The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Just so you all know, the undead don't really have rights either. It's illegal to be any sort of undead creature that is either nonsentient or requires the blood/flesh/mental energies of sentients to survive. Since Vampires, Psychic Vampires, some, but not all mummies, etc, require these things to survive, it's pretty much illegal in the USA to be a creature that requires human beings for food.

 

Now, the sheer unremitting evil of Vampires, being what Vampires are, thinking that perhaps it might be a good idea to create some clones and use them for sustenance...well...let's just say that no one's seen the results of that...yet...

 

Now THAT might change a lot of people's minds if a vampire turned out to be a significant threat, but superheroes have proven to be pretty good at the vampire destroying business. The problem with vampires is, they can create other vampires. And they're all pretty much slaves to the vampire at the top of the chain. One day, the heroes will find the vampire at the top of the chain, and then they'll stop him. (I hope.) Fortunately, vampires have to hide, because no matter what people might say, feeding on the blood of the living is still parasitic. Once a vampire tried to out himself. Religious zealots killed him. The players didn't know what to think about that.

[Prestige]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

A clone in my opinion...does not have to be a perfect copy by defination. Where does it say that? You can definitly geneticaly tweak it( heck other posters have said that it is a way to remove genetic diseases...is that still a clone?) So how is it a perfect copy?

 

Which means you geneticaly tweak for super powers...say taking out the sentince gene if you will...it is still a perfect 'copy in all other ways.

 

Also the thing about twins vs cloning...well not all identicle twins are DNA exactly alike(mostly...99.9%). And as the grow older...different genetic marker activate...that is why the two identicle twin I knew look slightly different and had completely different personailties. Also it would be a act of nature...cloning is not a act of Nature. That is what I meant by twins not being forced on anybody.

 

Also I have to say yes a clone is definitly more vulnerable to brainwashing than any othert type of heroes. As being grown in a lab means the cloner has perfect control over the enviroment. And added to that for those clones that are grown rapidly...all those skills are usualy downloaded directly to their brain...as can other things...heck their personality...can be downloaded as well. With a allready grown super hero of any other type I would say it would be harder to do(even for those of weak will).

 

As I said before I don't disagree with verything Balabento...heck we get into arguement sometimes...but I admit I do have the advantage of being in his game...and being able to affect change from the inside. But this back and forth does not fix anything...just agree to disagree at a certain point is the only rational thing to do...

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

This is' date=' in fact, the subject of an upcoming story arc. And the children of clones don't carry the genetic marker tag. Which is why the whole thing is seen as so threatening.[/quote']

 

It's impossible to reliably figure out what you are saying in those sentences.

[Lucius]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

A clone in my opinion...does not have to be a perfect copy by defination. Where does it say that? You can definitly geneticaly tweak it( heck other posters have said that it is a way to remove genetic diseases...is that still a clone?) So how is it a perfect copy?

 

I was responding to this statement:

 

Sure if the clone is sentinent being and not just a copy of the orginal...

 

In which you seem to be setting up some kind of dichotomy between “sentient being” and “just a copy.”

 

I do not understand what you mean by “just a.” I was thinking maybe “perfect copy” as in, “just a copy of the original, no more and no less.” But that doesn't make sense, because if the original is sentient, the copy would be too, or it would not be “just a copy” - it would differ.

 

So I still have no clue what you DO mean.

 

Also I have to say yes a clone is definitly more vulnerable to brainwashing than any othert type of heroes. As being grown in a lab means the cloner has perfect control over the enviroment. And added to that for those clones that are grown rapidly...all those skills are usualy downloaded directly to their brain...as can other things...heck their personality...can be downloaded as well. With a allready grown super hero of any other type I would say it would be harder to do(even for those of weak will).

 

Again, nothing to do with being a clone. A non-clone, such as an infant taken at birth or even a fetus created by in-vitro fertilization, subjected to the same environment would be vulnerable in the same way. A clone raised in a normal loving family, would not be.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary sings “Send in the Clones”

[Tasha]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Lucius is making great arguments that I completely agree with. I gave him Rep and Wish I could give him more for his thoughts in this thread. BTW nt next thoughts are for Bala...

 

One thought though. IN NO WAY DOES HAVING A CLONE MADE OF SOMEONE THE SAME AS RAPING THEM. Yes that is in Caps for a reason. Sexual assault is a much more serious crime than someone making a murderous copy of you. In fact most clones are quite sibling like (as most come from being twins which are 100% identical DNA having split from the same set of cells early in development). It is very annoying to find that there are people who equate identity theft (the usual reason for a bad guy making a clone) with someone violently forcing someone to have sex with them.

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

As I said I play a clone in his game. The character would be what you consider a clone...but how can the goverment just know I am a free willed clone? The character would be dangerous if the villians that made her can use a signal and turn her into a neo-nazi.

