Superpowers and Ethics

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Is Ms. Pretty just Pretty (Striking Apereance /high per), or Mindbendingpretty (MC AOE)?

 

I my post I though it was the later, but I am not that sure anymore...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Does he remove free will? Taboo “Very Persuasive (i.e. define without using the term persuasive). Also' date=' 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?”[/quote']

 

How do we define "free will" in the game? I can define it as "if the target makes his breakout roll, he has exercised his free will to not comply with my request, and if he does not, then he has chosen to comply with my request". The fact he needs to make a breakout roll is a mechanical construct to resolve how the character, in game, will exercise his free will. So yes, the target retains free will, and can choose to accept my offer or reject it. The roll (whether a Mind Control breakout roll, an opposed PRE or interaction skill check, a straight skill roll or a PRE attack) determines the manner in which the target exercises their free will. Any abilities the character possesses may influence the target's exercise of his free will, just like we decide how to exercise our free will in real life based on numerous outside factors (most of which can be exercised ethically or unethically, and often even legally or illegally).

 

ASIDE: One of the common problems in discussions such as these relating to in-game activities is the extent of control a player has over the character's free will - that is, does an interaction skill roll which indicates the CHARACTER exercises his free will in a manner not to the liking of the PLAYER violate the social contract of the game. But that's another thread.

 

So, my issue comes back to the suggestion one poster made - if it is ALWAYS unethical to use any ability defined, mechanically, as Mind Control under the Hero System, to influence the decisions of another, why would it not be similarly unethical to use any ability whatsoever to influence the decisions of another? The acceptable degree of influence we consider acceptable is another matter - as many posters note, for example, that while it would normally be unethical to psionically rewire someone's brain to change their decision making process, it might be acceptable where the alternative is worse (for example, the target is about to cause harm to a third party, and this psionic rewiring will prevent that).

 

Now, if one argues that free will is the most important of all ethical issues, than one might well assert, flowing from that, that ANY attempt to subvert the free will of another is unethical. I am not responsible for his actions, only my own, so my ethics must remain pure. Therefore, I will not, in any way, usurp the free will of another, regardless of how he uses that free will. The complex ethical dilemma then becomes whether I am more ethical to allow another to subvert the free will of others when I am capable of preventing that.

 

The original question leading to this extended debate was a university professor who used Mind Control (in some form) to win a vote at a board meeting. If it is unethical to use a natural talent for getting others to see things his way when it is defined as Mind Control, I submit it is also unethical to use persuasiveness, wealth (perhaps he controls funding), position (perhaps he evaluates performance, influences tenure, etc.), sex appeal or any other outside means to influence the decisions of others - right down to "I'd be grateful if you assisted in this regard". The fact is that we accept many uses of influence are not unethical.

 

Correct' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

To me, what is unclear is how we can determine that free will is overridden absolutely, rather than being influenced to a lesser or greater extent. At what point is that influence "unethical"? Does it depend on the nature of the influence, the manner in which it is weilded, the knowledge of the person that he is influencing others and/or the objective he seeks to achieve by using his influence?

 

If either removes free will' date=' than both are immoral.[/quote']

 

Again, what is capable of removing "free will"? One poster has suggested that your free will is not removed if your choice is "do it my way or die", and thus the threat of death is more ethical than mind control. If I give you the choice of working as a slave or denial of food and water to you and your family, I have not, technically, removed your free will. I have, I suggest, influenced it in a highly unethical manner, but you still have the choice - work or starve. I suggest that this is far more unethical than using some form of ability to influence the decision of whether the staff cafeteria will allow a vending machine that serves sugary soft drinks, to take a decision some boards have had to vote on.

 

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

 

Theory which cannot be applied in practice is pretty much useless.

 

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

 

Agreed

 

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?

 

Knowingly imparting incorrect information is fraud, and very different from buyers' remorse laws. How long should the purchaser have the option to revoke his decision? The vendor cannot sell that same product to a third party during the remorse period, so he is constrained. Should the purchaser be able to avail himself of his purchase for an extended period, then decide it wasn't really all he thought it should be and demand the seller reverse the transaction? Should he be allowed a week? A month? A decade?

 

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

 

This depends on how you define "sexual assault". A recent, somewhat controversial court case draws hit the question. This case hinged around "consent". As I understand the case (and, as we are discussing hypotheticals, let us assume my understanding is perfectly correct), the lady in question explicitly consented. The court concluded, however, that she felt she was in danger if she did not consent, as the fellow was quite large, she was quite small and they were pretty isolated. The court also concluded that the fellow did not know that her consent was not given freely and willingly. However, the court concluded he should have realized that she might have felt pressured in this way, and therefore consent had not been given, and he was guilty. His lack of understanding that consent has not been freely given mitigated the crime, and his sentence was pretty light.

 

Apply the ethical theory to that practical situation - you honestly believe the girl has given her consent. Are you unethical to engage in sexual relations with her?

 

In real life we cannot know the true minds of others. If we could' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

I think you're moving well into "pure speculation land", making the discussion of limited, if any, value or interest.

