Superpowers and Ethics

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It is a direct reversal of the description of the power' date=' and it is completely legal. You asserted that Mind Control must, by definition, rob the target of free will because that is in the book description. [/quote']

 

Mind Control robs targets of free will because that's what it's for, just as Teleportation is for moving from place to place. The "without passing through the intervening space" bit is just a bonus.

 

I am unaware of any country which has criminalized Mind Control. In any case, this is a comparable. If the default is that use of superpowers is considered criminal or unethical, it is an advantage to have a power which is not so considered. I submit, however, that use of most other powers (or any other ability beyond the human average) is not considered criminal or unethical. Pro sports teams are made up of people who are much more athletic and skilled in their sports than I am, and they make a ton of money. Is it unethical for them to use their superior abilities to do so?

 

Assuming you acquired lightning bolt creation powers and then decided to use them on anyone who annoyed you, you would find that the criminal justice system could find a law for it.

 

 

First off, the fact that Mind Control is difficult to perceive from the outset helps a lot. Second, I would suggest that the fact this individual is so very persuasive is likely to be noticed, and persuading people to do ludicrous things is likely to have consequences. If he persuades people to change their vote, buy a time share, name him in the will or join a new religion, it seems unlikely to attract the same attention as if he persuades someone to murder his family, join his cult, become his personal slave or go on a shooting rampage.

 

The difference between "join his cult" and "join a new religion" being?

 

I submit he is properly judged by the use to which he puts his persuasiveness (natural or supernatural), and not by the simple fact that he is persuasive, or that he chooses to put that talent to use rather than hide away in a closet.

 

Oh, I'd agree. My position has always been that it is appropriate to control someone's mind in any situation where it is appropriate to punch someone in the face...except a boxing match.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Once again:

What Persuasion (or any interaction skill) can do:

Archieve Any effect similar to a EGO+0 or EGO+10 MC effect.

With extraodinary Skill Roll, perhaps it can archieve EGO+20.

Never archieve EGO+30

 

What Mind Control can do:

Full range from EGO+0 to EGO+30, unless you put a limitation on them that they can't archieve a result.

 

What you attribute to people like Hitler and Cult leaders is neither (pure) persuasion, nor Mind Controll. It's subtle brainwashing. It changes the psychical background of someone, by using his/her Complications to apply aditional ones (that work in favor with furhter Persuasion Attemps). It is a long term use of Interaction Skills and Complementary Skills that can take months to take the desired effect.

 

Mind Controll is an Attack. It's an attack power. It requires some kind of attack roll.

When you use an attack on someone and your use is detected/proven, the following things will happen:

- the target acts according to the attack

- bystanders act according to the attack

- courts will judge you as an attacker

 

This is true for Blast, Damaging Use of STR, Drain, Entangle, Flash, HTH-Attack, Killing Attack, Mental Blast, Relfection (targeted on someone), Damaging Use of Telekinesis STR and any Combat Maneuver. The other attack powers usually don't do direct damage, but when you use change environment, Darkness, Mental Illusion, Dispel (Bridge or Barrier he's walking on) or Telekinesis to let someone fall down a 400 ft Cliff, then they consitute an attack either.

Can you conceive of one special effect for any of those, that would not mark you as an attacker once your action is revealed? Again, difficulty to be revealed (Invisible effects) is not chaging the fact it is an attack, it just makes it harder to detect (like any crime done in a dark alley).

 

When you have a valid reason for any of those attacks, court and bystanders may accept your actions as nessesary. The victim will still hate you for it.

Some person reveice the legal allowance to use these attacks (like Police officer using their 2D6 Killing Attack on a Bankrobber), but it is still an attack.

 

And of course there is always the consensual use of powers on someone. Be it...

- the use of a 1-pt Killing Attack "Scalpel" during an Operation by the Doctor

- Hypnosis or Pharmaceutical usage during a psycholocial treatment

- change dreams power during directed-dreaming treatment

- using entangle during a bondage session with a willing partner

But only as long as they stay within the the limits of the consentual use.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I wouldn't allow that special effect. If a player wants to be very persuasive' date=' then get lots of Persuasion. I also hate it when people get Postcognition with the special effect "I am a great detective".[/quote']

 

Would you allow an exceptionally stealthy character to buy invisibility with limitations to simulate very high stealth rolls? What about Desolidification with limitations to simulate an exceptional contortionist? I think it's fine if you won't; different strokes for different folks and you should definitely run your games in the manner you choose. But as a toolkit, HERO is designed to support this type of use and I suspect many GMs would allow it.

 

My point is that the nature of the power does not make it unethical to use. The SFX of the power and how it is used define whether or not it is unethical to use.

 

Do I feel that Dr. Mentalist is unethical if his power is defined as "seeing into the targets innermost thoughts and desires and implanting false memories that change the targets beliefs and experiences, if only temporarily, in order to achieve a desired effect" (as in the girl in that movie Push)? Yes, that type of Mind Control would be unethical to use in many situations. Would it be unethical to use it to save the life of someone? Probably not, but it depends. Would it be unethical to use it to get the board of directors to vote his way on the Cafeteria retrofit because he wants a new salad bar? Yes.