Like others said: That has nothing to do with being a clone. You can do the same thing with an normally born infant that you raise normally, or a normally born infant that you fast age while donwloading the personality.

Propaganda is doing exaclty that to your countries "naturall" population.

 

So it is really just a matter of how much time/resources you have to go for one way or the other, not a matter of being a clone or not.

 

I'm not even sure I want to know what he was thinking – trying to follow Balabanto's thinking can make my head hurt.

 

Prestige, no one wants to hang Balabanto up and beat him with sticks for having “depth” or “grey areas.” In a literal sense of course I don't think anyone wants to hang him up and beat him at all...

 

But we make him a rhetorical pinata because he basically volunteers as a target. He argues in non-sequitors or irrelevancies. He makes statements that are true in his game world but speaks as if these conclusions are somehow logically inevitable, and objectively applicable, rather than being merely decisions he's made about how things work in his world. And he presents legal rules and government policies that might actually be plausible as being practically and politically expedient, if he chose to present them that way, rather than as if they are absolutely righteous and self evidently morally justified. Also, he has a habit of creating problems for himself, sometimes twisting his reasoning into pretzel knots to do so, and then complaining about them. These are among the reasons we metaphorically string him up and beat him, if you want to view it that way.

I agree. The main problem is the ambigious use of language and "it is" expressions, where it should be "in my game world, that I not properly explained to you, it is"

 

Since Vampires' date=' Psychic Vampires, some, but not all mummies, etc, require these things to survive, it's pretty much illegal in the USA to be a creature that requires human beings for food.[/quote']

Blood donation? When there is just one person with Regeneration, Heals Limbs that allows the mummy to eat a arm once a week, is it illegal to be a vampire/mummy?

 

This is one of the usual problematic sentences:

You asume every Vampire/Mummy has to force feed on peoples, but you don't say so.

And that isn't even an ultimative truth, there could be plentyfull different ways to do that wich are totally moral and ethical. Perhaps Mr. Mummy is the benevolent leader of a big nation, and people are actually willing (not controlled, persuaded but really willing!) do be eaten by him.

"Without him, we would be dead already or where never born. So giving my life so he can protect our neation in the future is a small price to pay."

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Lucius is making great arguments that I completely agree with. I gave him Rep and Wish I could give him more for his thoughts in this thread. BTW nt next thoughts are for Bala...

 

One thought though. IN NO WAY DOES HAVING A CLONE MADE OF SOMEONE THE SAME AS RAPING THEM. Yes that is in Caps for a reason. Sexual assault is a much more serious crime than someone making a murderous copy of you. In fact most clones are quite sibling like (as most come from being twins which are 100% identical DNA having split from the same set of cells early in development). It is very annoying to find that there are people who equate identity theft (the usual reason for a bad guy making a clone) with someone violently forcing someone to have sex with them.

 

That's ridiculous. There's still a child. The psychological scars left on some victims will be the same, on others different. If a whole new batch of psychotherapists have to be created, then clearly, it's a crime of equal value.

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

That's ridiculous. There's still a child. The psychological scars left on some victims will be the same' date=' on others different. If a whole new batch of psychotherapists have to be created, then clearly, it's a crime of equal value.[/quote']

You need special therapist for War Veterans too. Does it means fighting war or sending people into it is a "crime of equall value"? Also, most SciFi characters were pretty cool with only one clone of them and didn't need a therapist (at Least William T. Riker, Jack O'Neil and the entire Voyager Crew).

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Like others said: That has nothing to do with being a clone. You can do the same thing with an normally born infant that you raise normally, or a normally born infant that you fast age while donwloading the personality.

Propaganda is doing exaclty that to your countries "naturall" population.

 

So it is really just a matter of how much time/resources you have to go for one way or the other, not a matter of being a clone or not.

 

 

I agree. The main problem is the ambigious use of language and "it is" expressions, where it should be "in my game world, that I not properly explained to you, it is"

 

 

Blood donation? When there is just one person with Regeneration, Heals Limbs that allows the mummy to eat a arm once a week, is it illegal to be a vampire/mummy?

 

This is one of the usual problematic sentences:

You asume every Vampire/Mummy has to force feed on peoples, but you don't say so.

And that isn't even an ultimative truth, there could be plentyfull different ways to do that wich are totally moral and ethical. Perhaps Mr. Mummy is the benevolent leader of a big nation, and people are actually willing (not controlled, persuaded but really willing!) do be eaten by him.

"Without him, we would be dead already or where never born. So giving my life so he can protect our neation in the future is a small price to pay."

 

This is my game world. I don't believe in pansy Edward and Bella Vampires who marry, have kids, etc.

