Tenure as a perk

[Outsider]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

We're always so down on mental powers. What if he had' date=' say, [i']See it my way[/i]3d6 Mind Control (SFX: highly persuasive), Cumulative (+1/2), 16x maximum (+1), 0 END (+1/2), Area Effect - radius (+1). He argues very convincingly. He can reach a total of 288 points of effect - enough that you will need a breakout roll of 3. With a 2 SPD, he can get an average of over 100 points of effect in a one minute presentation, on a room full of people. That gets up to 15 EGO to +30 level with a -11 to the breakout roll.

 

Toss on "no range" (it centers around him) and Visible (to hearing - he's clearly trying to persuade you). He's incredibly charismatic and persuasive - no evidence whatsoever of psychic or paranormal powers.

 

Is he somehow worse than a fellow who's not superhuman, but has (say) a 4 SPD, 20 DEX, 7 OCV and 7 DCV who plays pro sports way better than most of his competitors because of his natural gifts?

 

Just because we mechanically write "mind control", why does that move the ethical bar? Does it change matters if he uses this natural charisma to argue against racism and sexism, or to promote non-violence and peaceful coexistence, instead of for personal gain? I think we're too quick to jump all over the "mental power" mechanics.

 

 

 

First, yeah, it is worse than the fellow who is at maximum normal characteristics and is playing pro sports. That fellow doesn't have a superpower, and, despite his characteristics, his opponents still have a reasonable chance of opposing him.

 

Mr Persuasive (Mind Control version), however, is nigh-irresistable to anyone without Mental Defense or a truly gargantuan (200+) EGO stat. Instead of ordering, pardon me persuading, people to abandon racism or sexism, he could just as easily persuade them to murder and eat their own children. All with a quick one minute speech. Even in a world with superpowers, it is beyond belief (at least for me) that there can be any persuasive 1 minute argument that would work to convince 215 out of every 216 people to murder and eat their own children. The SFX that the character is using persuasive arguments simply don't support certain results, nor do the mechanics of Mind Control (as presented) really explain why his presentation would so lose its power to convince should it be experienced from an overflow hall via live simulcast, or by way of a recording.

 

Another case where a power is sometimes used to simulate a skill is Invisibility for Stealth. Should Ms Stealthy, who simulates her sneakiness by buying Invisibility Sight/Hearing (SFX not actually invisible, but super super sneaky), be able to sneak up a dim, quiet hallway to an alert guard who is looking directly down that hallway, all while she is wearing an active aircraft navigational strobe on her head, and carrying a sounding air horn?

 

I guess what I am getting at, is if one defines their SFX such that they are using a power to simulate a skill, then they should expect (and not whine about) the GM denying the use of the power in some situations or for some uses, despite the game mechanics saying that they should be able to use it in said situation. To me, such a construct becomes an automatic "successful roll" for the skill it is simulating, it does not become "I succeed despite being in a situation where the GM normally wouldnt even allow a skill roll"

[phookz]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

Yes. He is. He's the equivalent of a fellow with those stats who uses his exceptional abilities to snatch purses.

 

Really? How can having a power defined make a character the equivalent of someone who snatches purses? What if he's convincing the other faculty members to vote for equal rights in the face of a neo-natzi fascist society? What if he's using his powers to keep his young friend from having his droids confiscated?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

Yes. He is. He's the equivalent of a fellow with those stats who uses his exceptional abilities to snatch purses.

 

So using your powers of persuasion to win arguments and advance your career and the success of your organization is the equivalent of becoming a purse snatcher. As I said, we're always down on mental powers.

 

Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt were all very charismatic, persuasive speakers. Each used their powers of persuasion to advance their agenda. Were they all firmly entrenched on the Dark Side?

 

First' date=' yeah, it is worse than the fellow who is at maximum normal characteristics and is playing pro sports. That fellow doesn't have a superpower, and, despite his characteristics, his opponents still have a reasonable chance of opposing him.[/quote']

 

So give him a 23 DEX, and a 5 SPD. Bump his stats a bit beyond the line we call "normal". There are, on occasion, incredibly gifted athletes who appear on the scene. They are extremely good, and they use their natural physical abilities to achieve success. So why is having naturally superior mental abilities, such as powers of persuasion, somehow making the use of these natural abilities vile and evil?