 

 

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).

 

I concur with that use of the term. The question is whether someone who is very persuasive - very effective at convincing people - is unethical to use that ability, or alternatively under what circumstances it is, or is not, ethical to use that ability. This thread flows from a discussion suggesting that any construct built with the Hero System power "Mind Control" was automatically unethical to use, where use of a skill such as Persuasion was not.

 

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' date=' then they are incapable of making that decision (tautology). Otherwise it is ethical. [/quote']

 

It seems that you are trying to influence the free will of those opposed to assisted suicide.

 

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

 

Bolded for emphasis. I would suggest your statement that a certain belief is wrong (which I take as an objective term) is not consistent with your statement that you believe in the rights of others to their beliefs.

 

In this case' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

At what point does he have "no option"? How limited must that option be? In theory, employees have the option of saying "no" to an employer. Many do not, because of the risk of harm to their own well being. Do they have "no option", or limited options? Is limiting options more ethical than removing them entirely?

 

Driver A' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

OK, so the driver is at fault because he has the option of not looking. Let's change the scenario a bit. Ms. Pretty is not out for a jog, she is a strong believer in animal rights. As Driver A rounds the corner, she doffs her fur coat, clearly making the statement "I'd rather go naked than wear fur!" in front of a coat store. Driver A, in his shock, takes his eyes off the road for a second and rear ends Driver B.

 

Driver A still had the option of not looking, right? We should not restrict Ms. Pretty's free will, should we? Similarly, we should not restrict the free will of the store owner across the street to erect a huge billboard and broadcast bright, distracting advertising, right?

 

I don't think "A is Right and B is Wrong" is very common in the real world. There are normally tradeoffs, and arguments for both sides.

 

But a lot of Mental Defenses are also defined as the ubiquitous "Psi Shield"' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

If that is your vision, apply NND or AVLD. Maybe, however, it is the Psi Shield which should be limited to only work against mental powers with a psionic special effect. After all, it should also fail against Bee Woman's Pheremone Powers, right?

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

If that is your vision' date=' apply NND or AVLD. Maybe, however, it is the Psi Shield which should be limited to only work against mental powers with a psionic special effect. After all, it should also fail against Bee Woman's Pheremone Powers, right?[/quote']

And how would you then define a Mental Defense that worked against any Mental Attack, regardless of special effect?

 

i think you are mixing up Names with effect. The Effect is Mental defense, it is just named Psyonics shielding. And why it works?

Well, technbabbel technobabbel technobabbel, wich leads to technobabbbel. Therefore Technobabbel, technobabbel and technobabbel. Everythign clear now?

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

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

 

"If you truly had absolute power, what could you possibly be corrupted with? What causes corruption is the perception of inadequate power." - Spider Robinson

 

This is a interesting discussion. The poles of the arguement seem to be "This power is always unethical because it interferes with free will" and "Sometimes, it's not unethical".

 

I think we can agree (I'm asking for it here) that using mind control (or other similar power) to stop a felony in progress is OK. A misdeamenor is probably ok to stop, even if I mispelled it. But using it to prevent a crime that hasn't happened yet is very questionable (He'll murder his wife next week, so I'll adjust his mind...). And using it to get a better parking space on campus is wrong. Using it to get dates is worse.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

And how would you then define a Mental Defense that worked against any Mental Attack, regardless of special effect?

 

i think you are mixing up Names with effect. The Effect is Mental defense, it is just named Psyonics shielding. And why it works?

Well, technbabbel technobabbel technobabbel, wich leads to technobabbbel. Therefore Technobabbel, technobabbel and technobabbel. Everythign clear now?

 

Strong willed.

Extreme training in mystical arts to sharpen the focus and lock out outside influences.

A psionic enhancement device that prevents manipulation of the characters thoughts.

etc...

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

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.

 

I don't believe anyone has suggested a build where you could never be affected by legislation regarding assault. What has been stated is that the game mechanic of MC does not necessitate the use of the power unethical. As Hugh has pointed out, there are many cases where a low-powered MC would be easier to resist than a high powered use of the Persuasion skill. So MC by its nature should be no less ethical than Persuasion. It's what you do with it that makes it unethical.

 

Roy's suggestion of removing the game terms is a good one, but the part I take issue with is bound to the game terms. It has been suggested by some that any use of Mind Control is by definition unethical. I think this position misses the whole "reason from effect" nature that HERO offers. My position is that it depends on the nature of the build and how you use it. Mind Control is just a game construct that allows us to achieve an effect - depending on how it is defined, it may be no more unethical than using the Persuasion skill.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think you can be unethical with the Persuasion skill. But not every use. If I haggle over the price of a used car and use Persuasion to get a warranty thrown in, is that unethical? What if I define my Persuasion as a super skill with a Mind Control build? Does that suddenly make it unethical, and if so, why?

