Superpowers and Ethics

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

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.

 

Well, "Critical Success" isn't necessarily universally defined that way. The alternative--making the skill roll by half or better--is considerably easier to achieve. It's entirely in-genre for top-notch con men(and charismatic leaders of all stripes) to achieve that level, sometimes in a manner of minutes.

[Outsider]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

 

Well, "Critical Success" isn't necessarily universally defined that way. The alternative--making the skill roll by half or better--is considerably easier to achieve. It's entirely in-genre for top-notch con men(and charismatic leaders of all stripes) to achieve that level, sometimes in a manner of minutes.

 

Thats the way it is defined in The Ultimate Skill, page 16.

 

If you play "Make by Half means Critical Success" that's fine, but it is a house rule.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

None of this, to my understanding, precludes using Mind Control as skill as a power. In fact, I think it supports it. For those builds where you want that level of effect, Mind Control is one way to do it. This is no different than building Super Stealth using Invisibility.

[dmjalund]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I don't have time to read through the entire thred so I'll just say this.

 

For thise who say that Mind Control does not ignore free will because it might fail.

 

I don't like free will to be reduced to a roll of dice.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

None of this' date=' to my understanding, precludes using Mind Control as skill as a power. In fact, I think it supports it. For those builds where you want that level of effect, Mind Control is one way to do it. This is no different than building Super Stealth using Invisibility.[/quote']

 

You could, for example, have a character with an "aura of fear", a presence so intimidating that it makes weaker-willed people run, cower or faint. Mind Control: Single Command(Fear Me). Or a leader with the ability to inspire courage in his troops--MC: Single Command(Be Courageous). Etc.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Thats the way it is defined in The Ultimate Skill, page 16.

 

If you play "Make by Half means Critical Success" that's fine, but it is a house rule.

Point taken, but:

The chart on p. 65 of Ultimate skill tends to contradict the verbiage in the paragraph right above it, since making a skill roll by 3-5 will get a target to go along with suggestions they're mildly opposed to(which sounds like the EGO+20 level, or perhaps "EGO+15"), making a roll by 6-9 will get target to go along with suggestions they're opposed to(and references a character having a Strong psych lim against), and making a roll by 10 or more(or rolling a critical success) will get a target to go along with suggestions they're strongly opposed to(referencing a character having a Total Psych lim against). That's EGO+30(or even +40) level Mind Control.

 

Of course, MC is far more combat-effective(when it works, IF the breakout roll isn't made immediately).

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

None of this' date=' to my understanding, precludes using Mind Control as skill as a power. In fact, I think it supports it. For those builds where you want that level of effect, Mind Control is one way to do it. This is no different than building Super Stealth using Invisibility.[/quote']

 

Yeah. I'll still slap a player who tries that. It's wrong for people who are actually good at being sneaky to be exposed by Dispel Invisibility or for a person who is actually persuasive to be foiled by a mind shield helmet.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I don't see that anywhere in the rules' date=' but you're welcome to view it that way. I don't see that having any meaningful effect on the mechanics[/quote']

Of course it has no effect on the Mechanic. It IS the mechanics working here, the clear difference between Charm/Persuasion, MC and Interogation/PRE vs EGO.

Asuming we have a rule allowing that effect, would your nun start having sex regulary? Or would she return to follow her oath of chasity? (asuming no further seduction atemps are made)

 

My issue is with the position you've stated that any use of MC is unethical.

Hmmm...No!!? I said time and again: MC is as etical as a blast or any other attack power.

What I was "violently opposed to", was an MC difined in a way that is is not viewed as attack (by victim, bystanders and law), once detected. But that was apperently a missunderstanding.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

What this would meen:

It think the use of the skills Charm/Presuasion and Oratory are a bit less unethical. The reason is, that you respect your target enough that you try to convince it.

By MC and Interogate/PRe vs. EGO you don't care for your target or its opinion, you just want to archieve a result (they are as ethical as a blast).

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

One clarification:

Of course, that sugested mechanic for Interaction Skills is only what I see and it seems to support the daramtic sense and realism simultaneously. If anybody can give me the true mechanic for decay of interaction skill results it would help a lot.

 

Two things that might be interesting too:

Has the degree of result nessesary any influence on the ethics?

Seducing a single in a single bar (doesn't mind doing) and a nun (Vow of Chasity/Violently opposed) seem to be totally different levels of influencing.