 

Now take Miss Persuasive. Her Mind Control is defined as "natural exceptional beauty and sex appeal. Men want to make her happy for the hope of seeing her smile, while women want to be like her." She has Persuasion to spare and also an MC built with limitations (like only to EGO+20 vs Men, EGO+10 vs Women - she's persuasive), and the SFX is that she is extremely beautiful and persuasive, but it's an inborn natural talent. As a character, she's not even aware of the power, she's just always been able to get people to do things for her.

 

Do I feel that it's unethical for Miss Persuasive to use her power to get someone to open the door for her? No. Would it be unethical to get someone to buy her lunch? Maybe, it depends on the situation.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think the use of persuasion can be unethical. Manipulating people can be unethical, depending on the situation, are not necessarily unethical. An alternative to MC with limitations would be to buy the Persuasion skill with a huge bonus, like +30. Effectively you've got a low-powered MC with limitations. It's not the power that makes it unethical, it's what you do with the power. Depending on the SFX and limitations, MC is no more unethical than Persuasion is - which is to say that by its nature it is not unethical unless you use it to be so.

 

If you're sitting around with your friends debating where to go to lunch, and one of them really wants Taco Bell but you suggest something else because Taco Bell gives you gas, and after some debate you convince them, grudgingly, to go to Subway? No, not unethical.

 

If you're sitting around with your friends debating where to go to lunch, and one of them really wants Taco Bell but you suggest a bar and drink instead, and one of your friends is a recovering alcoholic. Yes, unethical.

 

I think of unethical behavior in much the way U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described pornography in the '60s - to paraphrase: I can't define it, "But I know it when I see it."

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Ironically, if I was so convincing in this post that you had no choice but agree with me; that would be unethical.

 

If you agree with me because of my excellent rationale and examples, you have made the choice that my opinion is correct, and thus have chosen to agree with me which is ethical.

 

There is a difference between the game mechanic and the philosophical constructs of free will (actually, it could be argued that the entire universe is pre-determined. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction then there is no free will, only the illusion of free will. Where I sit and believe I am choosing to type these words is an illusion, the course of actions that the universe has taken up to this point has assured that I would in fact type these words. But that's another thread entirely I'm sure ).

 

The game mechanics remove much of free will from the MC construct because it's a game - we need it to be that way in order to have some set of rules to play by. The Persuasion skill removes free will if you make your roll by enough - does that mean all Persuasion use is unethical? If I buy my MC with limitations as a very effective Persuasion skill it should be no different. It's what you do with the power that makes it unethical.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Mind Controll is an Attack. It's an attack power. It requires some kind of attack roll.

When you use an attack on someone and your use is detected/proven, the following things will happen:

- the target acts according to the attack

- bystanders act according to the attack

- courts will judge you as an attacker

 

Being an attack power is a construct of the rules and has nothing to do with ethics. It's a mechanic to achieve an in-game effect. Using Persuasion typically involves a Skill Versus Skill Contest. This is mechanically similar to an attack roll. Rolling dice vs ECV is a game mechanic. This doesn't make it unethical to do. The fact that MC is described as "take control of another character's mind, and thus of his actions" is just describing in-game effects. That implies to me that this power has the potential to be used unethically, but doesn't imply all uses are unethical because that's a game mechanic. Game mechanics are how we achieve things in the analog of the game - whether or not they are ethical depends on how they are defined with SFX and how they are used.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It is a direct reversal of the description of the power' date=' and it is completely legal. You asserted that Mind Control must, by definition, rob the target of free will because that is in the book description. The book description of Teleportation is that you do not pass through the intervening space, yet we have powers constructed with Teleportation which DO pass through intervening space. The mechanics are building blocks, not straightjackets.[/quote']

 

Yes. I like that so much I'm adding it to my signature. I'd rep you but I gotta spread it around...

 

First off, the fact that Mind Control is difficult to perceive from the outset helps a lot. Second, I would suggest that the fact this individual is so very persuasive is likely to be noticed, and persuading people to do ludicrous things is likely to have consequences. If he persuades people to change their vote, buy a time share, name him in the will or join a new religion, it seems unlikely to attract the same attention as if he persuades someone to murder his family, join his cult, become his personal slave or go on a shooting rampage.

 

I submit he is properly judged by the use to which he puts his persuasiveness (natural or supernatural), and not by the simple fact that he is persuasive, or that he chooses to put that talent to use rather than hide away in a closet.

 

Exactly.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

In my understanding MC is as ethical or unethical as every Blast or use of skill.

 

However what I can't accept is to define any attack power to be not perceived as an attack. When you want to use an attack, you have to live with the fact that the victim, the bystanders and the law consider it an attack, if they can perceive and understand it (not invisible and/or affected by "think was his own idea"). So, you may trick your MC vinctim to beleive it was his own will, but if he ever should be able to overcome this he would consider it an attack. If the law enforcement would be able to prove it, you would get into trouble.

