Ethics for mentalists

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

 

[sidebar: what was that cop comedy (movie? TV show?) several years back where the one partner was a martial artist, but he was required to give people a lengthy warning before he could use his abilities? The joke was that he usually got beat up before he could finish the warning.]

 

Of course, for most superhero games I file this under “It’s a genre thing†– right next to the whole “vigilante justice†question – and ignore it, because otherwise it’s all but impossible to have effective mentalist heroes. (As Blue observed.)

 

 

Interesting post, full of good ideas. I only have to replicate that IMO the comparison between mind control and lethal force would stand not only ethically but legally. So it will be legal to do it with the person's consent (as long as that person is made to do nothing illegal; a lot of persons would likely be rush the controller to be ripped of their addictions, depression, phobias, etc.) or to protect yourself, another person, or public peace. So it will be likely OK to shout an armed felon "stop or I'll control" or even proceed to MC directly, according to the level of threat involved. Of course, law enforcement supers will have a bit more leeway in this, but even civilian supers will not likely be given much harassment if they use Mental Illusions to submit a violent criminal.

[Wanderer]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I beleive I have said there is less of' date=' or perhaps no issue about "Super" charisimatic individuals. Whjere we disagree is on the nature inducing, forcing or what you have someone in sex that might not desire. [/quote']

 

Actually, it seems to me that we both agree that using major MC without consent would be immoral in most circumstances (I add, except to protect yourself, another person, or the community, thinking of war situations, not Thought Police ), including sex. It seems to me we have just a different degree of sensibility on how much immoral would it be to use it for this specific things, according to the way the command is structured.

 

Define current mainstream culture? Which culture? What about the person's own morals regardless of what "mainstream culture" thinks? Because its pleasant if the person would never have peformed the act (say a straight man MC'ed in homosexual interouse, or the inverse) because it they had any choice in the matter because they were made to think it was enjoyable. It acceptable?

 

NOOPE. No one is saying it would be "acceptable", only "less severe". Cohercion is never acceptable. It's still definitely in the bad half of the filed, only somewhat closer to the dividing line, because it inflicts less suffering to the victim (I know, I know, nuns and all that. I'm just that mindful that most people are not nuns or suchlike). In current mainstream culture, casual sex is not a shameful act unless one happens to cheat on one's partner, and cheating, while not being commendable, is not a life-devastating act nor it brings social ostracism. Forcing someone to have sex against one's orientation would of course be a greater violation because it would force one to go against one's instincts. So it would entail a greater suffering. It's the difference between being coherced to eat food, or dirt.

 

I am talking about using Mind Control in the classic sense;the mentalist in question overrides his targets normal throught process and inserts what he wants them to think. It is not their choice, not their decision in any way. It is an alien drive inserted in their mind by another being for the purpose of satifying their own desires.

 

I think we both agree on the immorality of it. However, though it is unethical, the cynic in me still thinks most (not all, but most) people, if bestowed with MC, would at least once use it to score with the boy or girl that spurned them, umiliate those who bullied them, and the like, morals be damned. Saints are rare

 

Well, just because you don't like it doesn't mean its beaneath consideration.

 

Nope, just that since I despise a belief system, I cannot be asked to have sympathy for it.

 

And yes people have killed themselves over committing adulterly, or have suffered severe emotional trauma, or at the very least its wrecked their lives.

 

Hmm, making a premise that I'm answering these points on the abstract general moral point, and not in the sense of the specific point of MC's morality...

 

If not legally, at least morally one might only be held responsible for the consequences of one's actions that are reasonably foreseeable. Suicide ore life-wrecking emotional trauma is NOT the stable, average person's reaction to adultery. If I run over Fluffy, it doesn't mean I am, guilty of homicide if Fluffy's owner cuts his wrists.

 

Its being rather cavlier to completely toss aside the importance of the beliefs and will different people because they don't happen to agree with yours or are "Weak" by whatver standards you hold.

 

As above.

 

There's a reasonable threshold of fortitude people are expected to have. Beneath it, whatever emotional damage one may suffer from normal events of life is strictly one's business. When you are born, never you are issued a written garantee of complete immunity from life's and other people conduct's emotional bruises. People are morally entitled to avoid doing what would create undue significant harm to others under reasonable expectation, not to exert godlike efforts to ensure that no harm whatsoever results to others. Or freedom to live one's life would be abolished. As for beliefs, speaking on the abstract, maybe. But don't ask me to have sympathy for beliefs I deem harmful to mankind and fondly wish to be extinguished.