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think we can agree (I'm asking for it here) that using mind control (or other similar power) to stop a felony in progress is OK. A misdeamenor is probably ok to stop' date=' even if I mispelled it. But using it to prevent a crime that hasn't happened yet is very questionable (He'll murder his wife next week, so I'll adjust his mind...). And using it to get a better parking space on campus is wrong. Using it to get dates is worse.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of this - specifically the parking space and dates, if defined with right limitations and SFX, is no more unethical than using the Persuasion skill.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

First I want to thank you for organizing this post in a way that is easy to read.

 

How do we define "free will" in the game?

 

I think this is the crux of the matter. There seems to be a problem that I was working from the assumption of “what is the ethical nature of the use of mind control powers (defined as those that suborn free will) in the real world. From my reading of your post, it seems you are more concerned about ethics inside of a game construct rather than in real the real world.

 

From outside the game world, the answer is that Mind Control is generally ethical unless it decreases the fun other other players (we should attempt to reach maximal fun for all players, with an eye towards equally distributing fun).

 

From inside the game world, the question becomes “What does character X think about the ethics of Professor Persuasion's ability to convince people very well”. I am not character X so I cannot answer for him. My guess is that if he felt his free will was being suborned, he would think Professor Persuasion was being unethical, and if he did not feel that he would think it was ethical.

 

ASIDE: One of the common problems in discussions such as these relating to in-game activities is the extent of control a player has over the character's free will - that is' date=' does an interaction skill roll which indicates the CHARACTER exercises his free will in a manner not to the liking of the PLAYER violate the social contract of the game. But that's another thread. [/quote']

 

My group solves this by not making interaction skills work on PCs, and forces NPCs to actually present good arguments. PCs should make good arguments but are given more leeway for “my character is better at being convincing than I am”

 

So' date=' my issue comes back to the suggestion one poster made - if it is ALWAYS unethical to use any ability defined, mechanically, as Mind Control under the Hero System, to influence the decisions of another, why would it not be similarly unethical to use any ability whatsoever to influence the decisions of another? [/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).

 

Now' date=' if one argues that free will is the most important of all ethical issues, than one might well assert, flowing from that, that ANY attempt to subvert the free will of another is unethical. I am not responsible for his actions, only my own, so my ethics must remain pure. [/quote']

 

I have not asserted that:

“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 believe in free will' date=' I would say it was ethical to save them against their wishes. [/quote']

 

I specifically state that X is more valuable than my belief in free will (although I did use the typo believe (since edited out), and probably should have been clarified to state my belief that allowing free agents to exercise free will, because as I stated it above it just sounds like I belief free will exists rather than exercising it is good, and preventing that exercise is bad.

 

The original question leading to this extended debate was a university professor who used Mind Control (in some form) to win a vote at a board meeting. If it is unethical to use a natural talent for getting others to see things his way when it is defined as Mind Control' date=' I submit it is also unethical to use persuasiveness, wealth (perhaps he controls funding), position (perhaps he evaluates performance, influences tenure, etc.), sex appeal or any other outside means to influence the decisions of others - right down to "I'd be grateful if you assisted in this regard". The fact is that we accept many uses of influence are not unethical. [/quote']

 

Not my debate, and I have expressed my views above on that issue. Do you believe that using Mind Control in some form is unethical? If so, which forms are unethical and which are ethical? I am ashamed to say that I don't know your views, only your views on my views. Could you please express what you think of the OP in a vacuum?

 

To me' date=' what is unclear is how we can determine that free will is overridden absolutely, rather than being influenced to a lesser or greater extent. At what point is that influence "unethical"? Does it depend on the nature of the influence, the manner in which it is weilded, the knowledge of the person that he is influencing others and/or the objective he seeks to achieve by using his influence? [/quote']

 

We cannot determine if free will is overridden absolutely. Free will is an internal process. I have noted that it may become possible to determine that with vast advances in neurobiology, but we currently cannot. The best we can determine is if it is likely that free will has been overridden.

 

Again' date=' what is capable of removing "free will"? One poster has suggested that your free will is not removed if your choice is "do it my way or die", and thus the threat of death is more ethical than mind control. If I give you the choice of working as a slave or denial of food and water to you and your family, I have not, technically, removed your free will. I have, I suggest, influenced it in a highly unethical manner, but you still have the choice - work or starve. I suggest that this is far more unethical than using some form of ability to influence the decision of whether the staff cafeteria will allow a vending machine that serves sugary soft drinks, to take a decision some boards have had to vote on.[/quote']

 

I cannot make an exhaustive list including all possible ways of removing free will, but to start off: harm to self or third party, threat of the same. I use harm in a very broad sense to include more than physical harm.

 

Theory which cannot be applied in practice is pretty much useless.

 

I hope you don't believe that. Hypothetical situations and ethical theories can teach us valuable lessons about ourselves and others. Not to mention scientific theories which are non-practical.

 

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

Agreed

 

because we agree on this, I will not respond to all of the legal questions. Fraud is a legal term, and you continue to refer to buyer's remorese laws. If you rephrase them as “is X an ethical activity” then they are questions about ethics, and that is what I am discussing in this thread.

 

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

This depends on how you define "sexual assault".

 

Thank you for asking me to redefine. I will attempt to do so:

 

sexual assault: touching or contact by one party to a non-consenting party. This touching is sexual in nature or overtone rather than violent (see assault).