For me a MC has the implied game effect of being perceived as an attack, no matter how you define the special attack

 

How this attack is in the end evaluated and juged by the two or three parties, is a completely different story:

- being slapped out of a MC would be considered okay by the victim

- most superhero vs. villian fight, the hero's attacks are considere okay (unless inapropirate exessive/dangerous)

- some persons have in fact the legal right to infringe other peoples rights (police, towards restraining and use of guns).

 

About the uncontrolled effects:

When I run around while emanating radiation, would I not be resposible for the damage caused? Would I be any less repsosible, if the radiation source was fused with my body and I ran around with propperly protecting my environment?

When your radiation accident makes you a danger to everyone, you have to make certain you don't endanger anyone.

 

If you don't want it to be an attack, don't make it with an attack power game mechanic.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

In real life, I believe all mind controllers will eventually become evil.

 

1) they have a secret ID, making them immune to most prosecution.

2) The temptation to manipulate others and leave no evidence will be overwhelming. Remember power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely!

3) Mind control has the ability to erase memories. Making any thought crime impossible to prosecute.

4) How does anyone prove mind control in court?

 

I known for a fact that I would abuse mind control. Heck I would buy transformation and make mind slaves. I would end up controlling a corporation, and if caught flee to control a small town rebuilding from there.

---In the end, I would have to be killed.

 

Mind control is a power that works in the comics/games but not in real life. Abuse of that power is just too tempting.

 

This view is basically the same as "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". It may or may not be true, but even if it is true (which I doubt) doesn't make every use of that power unethical.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Some more exaples uncontrolled attack powers, where you are still responsible for the havoc they cause:

Uncontrolled electricity: You just shock everything and everyone in x Meter with lightning bolts. (uncontrolled blasts).

Uncontrolled Darkness to Sight: Danger for everyone

Uncontrolled Darkness to Hearing: You imagine the harm you could cause when your surounding suddenly uses the ability to hear.

Uncontrolled Flash to Sight/Hearing: Just the same.

Uncontrolled change environment (always a rainstorm right overhead): When it goes inside with you, you could destroy an entire office with equipment.

Uncontrolled flame powers: You are a human torch, including destroying anything within 20 Meter of your body.

Super Torch: Like above, but closer to the temperature of the sun.

 

Or the ultimate mundane example:

You carry a highly contagious, highly deadly disease. Every government can and will put you into quarantine, if you want if or not. (uncontrolled Damageshield/AOE Transform)

 

When you don't want your character to be considered a danger for the public, don't buy attack Powers with uncontrolled.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

What does any of your Uncontrolled examples have to do with the topic of Mind Control?

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

There was this idea of someone with uncontrolled MC defined as "just being persuasive/drop dead gorgoues", and thus not being viewed as attacking the minds of others. So I threw in some other examples on uncontrolled attack powers to show that you are still repsosible for the attacks/damage your "Aura" does. And thus, also responsible for them MC-Ing everyone aroudn them.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I see. Might want to use some quotes, 'cause it just seemed kind of random.

[Martin2]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I looks like most people are saying that having a character with mind control powers that do not have the limitation of maximum EGO +10 (force someone to do something they wouldn’t mind doing) can only be taken by villains.

I think there is some confusion with unethical and being evil / criminal.

Lots of heroes will have powers that can be used in unethical ways (a blast attack to take out a bridge support to slow down Grond therefore doing lots of damage and a big bill to the local tax payers etc) but if it is for a greater good (Grond being imprisoned and not killing thousands in the ensuing rampage) and if the hero makes amends for its unethical ways it would not be evil or criminal (rebuilds bridge etc).

A hero with mind control powers to make a villain to force him not press a button that will kill hundreds of people is not evil or criminal. Is may be unethical but it is the same effect if another hero knocking them away with a blast attack.

Mind controlling people to be sex slaves, go on rampages with a gun is unethical and evil and criminal.

Mind controlling people to gain financial benefits is criminal (and possibly evil if you also count tax evaders as evil etc).

It is the end effects of your actions that should be judged not how you got there (that and a good lawyer )

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

So, under what circumstances would using a power (say, mind control) be ethical? Unethical? Downright evil?

 

Any other thoughts or arguements?

 

There is a difference between the game mechanic and the philosophical constructs of free will (actually, it could be argued that the entire universe is pre-determined. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction then there is no free will, only the illusion of free will. Where I sit and believe I am choosing to type these words is an illusion, the course of actions that the universe has taken up to this point has assured that I would in fact type these words. But that's another thread entirely I'm sure ).

 

The game mechanics remove much of free will from the MC construct because it's a game - we need it to be that way in order to have some set of rules to play by. The Persuasion skill removes free will if you make your roll by enough - does that mean all Persuasion use is unethical? If I buy my MC with limitations as a very effective Persuasion skill it should be no different. It's what you do with the power that makes it unethical.