 

Someone MC's a man into adulterous affair that costs him his wife, his children, home, reputation and everything that makes his life mean something so he ends up killing himself doesn't seem so far fetched to me.

 

Hmm, unless you happen to be posting from some Taliban-controlled enclave... hey man, are you sure you are posting from the Twenty-First Century ?? Wife, children, and home sure can happen, even if the cynic in me would say that if your partner adamantly insists on divorce on *one* infidelity, probably (s)he doesn't really loved you and you are better off without her/him. But divorced people don't lose job, friends, reputation (21st Century, remember ?) and are not typically expected to slit their wrists, or America would be the Land of the Dead.

 

Even the average person is generally going to feel more remose than "losing a job" over their relationship getting trashed, violating deeply held perssonal beliefs or their own morality. Some perfectly "average" people don't beleive in casual sex and don't desire random sexual encounters.

 

CONT...

 

 

 

It depends, like anything on how "Super Charisma" is used. Its power and tool like any other. If my "charisma" is so potent as to be effectively irresistable to the majority of the population and I can effectively use it to "induce" them to perform acts they normally wouldn't then it is a effectively a power and brings a certain moral responsibility.

 

"Regular" high charisma can be abused in unethical ways, including seduction done with no consideration for the feelings of the target or the aftermath of the act. Those people were often referred to as cads and other colorful names.

 

 

 

I think you have misunderstood what I said. The two acts are both wrong, and because one is worse that doesn't alleviate the fact the first one is just as wrong. One is less severe; how much less severe depends on many factors.

 

We will just have to disagree on the idea that being able to make the target think that enjoyed it lessens the severity of the act. A powerful enough mentalist COULD make you think killing your family and bathing in their blood was fun, after all, just like a lesser one could make a nun become a 20 dollar street walker and think she was having the time of her life.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Interesting post' date=' full of good ideas. I only have to replicate that IMO the comparison between mind control and lethal force would stand not only ethically but legally. So it will be legal to do it with the person's consent (as long as that person is made to do nothing illegal; a lot of persons would likely be rush the controller to be ripped of their addictions, depression, phobias, etc.) or to protect yourself, another person, or public peace. So it will be likely OK to shout an armed felon "stop or I'll control" or even proceed to MC directly, according to the level of threat involved. Of course, law enforcement supers will have a bit more leeway in this, but even civilian supers will not likely be given much harassment if they use Mental Illusions to submit a violent criminal.[/quote']

Agreed, `tho I think from a social standpoint (which would eventually become a legal standpoint) you might see less acceptance of mental powers simply because the idea of having someone read their thoughts and/or control their actions is so repungnant to most people.

 

Hmmm...idea forming for a "Mentalist Angst" campaign...

Act I: Public doesn't believe in mental powers; heroes attempt to stay beneath the radar.

Act II: Public find out mentalists are real, reacts with fear & hatred; heroes attempt to keep a low profile.

Act III: Activities of unscrupulous mentalists galvanizes public opposition, passage of anti-mentalist laws, beginnings of "Psi Corps" type attempts to control the "problem"; heroes have to choose between being "outlaw heroes" (ala X-Men) or leaders of the Mentalist Revolution (ala Magneto).

Act IV: Mentalist revolution begins to gather steam, society realizes just how defenseless it is without "good" mentalists to oppose the bad ones; heroes must step forward to save a society that hates and fears them.

Act V: Heroes defeat the villainous mentalist revolutionaries; society comes to accept good mentalists as a necessary check against bad mentalists, but still doesn't trust them; extensive denoument involving "rebel" mentalists who aren't necessarily evil and trying to reintegrate mentalists as a whole back into society.

 

Must...Go...Away...And...Write...

 

 

bigdamnhero

JAYNE: "I don't like the idea of someone hearing what I'm thinking."

INARA: "No one likes the idea of hearing what you're thinking."

[megaplayboy]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

The most insidious jobs for unscrupulous mentalists:

1. political consultant--can find out what the other campaign plans to do, what skeletons they have in their closet, can cause gaffes and other missteps, line up critical support for their candidates, etc.

