern but harmed by electric fields of another, then my needs and method of thinking are radically different (from humans). Some of my actions (e.g. blowing power grids while feeding) might be bad for human beings, even though they are good for us energy beings.

 

At some point, adding powers to a human might make him so alien that what used to be good for him becomes irrelevant (e.g. food to a guy with the appropriate Life Support) or even bad (e.g. human contact is a deadly Susceptibility). Does this change human morality? No, but it certainly affects his own moral code and motivations, which makes for interesting role-playing possibilities.

[Korvar]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

My point wasn't that an invulnerable being might not have choice, only that choice would be irrelevant to him if nothing he chooses to do affects his condition in any appreciable way. Of course, his actions might have enormous consequences, positive or negative, for other beings. And (as bblackmoor points out), he might still be motivated emotionally, which I described as acting on whim.

 

I'll point out that in the Heirarchy of Needs, after Physiological and Safety needs (which we can safely assume Mr. Invulnerable has sorted), there come Love, Esteem and Self-Actualisation.

 

Nicked from: http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

 

Love Needs

 

Love and belongingness are next on the ladder. Humans have a desire to belong to groups: clubs, work groups, religious groups, family, gangs, etc. We need to feel loved (non-sexual) by others, to be accepted by others. Performers appreciate applause. We need to be needed. Beer commercials, in addition to playing on sex, also often show how beer makes for camaraderie. When was the last time you saw a beer commercial with someone drinking beer alone?

 

Esteem Needs

 

There are two types of esteem needs. First is self-esteem which results from competence or mastery of a task. Second, there's the attention and recognition that comes from others. This is similar to the belongingness level, however, wanting admiration has to do with the need for power. People who have all of their lower needs satisfied, often drive very expensive cars because doing so raises their level of esteem. "Hey, look what I can afford-peon!"

 

Self-Actualization

 

The need for self-actualization is "the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming." People who have everything can maximize their potential. They can seek knowledge, peace, esthetic experiences, self-fulfillment, oneness with God, etc. It is usually middle-class to upper-class students who take up environmental causes, join the Peace Corps, go off to a monastery, etc.

 

So Mr. Invulnerable's choices can quite easily have quite appreciable effects on his situation. The way he is percieved by others can have a large impact on him. And that's hardly acting on a whim...

[Kraken]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'll point out that in the Heirarchy of Needs, after Physiological and Safety needs (which we can safely assume Mr. Invulnerable has sorted), there come Love, Esteem and Self-Actualisation.

...

So Mr. Invulnerable's choices can quite easily have quite appreciable effects on his situation. The way he is percieved by others can have a large impact on him. And that's hardly acting on a whim...

The relevant question is: why would Mr. Invulnerable need any of these things?! One's answer rests largely on one's views regarding the source and purpose of human emotions, so I honestly don't think the question can or will be answered to anyone's satisfaction in this forum.

 

While I have no problem accepting that Mr. Invulnerable desires things, I just don't think he would ever actually need any of the things he desires, so that his desires amount to habits or whims, psychological artifacts of a time when he was not invulnerable.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Why would being invulnerable eliminate your need for friendship, compaions, love or acceptance? Why would it negate the need for human contact and some form of interaction? What would replace them? Sheer pride in the fact you are now invulnerable?

 

Even in more "realistic" settings extremely powerful beings are portrayed as having psychological needs that are quite human. Divis Mal did basically everything he did out a desire for companionship and peers. He's still dealing with alienation issues from centuries ago to boot. Everyone gets lonely or bored. People like to feel good about themselves. It probably just me, but I've never found role playing a completely alien being that much fun as a player. I can't idenify with them and thus I don't know if I am doing it "right". Being human, anything I play is going to be, on some basic level, motivated by human drives.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

If nothing else' date=' think about the terms we use; Super[i']human[/i], Metahuman, etc. All they are is human plus powers. The method of thinking isn't changed at all.

 

I will conceed that the sudden acquisition of superpowers, or being raised with them, could lead to severe psychological disorders, including sociopathy, megalomania and many other traits often attributed to villains. Just because a human, even a superhuman, goes insane, doesn't mean that morality doesn't apply (though the individual may believe it does not apply to themself).

 

 

Well said.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

While I have no problem accepting that Mr. Invulnerable desires things' date=' I just don't think he would ever actually need any of the things he desires[/quote']

 

Generally speaking, it is polite to accept that, when someone says they need something, that they need it. The fact that you, in their position, would have different needs is of no consequence whatsoever.

 

edit: rant deleted

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Generally speaking, it is polite to accept that, when someone says they need something, that they need it. The fact that you, in their position, would have different needs is of no consequence whatsoever.

 

Warning: rant incoming...

 

Crap in a hat -- does Hero System really attract so many self-centered people, or is it just normal to be so monstrously myopic? From the grammar one uses in a PBEM game, to what sub-genre of superhero games is "really" a superhero game, and now to what people "need" to be happy, I am seeing this ridiculously self-centered garbage over and over and over again. I am sick of it. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, it just makes me want to weep for our bloody species.

 

Okay, show's over, back to whatever else you were doing....

 

What ARE you on about? You've done more than little preaching your posts as well, you know.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Maybe so. The difference being that I "preach" cooperation and inclusion, rather than elimination and exclusion.

 

Nevermind, just ignore what I said. It's only a game...

 

Actually, you preach the same as anyone else. "My way is the best way", you just include "If you really want to do something else, feel free" every now and again.

 

Oh whatever, why do I even bother getting into forums and boards. Its just an excersize in frustration.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Can you provide an example where "my way" does not consist of allowing people the flexibility to play what and how they want to play?

 

For instance, can you find an example in this thread where I said that a particular character with or without Code vs. Killing made that character "not a superhero"?

 

No, you can't.

 

I didn't say in this thread. I said over all. Its not somethin you say explictly that's true. You are very good a couching your terms "nicely". And playing innocent after the fact.

 

I feel like a sane person trying to explain to a Republican why it's none of their business whether a lesbian gets married or to whom, or trying to convince a religious zealot that a marriage between two men is a marriage. I start pretty calm, then I get frustrated, then I get irritated, and then I feel like shouting seven-letter words that start with the letter 'F'.

 

Tell me about it.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well, I have to say, that's a first. I usually get criticized for speaking to people like they're adults, rather than children that need to be coddled. Which, ironically, gets me accused of "being condescending" or "talking down" to them -- if there's one thing that a child hates, it's being treated like an adult.

 

So... thanks... I guess... ?

 

Cute.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well, I have to say, that's a first. I usually get criticized for speaking to people like they're adults, rather than children that need to be coddled. Which, ironically, gets me accused of "being condescending" or "talking down" to them -- if there's one thing that a child hates, it's being treated like an adult.

 

So... thanks... I guess... ?

 

How utterly passive-aggressive of you.

 

You don't get called condescending because you "talk to people like an adult", you get called condescending because when you talk to people, you assume a baseless attitude of smug superiority and equally smug certitude.

 

Or, to put it in words you'll be able to parse, you talk to people as if you were the only smart person in the room and you were explaining things to a bunch of four year olds.

 

Its not appreciated, I assure you...

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I indulged myself in a rant, a few messages back. It was mainly an emotional outburst to vent my frustrations, and like most such indulgences, it was neither positive nor constructive. I have gone back and deleted it and the counterproductive posts it spawned.

 

I'm sorry: it was a mistake for me to start such a negative exchange. We are better people than that.

 

[edit: corrected spelling -- I really should proofread before hitting submit]