 

 

The predetermination of the universe is outside of the scope of this thread. According to OP, this is about the ethical use of powers, and there can be no ethics without choice. Thus we are assuming free will.

 

From my understanding of the OP, this is about real world ethics for real world mind control. If this is not what the thread is about then you can disregard this post.

 

In real life, any power or skill use that removes the free will of an agent possessing free will is unethical. As I postulated in post 21, we should make the words Persuasion and Mind Control Taboo, forcing us to define what we mean.

 

For example:

 

– does that mean all uses of [the social skills in the hero system 6th ed rulebook] are unethical?The [social skills in the hero system 6th ed rulebook] remove free will if you make your roll by enough

 

Not on NPCs because they don't have free will. They actually do live in a universe where a grand puppetmaster is controlling their thoughts. On PCs it is true that there is a puppetmaster, but that puppetmaster is unique to them. Also the character does not have free will, only the player. Removing free will from the player is unethical if they expect to have free will. However, most players understand that they will be occasionally railroaded and mind controlled; and accept this if they can still roll dice.

 

Or did you mean:

 

does that mean all uses of [convincing people via social interaction in real life] are unethical?

 

This seems to be Hugh Neilson's opinion. This is not unethical because it does not remove free will. If you blackmail me, torture me, drug me, or otherwise use coercion to suppress my free will, that is unethical.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It is the end effects of your actions that should be judged not how you got there (that and a good lawyer )

 

That and the knowledge available to you at the moment of choice. If all available information suggested that the only possible option, or best possible option was the one you took, it was ethical at the time. Future knowledge should not invalidate this ethical determination, though as I pointed out in my first post, insufficient information can lead to wrong determinations.

 

Lawyers have nothing to do with ethics. They determine what is legal, philosophers talk about what is right and wrong.

 

I do agree with your thesis however, that there is a different between what is ethical/unethical and if the person is seen as a good/bad or law-abiding/criminal person.

 

Also, I need to point out that mind controlling a villain who is not actively engaged in building/pressing the button to kill hundreds of people is unethical. Otherwise there is nothing ethically wrong with mind controlling everyone on Earth to not kill people which is unethical.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I find it interresting that Mind Control is getting singled out vs. the more general issue of using Killing Attacks (lethal force).

 

Both point to a more basic issue of freedom vs. security (whether provided by the government or vigilantes).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It is not unethical to make money. The way our society is supposed to function is that when you provide a good or service that benefits the society' date=' you are rewarded with money. Perquisite of money is not inherently a bad thing. Making money at the expense of others, or in such a way that others are injured is unethical. Athletes make money at the expense of no one. You could claim that money spent on them is money not spent in a more productive way, but the market has decided that the entertainment they create and the jobs created by the sports industry is valuable. Their high pay not only rewards their prowess, but the very few years they can work and the massive health damage incurred by professional sports [/quote']

 

So let's use our "Very Persuasive" speaker in a different structure. He acts as a paid advocate. Perhaps a lobbyist. Perhaps a lawyer. Perhaps an agent for professional athletes, to segue back to the above. He gets paid for delivering value to his clientele by achieving their goals. He does so by influencing those he communicates with to see things his clients' way, and to negotiate a better deal for his clients. He's very good at such negotiations. Is he ethical?

 

It's an argument that goes around a lot in the real world. Maybe he's a criminal defense lawyer and many think it unethical that he defends people they consider guilty, Maybe he's a lobbyist, and people opposed to what he lobbys for consider him unethical. Maybe, in a Supers world, he lobbys for, or against, legislation to restrict the use of mental powers, and views on his ethics depend on peoples' views on the ethics of mental powers.

 

Because we play a game, we can read the specific nature of his powers. Just like we KNOW Contagious Lass' Illness Power will not result in long-term health deterioration in her target (because it's only a short-term drain), we know whether Professor Persuasion has a high characteristic/skill combo or a Mind Control structure. But the in-game personas can't read Professor Persuasion's character sheet - they know only what they perceive, and must judge him on that basis. Just as we, in the real world, can't read our own character sheets.

 

PP may be well aware of his persuasiveness, wield it skillfully and ruthlessly and be known as a Shark of a negotiator. Or he may be laid back, still very persuasive and known as "a really nice, really sharp guy". Both could easily be special effects for a customized Mind Control power simulating super-persuasiveness, a skill of the character, a talent or what have you. The mechanics are not perceivable - only the effects are.

 

Ease of perception does not effect ethics. All of your examples are unethical. Natural persuasiveness is not unethical because people have the option of ignoring you or saying no. Any persuasiveness (natural or otherwise) that denies these choices is unethical.

 

Easy to say in theory. In practice, on the other hand, what REALLY happened is often tough to assess. We have "buyers' remorse" laws that allow people time to reconsider a purchase decision. Didn't they have the option of saying "No" to the sales pitch at the time? Why do we need a rule allowing them to change their minds later? How many sexual assault cases have issues with whether the persuader "really" persuaded his (or her) partner, or whether that partner never really granted consent?