 

Mr Persuasive (Mind Control version)' date=' however, is nigh-irresistable to anyone without Mental Defense or a truly gargantuan (200+) EGO stat. Instead of ordering, pardon me [i']persuading[/i], people to abandon racism or sexism, he could just as easily persuade them to murder and eat their own children. All with a quick one minute speech. Even in a world with superpowers, it is beyond belief (at least for me) that there can be any persuasive 1 minute argument that would work to convince 215 out of every 216 people to murder and eat their own children. The SFX that the character is using persuasive arguments simply don't support certain results, nor do the mechanics of Mind Control (as presented) really explain why his presentation would so lose its power to convince should it be experienced from an overflow hall via live simulcast, or by way of a recording.

 

The camera adds 10 pounds. Why do people want to attend live concerts when they can listen to recordings and/or watch concert videos at home?

 

We can always Limit the power to a +20 Ego effect, of course. That would eliminate people killing and eating their own children, and some other deep-seated "violently opposed to doing" persuasion activities. Or we could simply add a time delay to achieve effects beyond some level. Maybe he drops down to 1 attack per minute if he wants a +20 effect, and one per day if he wants a +30 effect, such that he can only attain such radical results over time (just as some cult leaders have, over time, been able to persuade their followers to commit horrific acts). He's still extremely persuasive. He's going to win the faculty votes, which was where this discussion started. And he's going to wow them at a political rally, where a 20 - 30 minute speech will change most political affiliations.

 

Another case where a power is sometimes used to simulate a skill is Invisibility for Stealth. Should Ms Stealthy, who simulates her sneakiness by buying Invisibility Sight/Hearing (SFX not actually invisible, but super super sneaky), be able to sneak up a dim, quiet hallway to an alert guard who is looking directly down that hallway, all while she is wearing an active aircraft navigational strobe on her head, and carrying a sounding air horn?

 

I guess what I am getting at, is if one defines their SFX such that they are using a power to simulate a skill, then they should expect (and not whine about) the GM denying the use of the power in some situations or for some uses, despite the game mechanics saying that they should be able to use it in said situation. To me, such a construct becomes an automatic "successful roll" for the skill it is simulating, it does not become "I succeed despite being in a situation where the GM normally wouldnt even allow a skill roll"

 

Would you allow the Invisibility power to work under those circumstances? I wouldn't.

 

Restricting what can be achieved would be a limitation to add to the power, but we're largely departing from the initial point. If a person has incredible natural powers of persuasion, how does it naturally follow that their use is automatically "evil"? These Aren't The Droids You're Looking For is a great example. How is that naturally athletic person who chooses to use his physical superiority for personal gain in pro sports somehow morally superior to the fellow in the boardroom who similarly chooses to use his natural abilities - in this case, his powers of persuasion - for similar personal gain? I submit that it is the use of those abilities, not their nature, which is relevant. I further submit that using physical abilities for personal glory and gain is not morally superior to using non-physical abilities for personal glory or gain.

 

If the athlete decides instead to become a cat burglar or assassin, he has crossed a line. If our Professor decides instead to become a blackmailer, he has also crossed a line. We seem to be drawing the line a lot tighter, however, for persuasion than for physical prowess.

 

To the mechanical issue, however, I'll flip that around. I'm fine with the GM applying the SFX of the power, but this has to be reasonable. I would expect GM and player to discuss the effects and decide on reasonable limitations (including a reasonable reduction to the cost of the power) that result in the desired effect being achieved.

 

Too often, the GM lets a player spend points on abilities such as Mind Control, then places vast impediments to their use such that the points are wasted. The most simplistic effects become +30, any possible use of the power is viewed as a hate crime by the general populace, it just fails to work because it would derail the plot. At a lower level, interaction skills never produce any meaningful results because that's not the way the GM wants the game to go. Or their results are based on the player being articulate, rather than the character having skills. Leading to the "SuperSkill" so that the persuasive character can actually be persuasive.