 

I believe that Vampires should be Count Dracula style classics who are the enemies of life and justice. And for the most part, comic books do too.

 

I cite Blade, Vampire Hunter, the Japanese Manga Vampire Hunter D, and every Batman story where a vampire ever appeared. Even when Looker became a Vampire, they eventually destroyed her, too.

 

Let me repeat your sentence the way it should read, since clearly you're angry enough at this to make significant errors.

 

"You assume that every Vampire/Mummy has to force feed on people, but you don't say so."

 

And I assume nothing. I created a world where these things are the way they are. You can fault me for a lot of things, but you can't fault me for the way super powers and certain things work in my own game world. That's unconscionable.

 

And let me tell you, there would be a significant problem if there was a mummy or vampire that had it's own nation. A lot of Superheroes would probably get together and stomp it into the mud. Remember, a vampire elicits absolute mental control over it's minions and thralls. People don't know how it works, but people who are bitten by a Master vampire enough times fall completely under his sway. This IS a nation of slaves. And slavery is also wrong, the last time I checked my book of ethics.

 

There IS a half-mummy (And you'll get to see his sheet real soon, as a matter of fact). He's still real evil, though. This is what happens when evil people botch rituals.

 

In fact, I'll even quote Wesley Snipes from the Blade movie to demonstrate my point here, just because the quote is cool and your logic IS inherently flawed. "Some ************* are always trying to ice skate uphill." You're sliding all the way to the bottom of this hill, and I haven't even gotten started yet.

 

I have played role playing games for a very long time. There are times when I just fail to see the moral dilemmas that some of the people on this thread do because to me, there is no dilemma. In the old days, superheroes just destroyed the clones (Amazing Spider Man), destroyed the vampires (Blade), etc. No one brought these creatures to justice. IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS. I hate to use an Image comics character for how bad things can potentially get, but take a look at Kaizen Gamorra for a second. Don't you think that something like that could happen, where a guy goes out into space and clones billions of beings? Wildcats was stupid, yes, but the potential of threats like this does exist.

 

And before anyone gets on my butt about Morbius, the Living Vampire, he was never a real vampire. He was a scientist with a blood disorder. He could be fixed. And Spider Man treated him as if he could be fixed.

 

And you know something? In those days, comic books were a whole lot better, despite telepathic domination of The Flash from the future (Thanks, Mazden), those old classic Spider Man stories where with great power comes great responsibility. But in those days, writers understood these things:

 

1) Superheroes are the defenders of humanity

 

2) It's fun when Superheroes beat people up. Every so often there are consequences for beating people up, but not too often.

 

3) When was the last time in a comic book that you saw someone say "No, wait! Vampires have rights! You can't stake them and cut their heads off!"

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

You need special therapist for War Veterans too. Does it means fighting war or sending people into it is a "crime of equall value"? Also' date=' most SciFi characters were pretty cool with only one clone of them and didn't need a therapist (at Least William T. Riker, Jack O'Neil and the entire Voyager Crew).[/quote']

 

Uh, this is the superhero genre, not Star Hero. Check your references again.

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Uh' date=' this is the superhero genre, not Star Hero. Check your references again.[/quote']

So your superheroes are killers, where Star Hero Characters would not be? Sound like they are the evil ones.

 

I created a world where these things are the way they are. You can fault me for a lot of things' date=' but you can't fault me for the way super powers and certain things work in my own game world. That's unconscionable.[/quote']

That the important part of your post: It is so in your world. But you talk as if this has to be true in every possible game world. And you don't properly explain your world and why it is taht way, when you say something. That leads to the misunderstandings and I think 3/4 of the Posts in this thread...

[megaplayboy]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Well, my campaign setting has altered, pre-programmed clones(aka replicants, aka drones) in it, as well as incredibly lifelike androids(droids). In the past, a group of drones and droids working on Mars acquired sentience and revolted, and with assistance from some superhumans(mostly mutants), established the Martian Free State. Under a special agreement with other world powers, the TEAM system was set up, so that drones and droids who acquire sentient "personhood" will then become legal persons with civil rights. Not all the world powers closely adhere to this system, though. And, yes, there are drones with superpowers "built in" to them, though they are exceedingly expensive, difficult and time-consuming to create. As to "pure" clones, some extremely wealthy individuals can afford a highly enhanced form of "life insurance", whereby their consciousness is scanned and psychicly transferred to a clone in the event of their untimely demise. Unauthorized cloning, however, is a high-grade felony, subject to jail time, a hefty fine, and a complete injunction/seizure of genetic material and other means of manufacture. Drones and Droids are detectable with fairly straightforward testing, but the highest grade/most advanced ones cannot be detected by mere visual inspection.

 

It goes without saying that the tech level in my campaign is well above average.