 

Has the using of complications in the atempt any influence on the ethicality?

Let's say the nun has a psychical Complication: "Dry Nymphomanic" (the reason she went into the Monastery). On the one hand using that makes the roll easier, on the other hand it could have a more long-lasting effect on the target. Either making the "shifting" longer or (in this chase) re-activating an serious illness.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

For those who say that Mind Control does not ignore free will because it might fail.

 

I don't like free will to be reduced to a roll of dice.

 

Within a game, what is the alternative? I see only one - that such abilities succeed or fail on the whim of the GM or the player. This assumes you are not prepared to simply allow automatic success because the character is "really persuasive". I would note that this covers not only mind control, but also interaction skills and presence attacks, all of which seek to influence the target, and all of which are resolved by the roll of the dice.

 

In some game, there are no mechanics for resolving interaction. They must then be resolved purely through role playing, and the player (or GM for NPC's) can simply decide that the target in question is wholly intractable, and immune to temptation. "No, my character is violently opposed to getting a beer because I, the player, think that this is a trap."

 

Many other games do contain mechanics for resolving interaction, and in some cases, the gaming group prefers "resolve through roleplaying", so they do not allow the mechanical resolution of mechanics. This means, of course, that a player who has poor interaction skills cannot successfully play a suave con man - he can't have character skills inconsistent with his player skills. I dislike that result. We don't make the martial artist's player perform a triple backflip and come up in a roundhouse kick, so why should James Bond's player have to demonstrate equal charm to Mr. Bond himself?

 

In some games, however, the players/GM decides that interaction will primarily be resolved through role playing, but still has players spend points on the skills, despite the fact that player, and not character, skill will actually resolve interaction. This is where I take the most offense - don't allow the player to invest character resources into an ability you're not going to permit to have any benefit anyway. Tell him you will not allow that ability to be useful in game, so he should spend his points elsewhere.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

This means' date=' of course, that a player who has poor interaction skills cannot successfully play a suave con man - he can't have character skills inconsistent with his player skills. I dislike that result. We don't make the martial artist's player perform a triple backflip and come up in a roundhouse kick, so why should James Bond's player have to demonstrate equal charm to Mr. Bond himself?[/quote']

I do have very poor interaction skills and totally agree.

 

Tell him you will not allow that ability to be useful in game' date=' so he should spend his points elsewhere.[/quote']

Or let it fall under the "what not to spend points on" rule. It helps to make the sheet readably when you find it after a long time or show it someone else.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Of course it has no effect on the Mechanic. It IS the mechanics working here, the clear difference between Charm/Persuasion, MC and Interogation/PRE vs EGO.

Asuming we have a rule allowing that effect, would your nun start having sex regulary? Or would she return to follow her oath of chasity? (asuming no further seduction atemps are made)

 

I don't see anything in the rules that state that MC doesn't change your point of view. My point was that how MC gets a character to do what they do is entirely up to the SFX of the MC. If you put a limitation on the MC that it must always use the +20 Adder "Target will remember actions and think they were natural", then I see no reason why MC couldn't be used to change someone's point of view.

 

If the MC is a build for Professor Puppetmaster, and the SFX is he mechanically controls the persons body to force them to do what he wants, but they are aware of the actions and will remember it, then yes, if he uses this power on a Nun she will immediately know when the power is up what happened.

 

If the MC is built for Miss Persuasion, who has multiple levels of striking appearance and the SFX is she's just super convincing, limited level of effect, always with the +20 Adder "Target will remember actions and think they were natural", then no, if she uses the power the Nun will think she was tempted and failed, and that the sin was all hers.

 

The game mechanics are there to support this type of build. We have precedence from the rules of using powers to represent high levels of skills (see Advanced Hiding in Shadows 6E1 240). The use of the power, and whether or not it is an assault or ethical, depends on how the power is built, the SFX, and the specifics of the scenario in which it was used.

 

Hmmm...No!!? I said time and again: MC is as etical as a blast or any other attack power.

 

Then please allow me to apologize for my misunderstanding.