 

Meanwhile, the Fire Blaster can fire away with impunity - property damage never becomes an issue, the general public takes no offense at his consistent use of deadly force, etc. After all, he's fighting the Bad Guys! Besides, the GM has already decided that all in-game challenges should be resolved by combat, not negotiation. Or that any negotiations should be resolved by player glibness rather than character skills and abilities. If you don't want mental powers in the game, prohibit them. Don't let the player spend the points, then have them deliver no value.

[Lucius]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu...

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary does the time warp does the time warp does the time warp again

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu...

 

True...

 

What was the topic again?

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu...

 

I've seen this Saturday Morning Cartoon before... Scooby Deja Vu.

 

But Hugh has a point. While it may be morally/ethically questionable (sounds like a thread topic!), using your mind control powers to get people to 'do the right thing' is not equivelant to using them to hand over thier wallets.

 

Which of these acts are morally questionable...

 

a. "I use my mind control powers to convince the crowd to lynch this man I know is guilty!"

or

b. "I use my mind control powers to convince the crowd to not lynch this man even though I know he's guilty!"

 

(Assume the crime he's guilty of is worthy of a death sentence, ok?)

[Clonus]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

So using your powers of persuasion to win arguments and advance your career and the success of your organization is the equivalent of becoming a purse snatcher. As I said, we're always down on mental powers.

 

Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt were all very charismatic, persuasive speakers. Each used their powers of persuasion to advance their agenda. Were they all firmly entrenched on the Dark Side?

 

They had no supernatural powers of mental coercion. People with no remarkable abilities could and did refuse to buy into their garbage.

 

 

Too often, the GM lets a player spend points on abilities such as Mind Control, then places vast impediments to their use such that the points are wasted.

 

You'll see that in comics as well and for the same reason. Mind Control is a lousy heroic power because either it works and you instantly win without a fight, or it doesn't work and you go down with one punch.

[GhostDancer]

Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

We're always so down on mental powers. What if he had' date=' say, [i']See it my way[/i]3d6 Mind Control (SFX: highly persuasive), Cumulative (+1/2), 16x maximum (+1), 0 END (+1/2), Area Effect - radius (+1). He argues very convincingly. He can reach a total of 288 points of effect - enough that you will need a breakout roll of 3. With a 2 SPD, he can get an average of over 100 points of effect in a one minute presentation, on a room full of people. That gets up to 15 EGO to +30 level with a -11 to the breakout roll.

 

Toss on "no range" (it centers around him) and Visible (to hearing - he's clearly trying to persuade you). He's incredibly charismatic and persuasive - no evidence whatsoever of psychic or paranormal powers.

 

Mind Control is typically considered an assault- even game mechanics bear this out. Consider the Golden Rule- how often do you want someone to try to Mind Control your Player Character?

 

Speaking of game mechanics, does 6e match 5e in that there is no free Telepathic component for Mind Control? If so, rule out the Visible Limitation.

 

Buying the Invisible Advantage here is recommended. There is a big difference between knowing the Doctor is trying to persuade you, and knowing he is try to make you his psychic puppet with his superhuman power.

 

A good sfx for this Power is vocal Extra Low Frequency transmission- http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/mind-control-through-extra-low-frequency-waves/

which of course is not effective via silmucast or recordings barring very special equipment.

 

I love stories with gray morality. Dr. Mentalist supports or shuts down a staff meeting agenda, and finds out the issue was not as clear as it looked, and he made a grave mistake with serious consequences.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

But Hugh has a point. While it may be morally/ethically questionable (sounds like a thread topic!), using your mind control powers to get people to 'do the right thing' is not equivelant to using them to hand over their wallets.

 

Which of these acts are morally questionable...

 

a. "I use my mind control powers to convince the crowd to lynch this man I know is guilty!"

or

b. "I use my mind control powers to convince the crowd to not lynch this man even though I know he's guilty!"

 

Similarly,

 

Which of these acts are morally questionable...

 

a. "I use my fire blast powers as a threat to convince the crowd to lynch this man I know is guilty!"

or

b. "I use my fire blast powers as a threat to convince the crowd to not lynch this man even though I know he's guilty!!"