2. lawyer--if they learn to do "stealth" telepathy and mind control, they can get even the most guilty defendant an acquittal or hung jury

3. talent agent--20% of earnings, plus "fringe benefits" for the most unscrupulous mentalists

4. information broker/extortion artist

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

The most insidious jobs for unscrupulous mentalists:

 

#6: Confidance man. Considering how easy it is to persuade allegedly-intelligent people to part with their money without mind control...

 

 

bigdamnhero

“As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?â€

[megaplayboy]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

#7. Founder and "mentor" at a school for adolescents and young adults with special gifts:eg:

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

NOOPE. No one is saying it would be "acceptable", only "less severe". Cohercion is never acceptable. It's still definitely in the bad half of the filed, only somewhat closer to the dividing line, because it inflicts less suffering to the victim (I know, I know, nuns and all that. I'm just that mindful that most people are not nuns or suchlike). In current mainstream culture, casual sex is not a shameful act unless one happens to cheat on one's partner, and cheating, while not being commendable, is not a life-devastating act nor it brings social ostracism. Forcing someone to have sex against one's orientation would of course be a greater violation because it would force one to go against one's instincts. So it would entail a greater suffering (unless the MC is so skilled as to being able to build

 

Its not just "nuns" and "preists" that have prohibitions against casual sex. I think you may be generalizing your attitudes about sex and, perhaps unintentionally, implying that those that do not share them are somehow abnormal or misguided. I know quite a few people that feel sex is a special intimate act and not something to be done casually whenever you get the urge. I know people that have chosen to abstain from sexual activity until they found a person they feel emotionally drawn to to share the experience, and its has nothing to do with religion.

 

Many feel adultery IS a contemptible act and would be devasted if the committed it. If you've ever been threw a divorce or seen what happens to a marriage when someone cheats, well, yes it is life devestating, more so than losing a job. No in the modern US we don't sew red A's on people anymore or stone them, but Adultery does carry an impact both emotional and social. I've seen the process and had to pick up the peices more than than to think its just "bad thing to do".

[megaplayboy]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

well, sometimes I feel like there should be more granularity in the levels of effect for mind control:

rate the command on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being the most inoffensive, natural imperative("continue doing that pleasant thing you were doing already") and 10 being the most offensive, unnatural imperative(killing or otherwise violating one's loved ones, killing oneself, etc.). the necessary effect level will be equal to (EGO-10)+(rating x 5) in points.

 

The tricky thing is that every player wants to claim that every command should be rated a 10. If "attack your teammates" is a 10, that means that doing something even worse is no more difficult to accomplish.

So, logically, there are levels of offensiveness or unnaturalness--some things would be less difficult to compel than others.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

The tricky thing is that every player wants to claim that every command should be rated a 10.

Depends which side of the MC they're on.

 

 

bigdamnhero

[Kristopher]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Its not just "nuns" and "preists" that have prohibitions against casual sex. I think you may be generalizing your attitudes about sex and, perhaps unintentionally, implying that those that do not share them are somehow abnormal or misguided. I know quite a few people that feel sex is a special intimate act and not something to be done casually whenever you get the urge. I know people that have chosen to abstain from sexual activity until they found a person they feel emotionally drawn to to share the experience, and its has nothing to do with religion.

 

Many feel adultery IS a contemptible act and would be devasted if the committed it. If you've ever been threw a divorce or seen what happens to a marriage when someone cheats, well, yes it is life devestating, more so than losing a job. No in the modern US we don't sew red A's on people anymore or stone them, but Adultery does carry an impact both emotional and social. I've seen the process and had to pick up the peices more than than to think its just "bad thing to do".

 

Thank you for saying something similar to what I was about to say.

 

I'm actually pretty offended by the (unspoken?) assertion others have made that I should feel a certain way about casual sexual acts involving, oh, myself.

[Kristopher]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

The tricky thing is that every player wants to claim that every command should be rated a 10.

 

I usually tend to rate most things at a higher level than others do, and consider them more difficult. IMO, Mind Control should be hard, not easy, and if a mentalist is looking for things that the target "wants to do", then he's going to have to somehow study them. This is the in-combat use for Telepathy -- figuring out who doesn't like who amoungst the villains.