 

What I was "violently opposed to"' date=' was an MC difined in a way that is is not viewed as attack (by victim, bystanders and law), once detected. But that was apperently a missunderstanding.[/quote']

 

Here I think we differ in opinion. Depending on how the power is defined I don't think it is necessarily an attack. The fact that there is an attack roll is meta-game information. In the Character's world, there is no attack roll, just actions and reactions. The fact that their world is defined by character sheets and rule books that require the use of dice has nothing to do with the character's world, which is where victim, bystanders and law are defined. There are no dice deciding the fate of the MC in the victim's world (unless that's part of the SFX of the build of course!), that's purely a mechanic in our world to adjudicate whether or not the power works. The dice exist merely to give a probability to the outcomes and to spice up the game such that we, as players, don't know for sure what's going to happen. Being an attack power is an offshoot of the dice and mechanics of determining the actions outcome, and has no bearing in the character's world - it's how we describe things in the player's world.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I actually think that MC being an attack on the mind of the target, is part of the game effect.

MC has so many advantages: You can easily(and certain) archieve high results, you can make the target forgett, it gives you direct controll, it can easily be used in combat.

 

And in order for it to work that way and still be balanced, it should always be considered an attak and always stay percieveable by mental awareness. If not (even just if he's the only one with mental powers) it should be an advantage. Otherwise such a power can grow to strong.

Also, no one could so far give me the example for any other attack power that hinders/damages the target but is not viewed as an attack. So MC should not get any extra's here because of SFX.

 

About the super skills: Each of the examples uses "Requires a Skill Roll" (-1 per 5, 10 or 20 Active Points; aplicable to skill modifiers; may be "blocked" with skil contest). This would seriously change who and what it can affect.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Here I think we differ in opinion. Depending on how the power is defined I don't think it is necessarily an attack. The fact that there is an attack roll is meta-game information. In the Character's world, there is no attack roll, just actions and reactions..

 

By the time you've piled up all the modifiers required to make the power invisible and unnoticeable and get it to ignore mindshield, it would probably be more cost effective to just get Persuasion.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

And in order for it to work that way and still be balanced, it should always be considered an attak and always stay percieveable by mental awareness. If not (even just if he's the only one with mental powers) it should be an advantage. Otherwise such a power can grow to strong.

Also, no one could so far give me the example for any other attack power that hinders/damages the target but is not viewed as an attack. So MC should not get any extra's here because of SFX.

 

I'm not arguing for any other power - this topic stemmed originally (from another thread) from a discussions on the ethics of Mind Control. I don't see anything I've stated giving MC anything extra. From an ethics standpoint, in the character's world, what is and is not an attack is situational; it depends on the power, now it's defined, its SFX and its use.

 

About the super skills: Each of the examples uses "Requires a Skill Roll" (-1 per 5' date=' 10 or 20 Active Points; aplicable to skill modifiers; may be "blocked" with skil contest). This would seriously change who and what it can affect.[/quote']

 

Whether or not RSR is applied has nothing to do with the ethics of a power or whether the use of a power is an assault.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

By the time you've piled up all the modifiers required to make the power invisible and unnoticeable and get it to ignore mindshield' date=' it would probably be more cost effective to just get Persuasion.[/quote']

 

That may be true, but we weren't debating the cost effectiveness of powers vs skills.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Whether or not RSR is applied has nothing to do with the ethics of a power or whether the use of a power is an assault.

No, you misunderstand. If it is an attack should be part of the game effect. How this attack is viewed, that is part of the law, the ethics and concepts like "realtive force" in the campaing world.

 

For a Red Mage of Tay in D&D it is okay to burn their slaves to a crisp on a whim, as is allowed in most slaveholder states. (The Tays to worser things to traitors)

 

Likely, knocking someone out to get him out of mind controll (especially when ordered to attack you) is okay. Most likely even for the victim ("Thank you for preventing me from something I regrett).

This does not change that the power used to archive it, is still an attack, just how it is viewed by everyone differs.

The MC-User may actually be quite upset for disabling his toy or may even have real concern for the wellbeing of his controlled.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

To the question of "attacks not perceived as attacks", one commonly suggested build for Luck Powers is an attack power (say Blast) which is Indirect, and has some level of IPE such that it is not perceived as coming from the character who possesses the power, maybe some variable special effect. The special effects are not that he attacks someone, but that some improbable occurrence results in an attack against the target. Perhaps a piano falls on his head. The character did not cause the effect - he's just supremely lucky that such an unlikely thing happened to his opponent. By contrast, the player chose the target and rolled the attack roll. From the player's perspective, it was an attack power.

 

Anyone have USPD handy? Was it published there?