 

Both are using the threat of physical harm, rather than an ability of mental coercion, to change another person's behaviour to be more consistent with my own wishes.

 

They had no supernatural powers of mental coercion. People with no remarkable abilities could and did refuse to buy into their garbage.

 

Their powers of persuasion went far beyond the human norm. Just like our hypothetical professor who just walks into the meeting and takes control. Is it OK if he's required to make an opposed PRE roll for his power to work, such that people might be able to resist his powers of persuasion?

 

Mind Control is typically considered an assault- even game mechanics bear this out. Consider the Golden Rule- how often do you want someone to try to Mind Control your Player Character?

 

How often would I want someone to Persuade my character either? Are both acts of dark evil by their very nature? I agree with your argument from a game perspective - if the ability makes the game less enjoyable for the participants, it should not be permitted. But that's not restricted to Mind Control, or mental powers. A character with an overwhelming physical attack which leaves the PC's with no chance of success isn't any more fun. And role playing my character from the perspective that he has now been converted to an ally of the Master Villain, and will oppose his teammates in their attempts to defeat him sounds like WAY more fun, to me, than role playing my character who is unconscious at -45 STUN.

 

Speaking of game mechanics' date=' does 6e match 5e in that there is no free Telepathic component for Mind Control? If so, rule out the Visible Limitation.[/quote']

 

It is obvious that the character is giving orders, so I can see disallowing the "visible" limitation, although here it is also obvious throughout the process that the character is trying to attain control over the target, where this is not automatically obvious for Mind Control by default. Still, a fine line and I could see ruling either way. We could certainly add the IPE modifier (+1/4, IIRC, for a Mental Power) and keep lots of maximum effect multiples, so the mechanics really aren't the crux of the issue. We can add even more advantages - let's add +3 for making all effects, at all times, even to the target, completely invisible and add telepathic commands (they do what I want, even from subtle hand gestures or body language clues). If we have to drop to 1d6, that just means one more effect doubling, and more time to achieve the effect.

 

I love stories with gray morality. Dr. Mentalist supports or shuts down a staff meeting agenda' date=' and finds out the issue was not as clear as it looked, and he made a grave mistake with serious consequences.[/quote']

 

Of course, he could make the same error with persuasiveness, or even a good rep as a hero, supporting the wrong cause. Or he could be a Brick who helps the side which later turns out to be in the wrong in a fight.

 

It's funny how we are so much more accepting of using physical violence to resolve a conflict (he won't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I bludgeoned him into unconsciousness and handed him off to the police) than we are of a mental power (he wouldn't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I overcame his nerve impulses to force him to drop the gun and surrender to police).

[Christopher]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

Which of these acts are morally questionable...

 

a. "I use my mind control powers to convince the crowd to lynch this man I know is guilty!"

or

b. "I use my mind control powers to convince the crowd to not lynch this man even though I know he's guilty!"

Either way, it is Questionable for the characters future development.

 

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Outsider]

Re: Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

Similarly,

 

Which of these acts are morally questionable...

 

a. "I use my fire blast powers as a threat to convince the crowd to lynch this man I know is guilty!"

or

b. "I use my fire blast powers as a threat to convince the crowd to not lynch this man even though I know he's guilty!!"

 

Both are using the threat of physical harm, rather than an ability of mental coercion, to change another person's behaviour to be more consistent with my own wishes.

 

 

The key difference between either of these options and dealing with Mr "Persuasive" is that the people in the crowd can choose to comply or die. Yes, they get to choose one of two bad options, but they still get to choose. With Mr Persuasive, they get one and only one option : the one Mr Persuasive chooses for them.

[GhostDancer]

Re: Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

Similarly,

 

How often would I want someone to Persuade my character either?

 

I'd like to see an attempt to persaude my character every game session- via role play, not roll play.

 

And role playing my character from the perspective that he has now been converted to an ally of the Master Villain, and will oppose his teammates in their attempts to defeat him sounds like WAY more fun, to me, than role playing my character who is unconscious at -45 STUN.

 

That does not actually answer my question- how often do you want someone to try to Mind Control your Player Character? As a GM, I pull that move only when the player is absent and the character is present, though I don't rule out it happening elsewise, especially if you pick the appropriate Hunted, such as Tokko (Japanese: Thought Police), etc.