[Karma]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Telepathy is the ultimate 'invasion of privacy'. If you consider invading a person's privacy unethical then you have to consider telepathy in the same way. Sure the proper authorities can get permission to invade a person's privacy, but they used to have to ask for it on a case by case basis (the USA PATRIOT ACT is taking care of that). So it might be permissable by 'registered telepaths' in the line of duty, but for the most part it should be considered at the least 'icky' (Telepaths being, potentially, the ultimate peeping toms)

 

Mind Control however is the ultimate remover of free will. Unlike threatening people with a gun Mind Control doesn't give the person a choice (few Mind Controllers say 'Stop or I will Mind Control you' they just go ahead and do it (mostly because they consider it 'soft' since it 'doesn't hurt anyone'). And the problems that come with having a gun are magified with Mind Control. Normal police sometimes have a hard time staying within the boundries of their job when they find a 'child murderer' will go free unless they do something about it. Imagine how much easier it would be if they could 'convince' him to confess with no evidence of their 'coersion'. Sure you walked all over his Rights, but no-one will know, and it's better with him off the street.

 

Unethical? Maybe. But the fact is Mind control powers are probably the ones with the most corrupting effect simply because they can be used to make others do what you want, leave no evidence and can (with a Ego + 20 roll) even allow you to convince them it was their idea.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I usually tend to rate most things at a higher level than others do' date=' and consider them more difficult. IMO, Mind Control should be hard, not easy, and if a mentalist is looking for things that the target "wants to do", then he's going to have to somehow study them. This is the in-combat use for Telepathy -- figuring out who doesn't like who amoungst the villains.[/quote']

well, sure, there are commands which are more offensive than others, but logically, there are degrees of vileness. In system, the most vile/objectionable thing one can command someone to do rates EGO+40, with the target perhaps getting a bonus of +1 to +3 to their breakout roll. The least objectionable/most natural action rates EGO, or EGO-5 if "well phrased".

 

So, presumably, something involving the most vile acts imaginable(what one would find in a de Sade book or Clive Barker novel) would get the highest degree of difficulty, and more mundane objectionable acts(casual sex with a stranger, robbing a bank, etc.) would have a lower degree of difficulty than this. Otherwise, if one rates everything "my character wouldn't do" as maximum difficulty, the unintended consequences of that are that a villain with the ability to make a character do something they wouldn't do has the equal ability to make the character do anything they wouldn't do, including acts of Sadeian vileness.

 

So, to me, some granularity would allow a clearer continuum of levels of effect.

EGO-5, EGO, EGO+5, EGO+10, EGO+15, EGO+20, EGO+25, EGO+30, EGO+35, EGO+40, and perhaps even +45, +50 and +55(to reflect the +1-3 breakout bonus).

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I would add that there should be some additional expansion on effects of making the target forget his actions, think they were his own idea etc. Making the target think the ideas were his own AND not question them or consider the possibility of Mind Control in a world where such powers are possible seems like it should be at least a little more difficult than just naking him think the actions were his own idea for awhile.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I would add that there should be some additional expansion on effects of making the target forget his actions' date=' think they were his own idea etc. Making the target think the ideas were his own AND not question them or consider the possibility of Mind Control in a world where such powers are possible seems like it should be at least a little more difficult than just naking him think the actions were his own idea for awhile.[/quote']

I agree with this--perhaps such an effect is effectively a combination of the "forgets actions while mind controlled" and "thinks actions were natural/own idea", or +30. In conjunction with my idea, to get a "total control" level over a normal would require 10+55+30= 95 points. To make it reasonably hard to break out of would take about 30 dice of mind control.

 

For the equivalent amount of points you could vaporize the target and his home with one mighty blast, resurrect him and his family, turn him into a supervillain, etc.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I would add that there should be some additional expansion on effects of making the target forget his actions' date=' think they were his own idea etc. Making the target think the ideas were his own AND not question them or consider the possibility of Mind Control in a world where such powers are possible seems like it should be at least a little more difficult than just naking him think the actions were his own idea for awhile.[/quote']

 

No, either that OR it should be easier to mind control someone such that they WILL be able to disregard the 'the ideas were your own' section.

 

An extra +20 is 6 more dice. That is a LOT of extra active points. Why should it be more than that to make them know it was their own idea? It's the difference between "I don't like ice cream" to "I don't want to commit multiple counts of homicide" level control.

 

It should be easier to make them murder their family than unobtrusively slip in a command to go get an ice cream?

 

 

Uh, no.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

No' date=' either that OR it should be [i']easier[/i] to mind control someone such that they WILL be able to disregard the 'the ideas were your own' section.