 

If we can objectively demonstrate that the "persuader" was able to override the target's own thought process and superimpose his own desired thought process, then it's pretty easy to assess "ethics". But we can't objectively demonstrate that in real life and, in game, many possible "Mind Control" powers that simulate persuasion, rather than mental override, are possible.

 

In my view, the ethics of the action is not determined by the mechanic, but the result. If you have convinced someone to betray their country, their spouse, their teammates or their employer, that seems unethical whether accomplished through a power, talent, skill or whatever else. Your choice to convince the target to betray their spouse was unethical. The manner in which you achieved it was irrelevant.

 

Of course, circumstances may vary - perhaps the country I am convincing you to betray is Nazi Germany, or your employer is engaged in experiments on human beings, and it is ethical for me to convince you to betray them.

 

Please name a use of persuasiveness (to the degree that the recipient cannot say no or deny the desire) that is not unethical. The only examples I can give are “defense of immediate danger to their life or the life of a innocent 3rd party”. Please give other ethical examples for discussion.

 

Whatever example I provide would carry ethical issues whether I am using a Mind Control or Persuasion Skill construct to effect that persuasion. There seems to be some assumption that Mind Control cannot fail, but skills can. A high enough skill roll will fail only on an 18 (highly unlikely, especially if we can try, try again). Mind Control can fail because the attack roll fails, because the effect roll is inadequate or because the breakout roll succeeds. Even if we structure such that the effect roll will always be enough (maybe because it builds over time), the attack roll can be an 18 or the breakout roll can be a 3. Both can be defined as the target rejecting the persuasion of the "attacker", and would appropriately be so defined if the power is a "super-skill".

 

EDIT: If consent is explicitly given by the target' date=' it is ethical[/quote']

 

Tell that to those who believe assisted suicide is unethical. We also have cases where people are given medical treatment against their wishes, often arising from religious beliefs. Is the medical practitioner unethical for treating the patient, or is the religion unethical for imposing these restrictions? You won't get a general consensus over the population. These are not black & white questions.

 

Yes' date=' if there are appropriate limitations on the MC, I could accept it as a way to simulate super-persuasion, except for the fact that Persuasion skill is already in the game. The primary limit on MC persuasion would be that no more than a +10 effect can be achieved. You can talk someone into doing something they are inclined to do anyway, or that they are not normally against doing. But no 'persuading' a faithful spouse to betray their partners, no convincing law abiding people to commit crimes, no convincing a dedicated Christian into abandoning his faith, and so on.[/quote']

 

Yet, in real life (much less heroic fiction), such persuasion does occur. Now, you might argue that the "faithful spouse" would not be persuaded. I might rebut that the failure of the persuasion roll (or the successful breakout roll) is properly interpreted as the spouse being too faithful to persuade.

 

The 'persuasion MC that we have been discussing was not presented with that limit' date=' though.[/quote']

 

For the record - slap any limitations you want on the MC, but it remains mechanically MC. I guarantee if we put "cannot be used unethically" on it, there will be a fight, sooner rather than later, over whether a desired use of the power is, or is not, ethical. Just as we often have arguments over whether any given MC effect is, in fact, Ego +10 or some higher or lower level. "My character would NEVER abandon his post to have a beer - he would be violently opposed to the suggestion!"

 

Mind Control robs targets of free will because that's what it's for' date=' just as Teleportation is for moving from place to place. The "without passing through the intervening space" bit is just a bonus.[/quote']

 

The "without passing through intervening space" is pretty much all that differentiates Teleportation from a different movement power. I get from place to place with Running on the ground, Climbing or Clinging up a wall, Flight through space and Swimming through water.

 

Mind Control is for influencing the actions of others. It is not infallible, so it does not remove free will any more than Persuasion does. If the Persuasion roll succeeds, the target goes along with the Persuasion roll (he was unable to resist this persuasion). If a Persuasive Mind Control fails, the target resists the persuasion - he Just Says No.

 

Assuming you acquired lightning bolt creation powers and then decided to use them on anyone who annoyed you' date=' you would find that the criminal justice system could find a law for it. [/quote']

 

And if you use your powers of persuasion to convince others to engage in criminal acts, you will find the legal system will address this regardless of whether you used Persuasion or Mind Control.

 

The difference between "join his cult" and "join a new religion" being?

 

Fairly in need of clarification. If I convince you that Presbyterianism is the One True Faith, and you change churches, I submit that is not on the same playing field as if I persuade you to chug a Draino cocktail so we can ride that comet on out of here. Others' views may differ.

 

Once again:

What Persuasion (or any interaction skill) can do:

Archieve Any effect similar to a EGO+0 or EGO+10 MC effect.

With extraodinary Skill Roll, perhaps it can archieve EGO+20.

Never archieve EGO+30

 

Please cite the page in the rules where this is stated. I submit that this is your opinion of what persuasion can achieve, and not a game rule. People have been persuaded to do some pretty heinous things.