 

It's funny how we are so much more accepting of using physical violence to resolve a conflict (he won't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I bludgeoned him into unconsciousness and handed him off to the police) than we are of a mental power (he wouldn't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I overcame his nerve impulses to force him to drop the gun and surrender to police).

 

We who, kemo sabe? I said Mind Control is typically considered an assault- I did not say it is always considered a more egregious assault. Many, inc. me, consider Mind Control vs. the attempt bank robbery example as stated less violent then physical assault.

 

It is, however, likely a far cry from using Mind Control every week or two vs. college staff.

[Outsider]

Re: Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

It's funny how we are so much more accepting of using physical violence to resolve a conflict (he won't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I bludgeoned him into unconsciousness and handed him off to the police) than we are of a mental power (he wouldn't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I overcame his nerve impulses to force him to drop the gun and surrender to police).

 

Mind Control to stop a bank robber is just fine. I think the problem that people have with Mind Control is rooted in the deniability it allows its user, and the temptations that deniability subjects him to.

 

Doc Firebolt uses his power to do something, and generally, every witness in the area knows that he used his power to do it. If he uses it improperly or illegally, people know and he gets in trouble (socially and/or legally), so he is encouraged to only use his power in an ethical manner.

 

Mr Mental uses his power to do something (especially if the orders are delivered telepathically) and pretty much only another mentalist knows what happened. If he takes Invisible Power Effects, then even other mentalists can't tie the power to him. So there is no external encouragement for him to use his powers ethically. Nobody but he himself will know what he's done. He might even delude himself that he's not subverting people's free will by defining his Mind Control as 'persuasion' and telling himself that he is blameless as he is only 'talking people into doing things' rather than overcoming their nerve impulses via a superpower. One wonders why such a high level of deniability is desired if the character is always going to use his power ethically anyway.

 

 

P.S. : I also note that we've moved from influencing university committee meetings to stopping bank robberies. From suppressing the free will of people who are not committing any crime to suppressing the free will of someone who is actively committing a violent felony.

 

 

P.P.S : The equivalent physical violence power to Mind Control is not a big flashy fire bolt. It is a fully Invisible Power Effects attack with "It looks like natural causes" SFX. People who annoy Captain Cardiac tend to drop dead of heart attacks that look entirely natural. Actually, even this isnt the equivalent, because the user can't convince himself so easily that he isnt doing any real harm to the victim, unlike Mind Control.

 

 

P.P.S. : If you want an example of why many people are iffy about Mental Powers, go back and look up various "If you could have a superpower" threads. How many people in them say "I want Mind Control so I can stop bank robbers" vs "I want Mind Control powers so I can get 'dates' with any women i want"?

[Clonus]

Re: Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

Similarly,

 

Which of these acts are morally questionable...

 

a. "I use my fire blast powers as a threat to convince the crowd to lynch this man I know is guilty!"

or

b. "I use my fire blast powers as a threat to convince the crowd to not lynch this man even though I know he's guilty!!"

 

Both are using the threat of physical harm, rather than an ability of mental coercion, to change another person's behaviour to be more consistent with my own wishes.

 

 

 

Spoken like a supervillain. It's not about saving someone's life, it's about imposing your will on others. Except that it is about saving someone's life. In a situation where lives are at stake, one is allowed to assault people to stop it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their powers of persuasion went far beyond the human norm. Just like our hypothetical professor who just walks into the meeting and takes control.

 

Except that the professor isn't persuading. He's coercing.

 

 

It's funny how we are so much more accepting of using physical violence to resolve a conflict (he won't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I bludgeoned him into unconsciousness and handed him off to the police) than we are of a mental power (he wouldn't agree to stop robbing the bank, so I overcame his nerve impulses to force him to drop the gun and surrender to police).

 

No, I'm fine with that. Well except it's kind of boring.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Tenured Dr. Mentalist

 

The key difference between either of these options and dealing with Mr "Persuasive" is that the people in the crowd can choose to comply or die. Yes' date=' they get to choose one of two bad options, but they still get to choose. With Mr Persuasive, they get one and only one option : the one Mr Persuasive chooses for them.[/quote']

 

So it's more acceptable to kill them than force actions. By that logic, should we execute tax evaders rather than require they file their taxes?