 

An extra +20 is 6 more dice. That is a LOT of extra active points. Why should it be more than that to make them know it was their own idea? It's the difference between "I don't like ice cream" to "I don't want to commit multiple counts of homicide" level control.

 

It should be easier to make them murder their family than unobtrusively slip in a command to go get an ice cream?

 

 

Uh, no.

 

I think you have misunderstood me. It should be harder to make someone murder their family for no apparent reason and then not only think the idea was their but never even have the idea of if being Mind Control, or even an odd action, in other words essentially rewrite their personality.

 

+20 is the difference between "I woldn't mind doing that anyway" and "I really don't want to do that" For most people I would imagine commiting multiple acts of homocide to be more +30 or higher. Getting some one to go get some ice cream, assuming normal circumstance is what? Greater than Ego, +20 to make them think it was there own idea and for most people there's not realy much reason for them to think it very odd, unless the mentalist overdoes it. But for acts tha run more counter to the target's nature, yeah, I think the level of "Its your idea and you'll never think its mind control unless someone tells you, should be more difficult."

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I agree with this--perhaps such an effect is effectively a combination of the "forgets actions while mind controlled" and "thinks actions were natural/own idea", or +30. In conjunction with my idea, to get a "total control" level over a normal would require 10+55+30= 95 points. To make it reasonably hard to break out of would take about 30 dice of mind control.

 

For the equivalent amount of points you could vaporize the target and his home with one mighty blast, resurrect him and his family, turn him into a supervillain, etc.

 

This would be one of the reasons I am not a big fan of Mind Control.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

I think you have misunderstood me. It should be harder to make someone murder their family for no apparent reason and then not only think the idea was their but never even have the idea of if being Mind Control, or even an odd action, in other words essentially rewrite their personality.

 

+20 is the difference between "I woldn't mind doing that anyway" and "I really don't want to do that" For most people I would imagine commiting multiple acts of homocide to be more +30 or higher. Getting some one to go get some ice cream, assuming normal circumstance is what? Greater than Ego, +20 to make them think it was there own idea and for most people there's not realy much reason for them to think it very odd, unless the mentalist overdoes it. But for acts tha run more counter to the target's nature, yeah, I think the level of "Its your idea and you'll never think its mind control unless someone tells you, should be more difficult."

 

+10 is "wouldn't mind". +0 is 'I was going to do that anyway'. (Think 'okay guard, look LEFT right now so I can run past')

+30 is "Violently Opposed"

 

+20 is the difference between the two.

 

I repeat, should it be harder to make someone think the icecream was their own idea than make them gun down their own family?

 

It should easier to inflict a flawed version of the +20 level that let's them eventually realize they got zapped. It should not be harder to actually make it seem as though it was their own idea. Mind Control is already hard enough.

 

Should you need MORE than 12d6 Mind Control to have a HOPE of implanting a subtle suggestion to go get an ice cream? Or to go to the bathroom _right now_?

 

+20 covers 'you thought it was your own idea and will argue vehemently that you were not being mind controlled, coming up with a sufficient rationalization'.

 

Because it takes around 16-18 dice to consistently force you to do that to get an ice cream.

 

Mind Control is hard enough. Stop trying to make it more inefficient.

 

 

A +50 difficulty to murder your family is GODLIKE mind control. Yes, you DID just rewrite their personality. You probably added some false memories, or (more likely) just made them 'snap' and have every bit of anger they ever felt coem bubbling up while they were holding the knife and it wasn like a horrible dream, officer, I never, I couldn't... but I did, I know it was me, I wanted to kill them, oh god, I wanted to kill them... no, I could control myself, that's why I...

 

It's perfectly hard enough.

 

+30 is "Dance, puppet, dance... dance the dance of killing as I make you slaughter YOUR OWN FAMILY, you pathetic little fool!" (and requires over 60 Ap, which would be enough to outright kill a normal with one shot with other powers....)

 

+30 is also 'go get an ice cream right now. you want one. go. no, you weren't mind controlled, don't be stupid. You just felt like ice cream."

 

The latter should not be +40. But making it more than a +20 to have them think it was their idea _would make it +40_.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

+10 is "wouldn't mind". +0 is 'I was going to do that anyway'. (Think 'okay guard, look LEFT right now so I can run past')

+30 is "Violently Opposed"

 

+20 is the difference between the two.

 

+20 is also the difference between was going to do anyway and will do something that are opposed that doesn't violate their basic nature. This covers allot of ground.