 

Court case is irrelevant as courts do not decided ethical behavior. We have agreed on that already. If he believed she had freely given consent, then he was acting ethically. See my post about if you are radioactive and do not know it. If you have reason to believe consent was not given freely, you can conduct tests to clarify while preventing harm.

 

I think you're moving well into "pure speculation land"' date=' making the discussion of limited, if any, value or interest. [/quote']

 

I agree it might be beyond the scope of this thread, but I dislike the dismissive tone, suggesting that all other posts on a hypothetical power build, for a character not in any of our games is not pure speculation. We are speculating about something that effects none of us.

 

This thread flows from a discussion suggesting that any construct built with the Hero System power "Mind Control" was automatically unethical to use' date=' where use of a skill such as Persuasion was not.[/quote']

 

The affairs of other threads need not concern me, please address my points as raised by me in the context of the OP of this thread, rather than any other thread.

 

It seems that you are trying to influence the free will of those opposed to assisted suicide.

 

I am not sure if you are arguing in good faith or not on this point. I will assume you are arguing in good faith and are trying to reductio ad absurdum me (disprove me by taking my argument to a logically absurd conclusion). I am trying to influence the opinions or beliefs on Assisted Suicide of those who believe it is wrong. That is correct. However, because I am not suborning their free will (they can chose to disagree with me) what I am doing is ethical.

 

I am trying to make a rational argument in which I convince the other side to adopt my beliefs. This is ethical. Forcing them to adopt my beliefs is wrong.

 

Let me ask another question: Is tolerance of believes a belief? We seem to be debating the ethics of toleration of believes now. This gets into an argument about how your rights and beliefs end when they harm me.

 

I believe in the right to have believes.

I would suggest your statement that a certain belief is wrong (which I take as an objective term) is not consistent with your statement that you believe in the rights of others to their beliefs.

Any other thoughts or arguements?

 

Ethics are not objective but we must act as if they are in order to apply them to others. We cannot agree on an objective set of what is right and wrong. The original post specifically asked for thoughts and arguments however.

 

To address the substance of your point, I can both believe that a point is wrong and believe in the right of others to have a wrong belief. That is not mutually exclusive. I do not believe that it is my responsibility to remove all wrong beliefs from the world. That is analogous to saying that “I don't agree with you, but I believe you have a right to disagree with me” is inconsistent. As I previously stated, I enjoy arguing on forums. I am not trying to convince you because I believe it is ethical or because it is required of me, but rather because I enjoy it (and I'm waiting for an RPG to start).

 

I would also suggest that this point is off topic from the original post.

 

If he has no option of saying no' date=' it is unethical. [/quote']

At what point does he have "no option"? How limited must that option be? In theory' date=' employees have the option of saying "no" to an employer. Many do not, because of the risk of harm to their own well being. Do they have "no option", or limited options? Is limiting options more ethical than removing them entirely?[/quote']

 

Unfortunately this is too broad for me to give a hard and fast ruling of ethical or unethical. I have insufficient information. If you give specific circumstances I can debate them in specifics. My point about no option is as specific as you can get on such a broad statement.

 

To illustrate my point, Imagine a 1 dimensional plane with a line bisecting it. On one side of the line is all actions that are unethical. On the other is all actions that are ethical. I have determined that “leaving no choice” falls on the unethical side. To determine where a point [limited choice] falls, I would need more information.

 

 

OK, so the driver is at fault because he has the option of not looking. Let's change the scenario a bit. Ms. Pretty is not out for a jog, she is a strong believer in animal rights. As Driver A rounds the corner, she doffs her fur coat, clearly making the statement "I'd rather go naked than wear fur!" in front of a coat store. Driver A, in his shock, takes his eyes off the road for a second and rear ends Driver B.

 

Driver A still had the option of not looking, right? We should not restrict Ms. Pretty's free will, should we? Similarly, we should not restrict the free will of the store owner across the street to erect a huge billboard and broadcast bright, distracting advertising, right?

 

I will refer you to post #21

 

I can for example state in simple terms: It is wrong to remove the freedom of choice from an agent who possesses the ability to understand the choice. In laymans terms, it is wrong to restrict people's options.

 

If all people were beings of pure moral goodness, we would never need to do this. We do this in real life because people are not beings of moral goodness. However, when we restrict the free agency of individuals, we must examine why we are restricting them and the least limiting way to do it.

 

We should carefully examine why we are restricting their actions and the least limiting way to do it. We may decide that restricting the actions of either Ms. Pretty or the store is required for safety. I unfortunately do not have to draw up another case study, but I can refer you to post 21 for an example of my thought process for restricting freedom of choice.

 

 

I don't think "A is Right and B is Wrong" is very common in the real world. There are normally tradeoffs' date=' and arguments for both sides. [/quote']

 

Could you please break down this case study and tell us who you think is right and wrong and what the tradeoffs and arguments for both sides are? I have very clearly expressed my views, but I do not know yours.