 

What you attribute to people like Hitler and Cult leaders is neither (pure) persuasion' date=' nor Mind Controll. It's subtle brainwashing. It changes the psychical background of someone, by using his/her Complications to apply aditional ones (that work in favor with furhter Persuasion Attemps). It is a long term use of Interaction Skills and Complementary Skills that can take months to take the desired effect.[/quote']

 

So it becomes unethical because it can be done quickly, is that your contention?

 

Mind Controll is an Attack. It's an attack power. It requires some kind of attack roll.

 

Unless I remove the attack roll. No Range AoE Radius powers center on the user and are generally considered to require no attack roll, although one can technically be required. A skill roll is very similar to an attack roll.

 

When you use an attack on someone and your use is detected/proven, the following things will happen:

- the target acts according to the attack

- bystanders act according to the attack

- courts will judge you as an attacker

 

So, if I walk up to a lady in the bar and hit on her, will she not act according to my attempt (clumsy though it was) to pry her from her husband? Will bystanders not act according to that attempt (her husband, or a friend of her husband, will likely not react kindly). I doubt the courts will convict, even if she says "Why not? You're pretty hot" and we go back to my place with her seeing eye dog.

 

It doesn't matter whether that was my 6- Seduction Roll or my 1d6 Mind Control or her own psychlogical limitations. The use of the ability, not the mechanic, is judged.

 

This is true for Damaging Use of STR

 

Can you conceive of one special effect for any of those, that would not mark you as an attacker once your action is revealed?

 

Oh yeah, baby! Spank me hard!

 

Again' date=' difficulty to be revealed (Invisible effects) is not changing the fact it is an attack, it just makes it harder to detect (like any crime done in a dark alley).[/quote']

 

Typhoid Mary. The character carries a deadly disease, and is completely unaware of this fact. In Hero terms, the disease is defined as an invisible attack power which the character cannot shut off.

 

When you have a valid reason for any of those attacks' date=' court and bystanders may accept your actions as nessesary. The victim will still hate you for it.[/quote']

 

I see. So you hate your friends and family if you catch a cold from them, I take it.

 

I'd sum up, but it's already done:

 

My point is that the nature of the power does not make it unethical to use. The SFX of the power and how it is used define whether or not it is unethical to use.

 

Manipulating people can be unethical.

 

An alternative to MC with limitations would be to buy the Persuasion skill with a huge bonus, like +30. Effectively you've got a low-powered MC with limitations. It's not the power that makes it unethical, it's what you do with the power.

 

MC is no more unethical than Persuasion is - which is to say that by its nature it is not unethical unless you use it to be so.

 

I'll add here that MC is also no LESS unethical.

 

There is a difference between the game mechanic and the philosophical constructs of free will (actually' date=' it could be argued that the entire universe is pre-determined. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction then there is no free will, only the illusion of free will. Where I sit and believe I am choosing to type these words is an illusion, the course of actions that the universe has taken up to this point has assured that I would in fact type these words. But that's another thread entirely I'm sure ). [/quote']

 

Whether it is, or it isn't, is already pre-determined!

 

In my understanding MC is as ethical or unethical as every Blast or use of skill.

 

Apparently, this thread could have been WAY shorter...

 

When I run around while emanating radiation' date=' would I not be resposible for the damage caused? Would I be any less repsosible, if the radiation source was fused with my body and I ran around with propperly protecting my environment?[/quote']

 

Would your knowledge of whether you were radioactive have any bearing on the answer?

 

Let's return to Ms. Pretty for a moment. She's hot! Coincidenctally, so is the weather, so she's out for a jog in her short shorts and tight top. Driver A is distracted by her, and T-bones Driver B. Who is at fault, Driver A for being distracted, or Ms. Pretty? Well, it must be her - she should know better to go out in public when she's obviously pretty and could distract drivers. Better lock her up for the public good!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I find it interresting that Mind Control is getting singled out vs. the more general issue of using Killing Attacks (lethal force).

 

Mind Control is easy to single out since we don't have to look at real world issues if we restrict discussion to fictional powers.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I find it interresting that Mind Control is getting singled out vs. the more general issue of using Killing Attacks (lethal force).

 

Mind Control is easy to single out since we don't have to look at real world issues if we restrict discussion to fictional powers.

 

 

I think Mind Control is being singled out not because it is fictional and by discussing it we can avoid real world issues, but because Killing Attacks are not fictional and thus have already had quite a lot of thought put into the ethics and legalities of using them. Why reinvent the wheel?

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

@Hugh:

To the selected examples of uncontrolled: Once they are identified of emanating that attack form, they would be dealt with accordingly (quarantine), until their is a way to remove or supresse their powers/affliction. They could still be ethically/personally responsible for the attacks (and some victims or relatives may come after them), but legally they don't have to face charges (unless for what they let people do, while being in their influence).