 

I repeat, should it be harder to make someone think the icecream was their own idea than make them gun down their own family?

 

Making somene thing getting an icecream cone if their own idea, barring odd circumstances it Greater than Ego, or less if "Well Worded" Getting them think it was their own idea is Ego +20. \

 

Going to get an ice cream cone is going to fall under this level most the time. If your are intelligent and don't try to do this under bizarre situation. "You there guarding vital plans, go get an ice cream one. Yeah, right now."

 

Getting somone to murder their family is, IMO, at least Ego+30 base. Getting them murder their family and think they thought about them selves and apparently never question nor have the idea of Mind Control cross their minds its +50. But that's an extreme case. You can wreak all sorts of merry havoc with lower levels and, essentially restructure personalities or hit the character an idiot beam

 

Mind Control's fine in my experience. Either use if for subtle but small effects or use it for power but short term ones. IF you want rewrite someone's mind use Mental Transform.

 

+20 says nothing about how you'll rationalize it or how hard you'll argue the point (That was part of the problem that I pointed out earlier). The Target will consider the actions his own idea. He may think he was breifly mind controlled and shook it off and won't consider mind control, but an outside party to suggest it.

 

Mind Controllers can blatant or insidious, I like it that way.

 

And you should chill out a bit. Considering that I don't write for Hero games, don't have the private ear of Steve Long or in anyway influnce the rules of Hero games and you don't play a mentalist in any game of mine you've got no reason to worry. You really seem to be getting a bit worked up.

 

I also said "it should be a little harder" inflict an Mind Control that overrides reason, memory and common sense to the point the target just kind of accept he did that might have been utterly against his personality for no known reason, +5 to +10 depending on what your trying to set up

 

Personally I don't play the +20 effect as that perfect any way. You have to put some consideration into what commanding your target to do and, they might eventually, after everytime they see this one character they are suddenly struck by the urge to tap dancing down mainstreet naked, put 2 and 2 together.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Why should "Target thinks it was his own idea" be a fixed added anyway? What about making it equal to the Ego bonus required to make the command in the first place.

 

Thus, there's no extra cost to making someone think something they were going to do anyway is their own idea. It's Ego + 10 to make the target get that ice cream they "Wouldn't mind" and +20 to make them remember it as being their idea.

 

"Kill your family and bathe in their blood" is Ego +30 to make it happen, and a further +30 to plant the firm belief in their mind that iyt was their idea to do it.

 

In other words, the tougher it is to make them take the action in the first place, the tougher it will be to make them ratonalize it as their own idea.

[nexus]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

Why should "Target thinks it was his own idea" be a fixed added anyway? What about making it equal to the Ego bonus required to make the command in the first place.

 

Thus, there's no extra cost to making someone think something they were going to do anyway is their own idea. It's Ego + 10 to make the target get that ice cream they "Wouldn't mind" and +20 to make them remember it as being their idea.

 

"Kill your family and bathe in their blood" is Ego +30 to make it happen, and a further +30 to plant the firm belief in their mind that iyt was their idea to do it.

 

In other words, the tougher it is to make them take the action in the first place, the tougher it will be to make them ratonalize it as their own idea.

 

That's an intersting idea.

[CBikle]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

It's been my experience that the campaign world's tolerance for mentalists is comparable to the GM's. That usually means: ego blasts are ok, everything else should be done in moderation and not used on anybody of significance to the campaign.

 

Really all comes down to each individual GM's comfort-level with mental powers.

[CBikle]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

In comics, most "diehard" mentalist-heroes show great reluctance in using their abilities to probe or alter minds (Prof. X and Jean Grey come to mind).

 

Silver-age pseudo-mentalists never had as many moral quandaries (Superman using Super-Hypnotism or Wonder Woman using her magic lasso to subdue their adversaries).

 

Captain Comet and the Martian Manhunter often used their mental powers to "get the big picture", but there was never really any comeuppance from the authorities (Captain Comet was a superhero for a small town[i guess they looked the other way] and the Martian Manhunter did most of his mental stuff secretly anyway[while disguised as a police detective]).

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Ethics for mentalists

 

In comics, most "diehard" mentalist-heroes show great reluctance in using their abilities to probe or alter minds (Prof. X and Jean Grey come to mind).

Is this the same Xavier who used to make people forget about the school all the time?