 

"If you truly had absolute power' date=' what could you possibly be corrupted with? What causes corruption is the perception of inadequate power." - Spider Robinson[/quote']

 

Infinite (used to replace absolute) power contains both the power to be corrupted and the power to be incorruptable. That is why it is infinite.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think you can be unethical with the Persuasion skill. But not every use. If I haggle over the price of a used car and use Persuasion to get a warranty thrown in' date=' is that unethical? What if I define my Persuasion as a super skill with a Mind Control build? Does that suddenly make it unethical, and if so, why?[/quote']

 

I know I am being a smart ass here, but I have to say that if you are using Persuasion to get a warranty thrown in you are being unethical. You should be using Trading to bargain with merchants according to 6E1 page 91.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I know I am being a smart ass here' date=' but I have to say that if you are using Persuasion to get a warranty thrown in you are being unethical. You should be using Trading to bargain with merchants according to 6E1 page 91.[/quote']

 

Fair enough - thanks for pointing that out. Allow me to rephrase the scenario:

If I persuade the maître d’ of a restaurant to get a better table, is that unethical? What if I define my Persuasion as a super skill with a Mind Control build? Does that suddenly make it unethical, and if so, why?

[Clonus]

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).

 

Nobody is arguing that killing attacks can be defined with the FX of "caring hug from a friend" so there isn't any actual issue.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Would you allow an exceptionally stealthy character to buy invisibility with limitations to simulate very high stealth rolls?

 

No, I would not. How would it make sense for a person who was just very stealthy to be exposed by an area effect Dispel Invisibility?

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I think we can agree (I'm asking for it here) that using mind control (or other similar power) to stop a felony in progress is OK. A misdeamenor is probably ok to stop' date=' even if I mispelled it. But using it to prevent a crime that hasn't happened yet is very questionable (He'll murder his wife next week, so I'll adjust his mind...). And using it to get a better parking space on campus is wrong. Using it to get dates is worse.[/quote']

I totally agree

 

Fair enough - thanks for pointing that out. Allow me to rephrase the scenario:

If I persuade the maître d’ of a restaurant to get a better table, is that unethical? What if I define my Persuasion as a super skill with a Mind Control build? Does that suddenly make it unethical, and if so, why?

Actually trying to define persuasion as Mind Control is in my view is as false (in game terms), as doing it the other way around. I will try to work up the differences in a seperate post.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

And how would you then define a Mental Defense that worked against any Mental Attack, regardless of special effect?

 

i think you are mixing up Names with effect. The Effect is Mental defense, it is just named Psyonics shielding. And why it works?

Well, technbabbel technobabbel technobabbel, wich leads to technobabbbel. Therefore Technobabbel, technobabbel and technobabbel. Everythign clear now?

 

This can be an issue for any defense in the game. They are very broadly defined. We've had similar issues arise in respect of flash defense (why do sunglasses protect you from being blinded by tear gas? Should the tear gas be AVAD, or the flash defense limited in scope?) and Power Defense (so, you are resistant to toxins and that prevents a fire extinguisher from dousing your flaming damage aura...). The players will have to decide whether they want to accept broad defenses, require the defenses be limited, or require attacks that override certain SFX for these defenses be purchased AVAD.

 

I think this is the crux of the matter. There seems to be a problem that I was working from the assumption of "what is the ethical nature of the use of mind control powers (defined as those that suborn free will) in the real world". From my reading of your post' date=' it seems you are more concerned about ethics inside of a game construct rather than in real the real world. [/quote']

 

We can't very well discuss the ethics of mind control in the real world, since there is no mind control in the real world, but the issue did start out as the ethics of ever using a power constructed with the mehanic of Mind Control. That was in the thread which spawned this one, though.

 

My group solves this by not making interaction skills work on PCs' date=' and forces NPCs to actually present good arguments. PCs should make good arguments but are given more leeway for “my character is better at being convincing than I am”[/quote']

 

I wouldn't call that "solving". NPC's can be more convincing than GM's, and PC's less cynical and suspicious than players. It is, however, a common compromise solution. It's also the topic of Threads Past, and not germane to this one, so I apologize for bringing it up.

 

Not my debate' date=' and I have expressed my views above on that issue. Do you believe that using Mind Control in some form is unethical? If so, which forms are unethical and which are ethical? I am ashamed to say that I don't know your views, only your views on my views. Could you please express what you think of the OP in a vacuum? [/quote']

 

I fall largely into the "know it when you see it" camp. It is simply not possible to define all possible variables. Using mind control to cause a person to perform an unethical act would certainly seem unethical in itself. Using it to prevent another person being harmed may well be considered an ethical act, while I would also tend to believe doing nothing and letting that harm occur when it could easily prevented is unethical - such that failure to use mind control, if one had that choice, might be unethical in such circumstances.

 

We cannot determine if free will is overridden absolutely.

 

Agreed. We can't even conclusively prove it exists (or that it does not).

 

I cannot make an exhaustive list including all possible ways of removing free will' date=' but to start off: harm to self or third party, threat of the same. I use harm in a very broad sense to include more than physical harm. [/quote']

 

Does promise of reward suborn free will? The two are, unfortunately, linked - a promise of reward could motivate me because with that reward I can feed my family, just as threat of losing that reward threatens harm.