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It would be very difficulty to learn of the attack, but if it was learnt/oberserved everyone who can would act accoringly. Invisibility does not changes that it is an attack. It is just harder to track back to you.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

No, you misunderstand. If it is an attack should be part of the game effect. How this attack is viewed, that is part of the law, the ethics and concepts like "realtive force" in the campaing world.

 

For a Red Mage of Tay in D&D it is okay to burn their slaves to a crisp on a whim, as is allowed in most slaveholder states. (The Tays to worser things to traitors)

 

Likely, knocking someone out to get him out of mind controll (especially when ordered to attack you) is okay. Most likely even for the victim ("Thank you for preventing me from something I regrett).

This does not change that the power used to archive it, is still an attack, just how it is viewed by everyone differs.

The MC-User may actually be quite upset for disabling his toy or may even have real concern for the wellbeing of his controlled.

 

What is and is not an attack in the character's world is not the same as what is and is not an attack in the player's world. RSR doesn't mean anything in the character's world - the power is difficult to do, some effects are more difficult that others. Players know what the roll is, they know they have to roll less than some number on 3D6 in order to achieve the desired effect, but dice and rolls means nothing to the characters.

 

Whether or not the MC is an attack is no different than whether or not a Persuasion roll is an attack. There is precedence in published rules for using powers as skills. That doesn't make it automatically an attack in the character's world. Is it considered an attack when there is a skill vs skill roll? It's just a mechanic to see if the action worked and nothing more. What is and is not an attack in the character's world is up for interpretation based on the knowledge available in the character's world. They know nothing of attack powers, skill rolls, damage rolls, etc.

 

By the way, I just picked up Champions Powers and on page 228 they have a variation of Mind Control: Silver-Tongued. "Instead of reflecting literal

control of the mind, they represent his extreme persuasiveness. With a few glib words, he can convince people to do just about anything. Add Requires A Persuasion Roll (-½) and Incantaitons (-¼)"

 

You are welcome to disagree with this and not allow it in your game. Depending on the campaign world that may be the right thing to do. If you're running the "typical" four-color superhero world (if such a thing exists), I suspect this would be somewhat unfair and would be coming down on mental powers unfairly. This is in essence the position Hugh had stated that started this entire conversation spanning two threads.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It tracks back only in the sense that the character is incredibly lucky,and bad things coincidentally happen to those who attack him. You were asking for examples of Attack powers that were not attacks. This is a published example (thanks, phookz) of exactly such a construct.

 

Now, you don't have to like such a construct, nor is there any requirement you allow it in your games, but it is a published example of the legal use of Hero system rules, signed off by the line developer (probably created by him as well, as IIRC he is the credited author), so it is perfectly legal under Hero rules to have an Attack power which is not an attack made by the character, as we use the term in common parlance. Would people notice his incredible luck and make accommodation for it? Depends on the game itself.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

To the question of "attacks not perceived as attacks", one commonly suggested build for Luck Powers is an attack power (say Blast) which is Indirect, and has some level of IPE such that it is not perceived as coming from the character who possesses the power, maybe some variable special effect. The special effects are not that he attacks someone, but that some improbable occurrence results in an attack against the target. Perhaps a piano falls on his head. The character did not cause the effect - he's just supremely lucky that such an unlikely thing happened to his opponent. By contrast, the player chose the target and rolled the attack roll. From the player's perspective, it was an attack power.

 

Anyone have USPD handy? Was it published there?

 

Page 195 of Champions Powers, Environmental Mayhem.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

It would be very difficulty to learn of the attack' date=' but if it was learnt/oberserved everyone who can would act accoringly. Invisibility does not changes that it is an attack. It is just harder to track back to you.[/quote']

 

You're not reasoning from special effects (see 6E1 122). The special effect is all of this mayhem that surrounds the character. How we build it is with Blast. The fact that Blast is an attack power is a side effect of the special effect we're interested in.

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

By the way, I just picked up Champions Powers and on page 228 they have a variation of Mind Control: Silver-Tongued. "Instead of reflecting literal

control of the mind, they represent his extreme persuasiveness. With a few glib words, he can convince people to do just about anything. Add Requires A Persuasion Roll (-½) and Incantaitons (-¼)"

So I could use this power to convince an entire town that I'm their leader, and it would not be viewed as an attack/illegal in and off itself? If I don't use them for anything criminal, nobody can legally stop me?