 

But when they know they are attacking people (like when they brake out after being told about their aura), they are responsible for any "Attack" they make against thier environment. Buying of the need for an attack roll doesn't change that it stays an attack to everyone comming into range, it's just the HERO-System version for certain spells and effects that automatically hit you when "walking into the affected area".

 

What really has me on edge is any try to use/define MC in a way, that you would never be affected by legislation regarding mental assault (or normal assault, if there is no mental assault) for using them. If you have an MC power and use it, you are as applicable to any assault law as for a usage of blast. No Matter if you define it's special effect as "Emotion Controll", "Mental/Psionic", "Very Persuasive" or "Sexy Beyond Mortal Comprehension".

How I understand what you want to do, is make MC fall under less ethical and jurisdictional restrictions that an Blast, while I say it should always have the same, no matter how the SFX is defined.

 

That we mostly talk about Mind Controll, might be that the thread that spawned this conversation was all about Mind Controll. So the Op might just have choosen the wrong topic, or those who switched here might have simply ignored it.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I have a question that has nothing to do with ethics for those supporting Mind Control as persuasion construct within HERO....

 

If the person is just super persuasive, why would someone who has Mental Defense be less vulnerable to being persuaded?

 

I think the construction needs NND to avoid this. Any suggestions as to what the NND immunity would be?

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

So let's use our "Very Persuasive" speaker in a different structure. He acts as a paid advocate. Perhaps a lobbyist. Perhaps a lawyer. Perhaps an agent for professional athletes' date=' to segue back to the above. He gets paid for delivering value to his clientele by achieving their goals. He does so by influencing those he communicates with to see things his clients' way, and to negotiate a better deal for his clients. He's very good at such negotiations. Is he ethical?[/quote']

 

Does he remove free will? Taboo “Very Persuasive (i.e. define without using the term persuasive). Also, we shouldn't just if a person is ethical from one aspect of them. I submit the question should be rephrased as “Are the above actions ethical?”

 

Because we play a game' date=' we can read the specific nature of his powers. Just like we KNOW Contagious Lass' Illness Power will not result in long-term health deterioration in her target (because it's only a short-term drain), we know whether Professor Persuasion has a high characteristic/skill combo or a Mind Control structure. But the in-game personas can't read Professor Persuasion's character sheet - they know only what they perceive, and must judge him on that basis. Just as we, in the real world, can't read our own character sheets. [/quote']

 

Correct, which is why we should try and remove game terms and discuss in expanded definitions so everyone is clear on what we mean. Are there any terms of mine that are unclear?

 

 

PP may be well aware of his persuasiveness' date=' wield it skillfully and ruthlessly and be known as a Shark of a negotiator. Or he may be laid back, still very persuasive and known as "a really nice, really sharp guy". Both could easily be special effects for a customized Mind Control power simulating super-persuasiveness, a skill of the character, a talent or what have you. The mechanics are not perceivable - only the effects are.[/quote']

 

If either removes free will, than both are immoral.

 

Easy to say in theory. In practice' date=' on the other hand, what REALLY happened is often tough to assess. We have "buyers' remorse" laws that allow people time to reconsider a purchase decision. Didn't they have the option of saying "No" to the sales pitch at the time? Why do we need a rule allowing them to change their minds later? How many sexual assault cases have issues with whether the persuader "really" persuaded his (or her) partner, or whether that partner never really granted consent?[/quote']

 

1) Ethics is theory. Living an ethical life is practice. We are debating theory.

2) Laws do not define ethical behavior. Ethics is different from legality.

3) They did have the option but they may not have been informed. That is my understanding of buyers remorse. Were you unaware that sometimes people are told incorrect information in order to guide their choices?

4) The number of cases is irrelevant to if sexual assault is unethical. Are you arguing that it is an ethical behavior?

 

If we can objectively demonstrate that the "persuader" was able to override the target's own thought process and superimpose his own desired thought process, then it's pretty easy to assess "ethics". But we can't objectively demonstrate that in real life and, in game, many possible "Mind Control" powers that simulate persuasion, rather than mental override, are possible.

 

In my view, the ethics of the action is not determined by the mechanic, but the result. If you have convinced someone to betray their country, their spouse, their teammates or their employer, that seems unethical whether accomplished through a power, talent, skill or whatever else. Your choice to convince the target to betray their spouse was unethical. The manner in which you achieved it was irrelevant.

 

Of course, circumstances may vary - perhaps the country I am convincing you to betray is Nazi Germany, or your employer is engaged in experiments on human beings, and it is ethical for me to convince you to betray them.

 

In real life we cannot know the true minds of others. If we could, then we could give that objective proof. I suppose it would be possible to look at the concentrations of neurochemical levels or EEG machines but translating those into thoughts is beyond our current understanding. This is why we should debate without using the term persuasion, or mind control. We should be talking about “does free will exist?” “Is removing free will wrong?” (with the caveats I have already stated in previous posts).