 

Court case is irrelevant as courts do not decided ethical behavior.

 

I find the facts of the court case set an interesting case study. Our laws are often attempts (limited and often flawed, but attempts nonetheless) to enforce a broad ethical requirement. The result of the case is not an assessment of ethic, in my view. It may provide some insight to the judge's view on ethics.

 

We have agreed on that already. If he believed she had freely given consent' date=' then he was acting ethically.[/quote']

 

But did he fully believe this, or was he wilfully blind? He probably wanted to believe she had given consent, so maybe she says "yes" after saying "no" a few times before. Maybe she really meant "yes" when she said "yes", but she didn't mean it so much the morning after. Obviously, the inability to know with certainty what is in someone's mind makes it impossible to know all the facts.

 

I would agree that he did not act unethically (at least prima facie) if he truly believed she had freely given informed consent. I'm sure we could construct a premise where he was not so ethical, if we wanted to build one. One would have to see into her mind to know if she freely gave informed consent, an impossibly high bar, and into his to know if he truly believed she did.

 

Now, if she said "no" at 7 PM shortly after arriving at the bar, "no" at 8 PM with a couple of drinks in her, "no" at 9 PM with a few more drinks, just before the call from her boyfriend that he couldn't make their date...again!, but "Yesh" at 11;30 after several more drinks and a tearful tale about her jerk boyfriend, staggering to the car, I might have to question whether he reasonably believed she gave informed consent freely.

 

I agree it might be beyond the scope of this thread' date=' but I dislike the dismissive tone, suggesting that all other posts on a hypothetical power build, for a character not in any of our games is not pure speculation. We are speculating about something that effects none of us. [/quote']

 

I wouldn't call that pure speculation. It applies the theory to the build, even if the build will not be used by me, or even by anyone. I meant no offense, and apologize if any was taken.

 

I am not sure if you are arguing in good faith or not on this point. I will assume you are arguing in good faith and are trying to reductio ad absurdum me (disprove me by taking my argument to a logically absurd conclusion). I am trying to influence the opinions or beliefs on Assisted Suicide of those who believe it is wrong. That is correct. However' date=' because I am not suborning their free will (they can chose to disagree with me) what I am doing is ethical. [/quote']

 

I think we simply have a terminology difference. I view "I disagree" to convey subjectivity, and "You are wrong" to convey objetivity. Thus, I see a considerable difference between "I disagree with your beliefs" and "your beliefs are wrong". If you believe chartreuse is a shade of grey, you are wrong. If you believe chartreuse is hideous, we may agree or disagree, but no one is wrong.

 

Let me ask another question: Is tolerance of believes a belief? We seem to be debating the ethics of toleration of believes now. This gets into an argument about how your rights and beliefs end when they harm me.

 

Yet another tough one. Would it be unethical to use Mind Control to remove racism, or sexism, or other beliefs that, as a society, we believe are not appropriate, or do people have the right to be racists? I lean to your final phrase - do those beliefs harm others? If they do, then I believe it can be ethical to remove them. If they do not, I think others (even the "wrong" ones ) have the right to their opinions.

 

Ethics are not objective but we must act as if they are in order to apply them to others. We cannot agree on an objective set of what is right and wrong. The original post specifically asked for thoughts and arguments however.

 

Often, the problem is ranking. Is freedom good? I doubt any will argue for its removal. But our freedoms are curtailed all the time for the benefit of other things we likely accept as "good". It is in these nuances that ethics are difficult to apply.

 

To illustrate my point' date=' Imagine a 1 dimensional plane with a line bisecting it. On one side of the line is all actions that are unethical. On the other is all actions that are ethical. I have determined that “leaving no choice” falls on the unethical side. To determine where a point [limited choice'] falls, I would need more information.

 

The real world has many dimensions, and I think "these are ethical; these are not" is not so easily applied as a consequence.

 

We should carefully examine why we are restricting their actions and the least limiting way to do it. We may decide that restricting the actions of either Ms. Pretty or the store is required for safety. I unfortunately do not have to draw up another case study' date=' but I can refer you to post 21 for an example of my thought process for restricting freedom of choice. [/quote']

 

Here we find that freedom may need to be curtailed for public safety. We can probably agree to that in theory (I should not be allowed to test nuclear weapon in my back yard, for example). It is the extent to which freedom is appropriately curtailed for safety where the hard decisions lie. Do the rights of driver to have one less distraction take priority, or are they subordinated to the rights of the business owner? The real answer is that both are right, and any actual ruling will be a compromise.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

All I'll say on this, for now, is that, IRL, social interaction skills are absolutely capable of getting people to do things they'd normally be against doing(and think it was their own idea!), and in exceptional cases even capable of getting people to do things they're strongly against doing(usually by taking extra time and very carefully setting things up). Think of charismatic politicians, celebrities, confidence men, and cult leaders. Yes, sometimes it takes a while, but extremely skilled practitioners can get what they want in a matter of minutes. Watch some David Mamet films and shows like Leverage to get some idea of what's possible in "cinematic realism".