 

Mind Control to stop a bank robber is just fine. I think the problem that people have with Mind Control is rooted in the deniability it allows its user, and the temptations that deniability subjects him to.

 

P.S. : I also note that we've moved from influencing university committee meetings to stopping bank robberies. From suppressing the free will of people who are not committing any crime to suppressing the free will of someone who is actively committing a violent felony.

 

We tend to see that drift a lot.

 

So is it more ethical to influence the Board with the promise of a large donation to the school (using wealth rather than persuasion), or an endorsement (using fame rather than persuasion)? Ultimately, where is the line drawn? People use their natural abilities and their influence to benefit themselves. We accept that a doctor should be paid more than a cashier. That is using his natural talents to his own benefit. Most of us consider the compensation package in deciding between jobs - is selecting the higher paying job inherently unethical? Is negotiating for a raise (perhaps with the threat of withdrawing our services otherwise) unethical?

 

"Mind Control" is a game mechanic, so it's easy to see "this overrides free will", but it's really just persuasion or coercion that has the advantage of, perhaps, being harder to detect and, certainly, being more certain of achieving the desired result.

 

P.P.S. : If you want an example of why many people are iffy about Mental Powers' date=' go back and look up various "If you could have a superpower" threads. How many people in them say "I want Mind Control so I can stop bank robbers" vs "I want Mind Control powers so I can get 'dates' with any women i want"?[/quote']

 

As opposed to the more ethical use of wealth, celebrity or natural charm and a glib tongue to have any woman you want?

 

Is it the ability itself, or the lack of ethics of the people considering it, which is unethical? If you could fly, would you use those powers to save lives? Would a person gifted with enhanced strength and agility use those powers for the betterment of his fellow man, or to achieve fame, wealth and celebrity (ask Peter Parker!)? Is it inherently unethical to use a natural advantage to your benefit? If not, why would the natural advantage of persuasiveness, right on up to mind control, be singled out as "unethical".

 

I think it's easier to single out Mind Control because we know that it doesn't exist, so we don't have to be afraid the ethics of our own actions using it could be called into question.

 

Spoken like a supervillain. It's not about saving someone's life' date=' it's about imposing your will on others. Except that it is about saving someone's life. In a situation where lives are at stake, one is allowed to assault people to stop it. Except that the professor isn't persuading. He's coercing.[/quote']

 

So how far do we take coercion? Often, the department head's power of persuasion is augmented by his influence over compensation, promotion and continued employment. Is use of that power inherently immoral or unethical? It can definitely be viewed as coercion. Medical associations use the threat that doctors will leave your jurisdiction for greener pastures all the time when they find the legislative landscape not to their liking. Is this inherently unethical? Is it unethical for a doctor to leave his small rural general practice to make more money as a cardiologist in a major urban center? Is it unethical for the more glib cardiologist to use that greater power of persuasiveness to get the job, or get the promotion?

 

Is it unethical of the cardio center to tempt that GP with higher earnings? Is it unethical of the doctor to treat patients who can pay in priority to those who can't? Or for those who can pay to accept such treatment? This is an argument the health care sector sees a lot, and different nations have come to very different conclusions. What about food? Is it unethical that I have lots to eat while people are starving elsewhere in the world? I could redirect my entertainment budget to charity, and still have lots to eat. Am I unethical for not doing so?

 

To a large extent, mind control is just the ability to persuade with certainty. Where do we draw the line between ethical and unethical persuasion? It's not so black and white as "Professor Persuasion is morally wrong to use his natural abilities to influence others to his own best interests." Unless we want to agree that, whenever we use our own advantages to our own benefit, we are also behaving unethically.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Tenure as a perk

 

We really have a bad case of thread drift here, going from discussing tenure in university professors to (a joke, honest) about a metahuman professor using mind control to influence department meetings in his favor to discussing the ethics of mind control...

 

I'm starting a new thread in the Champions Forum as "Superpowers and Ethics", and suggest we move the discussion there.