 

Whatever example I provide would carry ethical issues whether I am using a Mind Control or Persuasion Skill construct to effect that persuasion. There seems to be some assumption that Mind Control cannot fail' date=' but skills can. A high enough skill roll will fail only on an 18 (highly unlikely, especially if we can try, try again). Mind Control can fail because the attack roll fails, because the effect roll is inadequate or because the breakout roll succeeds. Even if we structure such that the effect roll will always be enough (maybe because it builds over time), the attack roll can be an 18 or the breakout roll can be a 3. Both can be defined as the target rejecting the persuasion of the "attacker", and would appropriately be so defined if the power is a "super-skill".[/quote']

 

I have consistently argued against both if they remove free will and in favor of both if they do not. I used the term persuasiveness to be synonymous with convincing not Persuasion (the hero system skill).

 

Tell that to those who believe assisted suicide is unethical.

 

They are wrong. Dear people who believe assisted suicide is unethical: you are wrong. It is not ethical to restrict the freedom of beings with sound minds and bodies. If they are mentally incapapble of making that decision, then they are incapable of making that decision (tautology). Otherwise it is ethical.

 

We also have cases where people are given medical treatment against their wishes' date=' often arising from religious beliefs. Is the medical practitioner unethical for treating the patient, or is the religion unethical for imposing these restrictions? You won't get a general consensus over the population. These are not black & white questions.[/quote']

 

Religions are often unethical, but in this case the medical practitioner is imposing his will on the (however misguided) believer. I may not believe in religion, but I believe in the right to have believes. General consensus is not required for ethics. Your ethics have no effect on my ethics, except that I enjoy arguing on forums.

 

They are black and white questions, because ethics is binary as stated in post 2. It is possible for there to be ethically neutral actions, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. Grey questions are a result of insufficient information. If you were to come back and state “is it ok to let someone die who wants to die but is the only person who can do X” where X was more valuable than my belief in free will, I would say it was ethical to save them against their wishes. This is more information, but the choice is still black and white.

 

 

Mind Control is for influencing the actions of others. It is not infallible' date=' so it does not remove free will any more than Persuasion does. If the Persuasion roll succeeds, the target goes along with the Persuasion roll (he was unable to resist this persuasion). If a Persuasive Mind Control fails, the target resists the persuasion - he Just Says No.[/quote']

 

In this case, Mind Control is not unethical because it is a mechanical construct representing the degree of persuasion. If he has no option of saying no, it is unethical.

 

Oh yeah' date=' baby! Spank me hard![/i']

 

Used under consent, already covered.

 

Would your knowledge of whether you were radioactive have any bearing on the answer?

 

Yes it would. If you had no knowledge, you could not act in such a way to reduce your impact. Thus your actions were ethical. Once you obtain knowledge, you should act in a way to minimize your harm to others. If you had reason to suspect you were radioactive, you should take actions to prevent harm and determine if you are radioactive.

 

Let's return to Ms. Pretty for a moment. She's hot! Coincidenctally' date=' so is the weather, so she's out for a jog in her short shorts and tight top. Driver A is distracted by her, and T-bones Driver B. Who is at fault, Driver A for being distracted, or Ms. Pretty? Well, it must be her - she should know better to go out in public when she's obviously pretty and could distract drivers. Better lock her up for the public good![/quote']

 

Driver A, he had the choice of not looking. Also as a driver, he bears the responsibility for not endangering other people while driving. Straw man is made of straw.

 

I find it interresting that Mind Control is getting singled out vs. the more general issue of using Killing Attacks (lethal force).

 

Both point to a more basic issue of freedom vs. security (whether provided by the government or vigilantes).

 

That is like debating if murder, torture, or rape is worse. While it may be an interesting debate, I do not see it as either productive or in the scope of this thread. OP clearly wanted to debate ethics of mind control.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

If the person is just super persuasive' date=' why would someone who has Mental Defense be less vulnerable to being persuaded?[/quote']

 

The quick answer is that mental defense can have the SFX of being stubborn or hard to convince. Not that it is the only answer, but I've seen lots of characters who have SFX "strong willpower" for mental defense.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

The quick answer is that mental defense can have the SFX of being stubborn or hard to convince. Not that it is the only answer' date=' but I've seen lots of characters who have SFX "strong willpower" for mental defense.[/quote']

 

But a lot of Mental Defenses are also defined as the ubiquitous "Psi Shield", which shouldnt work at all against a persuasive argument. So the Mind Control needs NND or AVLD, and the defense is having Mental Defense of the right special effect.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Let's return to Ms. Pretty for a moment. She's hot! Coincidenctally, so is the weather, so she's out for a jog in her short shorts and tight top. Driver A is distracted by her, and T-bones Driver B. Who is at fault, Driver A for being distracted, or Ms. Pretty? Well, it must be her - she should know better to go out in public when she's obviously pretty and could distract drivers. Better lock her up for the public good!

 

And when there is a trail of 30 auto accidents behind her every day that she goes jogging in warm weather, 2000 accidents over the course of a warm summer, with (say) 154 fatalities, is she still entirely blameless if she insists on going jogging along the roadside in her short shorts and tight top?