The ethics of it all is a subject for a later post...

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I still would say that a EGO+30 result can't be done with the best skill result. You had to first change the targets psychical complications so that they fit your atempt (thus lowering it towards EGO+20).

When he has to choose to kill either his child or his wife, when both are equally loved, a father simple could not choose (since he has equally strong complications/one family complication).

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

No' date=' I would not. How would it make sense for a person who was just very stealthy to be exposed by an area effect Dispel Invisibility?[/quote']

 

6E1 240 lists 4 examples of Invisibility:

* Ring of Invisibility

* Stealth Plan Effect

* Advanced Hiding In Shadows

* Advanced Sneakiness

 

Dispel isn't granular enough to work correctly for all of these, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

All I'll say on this' date=' for now, is that, IRL, social interaction skills are [b']absolutely[/b] capable of getting people to do things they'd normally be against doing(and think it was their own idea!), and in exceptional cases even capable of getting people to do things they're strongly against doing(usually by taking extra time and very carefully setting things up). Think of charismatic politicians, celebrities, confidence men, and cult leaders. Yes, sometimes it takes a while, but extremely skilled practitioners can get what they want in a matter of minutes. Watch some David Mamet films and shows like Leverage to get some idea of what's possible in "cinematic realism".

The ethics of it all is a subject for a later post...

 

Wait, is that what "con man" means, "confidence man"? You learn something new every day, even on an RPG board

 

I agree with you on this. People are convinced to do things they would normally be against all the time.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I still would say that a EGO+30 result can't be done with the best skill result. You had to first change the targets psychical complications so that they fit your atempt (thus lowering it towards EGO+20).

When he has to choose to kill either his child or his wife, when both are equally loved, a father simple could not choose (since he has equally strong complications/one family complication).

 

In the McMartin Preschool trial in the '80s, children were persuaded to testify and quite possibly have false memories implanted about the alleged incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial#Interviewing_and_examining_the_children). I'd consider that EGO+30.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Children are easily influenced.

Try this with a grown up who has no complications to work with.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Children are easily influenced.

Try this with a grown up who has no complications to work with.

 

Still an EGO+30 effect roll, even if it is modified. Besides which, at this point we're talking about skills as powers. I don't think it's unreasonable for a game, given that it's been done in real life.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I've read trhough the skill descriptions

I think I found the mayor difference between Persuasion/Charm Skill and Mind Controll:

The Skills make you take on the others point of view ("You like to be around me", "I think...."), at least for a time. It is nowhere clearly stated when it ends but I would go for: until Situation worsenes (i.e. when for MC the EGO+X level would increase) or you had some time to think it through (sleep a night about it). Of course, if it get's reinforced regulary (i.e. reapplication of the skill for the same effect) it could make the effects more long lasting (unless you stop charming your wife, then they may fade). Same is true if the skill user can use the complications of the targets (you want to believe it).

 

MC on the other hand does not change your Point of View. It aplies one to you that supresses your natural pov. The breakout roll is just the the reaction of the mind, to "shake of" the unnatural pov. To return to it's natural pov.

You do not really like that guy/gal or buy on that idea, but that is irrelevant. Your Point of view is supressed by a different one (chosen by the MC user).

 

What that could mean for the ethics discussion:

I would give the Skills the slight "benefit of natural pov". So they might are a little bit less unethical. Of course not all. Interrogation and PRE-Attacks resisted with EGO are way closer to MC in they are there to break the targets will (thus comlying to something, that goes against your pov).

 

This may also give is the "Not HERO System" terms we are looking for:

Charm/Persuasion Skill is temporarily Transforming/Influencing the Point of view

MC is Supressing/Replacing the Point of View

Interogation/Fear is "breaking" the Point of View (lack's a better term)

 

Oratory: It may have a support role. it may slow the rate of decay for a Persuasion as well as playing with the natural "Herd Instinct" of the target. But someone still would have to give you "personal attention" (Chruch Service vs. personal talk with the pastor).

This may sound like I say all religions are influencing you. And yes, that is what I think.

However I also think it is possible to choose a certain influence when you think it helps you to become/stay a better Person. I even personally use that technique, albeit not with a religion.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I've read trhough the skill descriptions

I think I found the mayor difference between Persuasion/Charm Skill and Mind Controll:

The Skills make you take on the others point of view ("You like to be around me", "I think...."), at least for a time. It is nowhere clearly stated when it ends but I would go for: until Situation worsenes (i.e. when for MC the EGO+X level would increase) or you had some time to think it through (sleep a night about it). Of course, if it get's reinforced regulary (i.e. reapplication of the skill for the same effect) it could make the effects more long lasting (unless you stop charming your wife, then they may fade). Same is true if the skill user can use the complications of the targets (you want to believe it).

 

MC on the other hand does not change your Point of View. It aplies one to you that supresses your natural pov. The breakout roll is just the the reaction of the mind, to "shake of" the unnatural pov. To return to it's natural pov.

You do not really like that guy/gal or buy on that idea, but that is irrelevant. Your Point of view is supressed by a different one (chosen by the MC user).

 

I don't see that anywhere in the rules, but you're welcome to view it that way. I don't see that having any meaningful effect on the mechanics.

 

What that could mean for the ethics discussion:

I would give the Skills the slight "benefit of natural pov". So they might are a little bit less unethical. Of course not all. Interrogation and PRE-Attacks resisted with EGO are way closer to MC in they are there to break the targets will (thus comlying to something, that goes against your pov).

 

This may also give is the "Not HERO System" terms we are looking for:

Charm/Persuasion Skill is temporarily Transforming/Influencing the Point of view

MC is Supressing/Replacing the Point of View

Interogation/Fear is "breaking" the Point of View (lack's a better term)

 

The issue I've had with your position hasn't been one of non-HERO terminology. My issue is with the position you've stated that any use of MC is unethical. I believe it is possible to build an MC power such that it mimics a skill - say Persuasion, but it could be others, as a superskill. That doesn't make MC any more unethical than the skill it is simulating. The mechanics of requiring an attack roll, or "forcing your view on someone else" are just a way to adjudicate what happens in game terms. It is no different than applying the mechanics of, say, Persuasion. The ethics of the use are situational, and depend on what it's being used for.

 

Interestingly enough, The Ultimate Skill pp65 lists Interaction Skill Effects and has at the "10 or more; Critical Success" level:

 

Target will go along with suggestions he's strongly opposed to (e.g. against which he has a Total Psychological Limitation - a nun gives in to a Seduction attempt, a miser makes a really bad deal using Trading)

Target will believe patent untruths ("Are you going to believe me or your own eyes?", "The Emperor is wearing new clothes.")

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

In the McMartin Preschool trial in the '80s' date=' children were persuaded to testify and quite possibly have false memories implanted about the alleged incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial#Interviewing_and_examining_the_children). I'd consider that EGO+30.[/quote']

 

In game terms I would argue that small children have a variety of unwritten complications that make them inclined to trust, obey, want to please, and want attention from adults, especially ones they know.

 

Getting them to testify in court when there parents are telling them they should is not the equivalent of a +30 effect.

 

The implanting of the false memories (if that is what happened) would be a result of a failure in the Interrogation roll made by Kee MacFarlane when she was trying to extract information from the children in question. False confirmation of a suggested answer presented during an interrogation is a classic result of failure, if you're really after the truth, or I suppose of success, if you just want a confession, and the truth be damned.

 

Or maybe these kids just picked up on the scenarios suggested by MacFarlane and noticed that if they parroted them back, they got lots of adult attention, which they like. Clever Hans all over.

 

So I still don't necessarily see the equivalent of a +30 Mind Control effect from the use of a skill. You might, but that's your opinion, not mine.

 

Especially not in a 1 minute timeframe.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

In game terms I would argue that small children have a variety of unwritten complications that make them inclined to trust, obey, want to please, and want attention from adults, especially ones they know.

 

Getting them to testify in court when there parents are telling them they should is not the equivalent of a +30 effect.

 

The implanting of the false memories (if that is what happened) would be a result of a failure in the Interrogation roll made by Kee MacFarlane when she was trying to extract information from the children in question. False confirmation of a suggested answer presented during an interrogation is a classic result of failure, if you're really after the truth, or I suppose of success, if you just want a confession, and the truth be damned.

 

Or maybe these kids just picked up on the scenarios suggested by MacFarlane and noticed that if they parroted them back, they got lots of adult attention, which they like. Clever Hans all over.

 

So I still don't necessarily see the equivalent of a +30 Mind Control effect from the use of a skill. You might, but that's your opinion, not mine.

 

Especially not in a 1 minute timeframe.

 

Fair enough. Hence the use of a power as skill. However, TUS does present rules for achieving that level of effect.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Interestingly enough, The Ultimate Skill pp65 lists Interaction Skill Effects and has at the "10 or more; Critical Success" level:

 

The text just above the table also specifically addresses, using Mind Control equivalents, levels of success using interaction skills.

 

By comparison, an Extraordinary Skill Roll or Critical Success with an Interaction Skill is necessary to get a character to do something he's "strongly opposed" to - Roughly the equivalent to an EGO +20 roll with Mind Control in most circumstances. Greater effects such as those achieved with EGO +30 Mind Control, generally cannot be achieved with Interaction Skills. (One exception: sometimes a character using Persuasion or the like can convince somoene to believe a baldfaced lie that contradicts reality under direct observation. Normally this requires an EGO +30 Mind Control effect but it is specifically mentioned under the Extraordinary Skill rules.)

 

Looking up the Extraordinary Skill rules, the very first thing they say is that they are optional rules, ie, not standard ones. So if you're not using them, there is no way to get the equivalent of an EGO +30 effect from Persuasion.

 

Even getting a EGO+20 effect requires a Critical Success (generally speaking) which requires, regardless of the skill roll, that a natural '3' be rolled on 3D6.