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

So your superheroes are killers, where Star Hero Characters would not be? Sound like they are the evil ones.

 

 

That the important part of your post: It is so in your world. But you talk as if this has to be true in every possible game world. And you don't properly explain your world and why it is taht way, when you say something. That leads to the misunderstandings and I think 3/4 of the Posts in this thread...

 

Your point of view is completely skewed. Vampires are dead. You can't kill that which is already dead. You can destroy it, or contain it, but dead is dead. I've had this argument with dozens of GMs dozens of times. In one game I had to send a vampire to prison because the GM argued they were alive. I was like 'Sure enough, everyone in the prison will be dominated and under the vampires control.' Three months later, that was exactly what happened. Unfortunately, my character is the only one in the game powerful enough to fix it if there were characters of equal power to go with me. But there aren't. And I would have had to hand over my sheet if I 'killed' the vampire. That made me real mad.

 

There may be misunderstandings on this thread, true. But, that doesn't change the fact that you are reading into my statement instead of reading it. That's how misunderstanding start. When people read things subjectively instead of objectively.

[Cygnia]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Are clones some metaphor for some Real World analogy/"threat" you despise but would get called out on it in public so you're working out your aggression in the game world you totally control? Are clones supposed to be the new gay liberal Muslim bears to you?

 

And echoing Tasha, there's only one thing "like" rape -- AND THAT'S ACTUAL RAPE.

[megaplayboy]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

I'm not a mod, but it would probably be good to take things down a notch, folks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

First off,l I have apparently rep'd Lucius too recently.

 

Yes. Bingo. There you go. The most powerful supervillain in the world REALLY did this. And he threatened to drown the entire world by melting the ice caps in 24 hours if they didn't surrender. And this was with seventy percent of the world under his military control already!

 

And this caused a backlash. This seems perfectly plausible and politically expedient. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, there was a perfectly plausible and politically expedient internment camp structure created. That does not make it morally or ethically right. It does not even mean it is inevitable (we did not, for example, see the same extreme applied to persons of Islamic faith after 9/11, although doubtless it would have enjoyed some popular support).

 

The German government once held a significant portion of the world under military control. That does not mean we have outlawed Germany, nor that people of German descent are subject to immediate execution. If we applied that standard on a broad base, I'm not sure how many of us would be legally alive today, but we'd certainly have much reduced overpopulation issues.

 

A clone in my opinion...does not have to be a perfect copy by defination. Where does it say that? You can definitly geneticaly tweak it( heck other posters have said that it is a way to remove genetic diseases...is that still a clone?) So how is it a perfect copy?

 

Which means you geneticaly tweak for super powers...say taking out the sentince gene if you will...it is still a perfect 'copy in all other ways.

 

How many Supers have had their own DNA altered in some fashion? Whether by luck (Fantastic Four), accident of birth (Wolverine; Cyclops; Thor; Superman) or design (Captain America), a lot of Supers have their origins in DNA differing from baseline humans. That is separate and apart from being a clone. Should everyone whose DNA departs to a specific extent from the baseline, perhaps, be vilified, rather than limiting this to clones?

 

 

Also the thing about twins vs cloning...well not all identicle twins are DNA exactly alike(mostly...99.9%). And as the grow older...different genetic marker activate...that is why the two identicle twin I knew look slightly different and had completely different personailties. Also it would be a act of nature...cloning is not a act of Nature. That is what I meant by twins not being forced on anybody.

 

So anything man-made becomes bad by design. That takes out a lot of those other Supers - especially gadgeteers and powered armor users - doesn't it? And where do we draw the line. Clearly, you are OK with natural twins, and not with vat-grown clones. So what about twins (or more) facilitated by fertility drugs? Is in vitro fertilization or surrogacy an act of Nature or an act of Man? Where do we draw the line? That's a pretty crucial question, considering anyone on the other side of the line lacks any form of human rights (or even animal rights, given they are to be killed on detection).

 

As to identical twins, yes, their environment causes variances because people with identical DNA are still affected by their environment. This is the same variance that could arise between any of the hypothetical 100, or 1 million, clones of the same individual. That is, simply because the clones were indoctrinated to be neo-nazi soldiers, this does not mean that a different environment, different experiences or any of a million other possible variances could not or would not result in one or more clones developing different opinions, viewpoints, skills, knowledge ad even physical abilities or restrictions. Contrary to the "they're vat-grown automatons - shoot on sight - they aren't really people" conclusion that anyone fighting against Clone Rights would advance, in order to dehumanize the enemy.

 

Also I have to say yes a clone is definitly more vulnerable to brainwashing than any othert type of heroes. As being grown in a lab means the cloner has perfect control over the enviroment. And added to that for those clones that are grown rapidly...all those skills are usualy downloaded directly to their brain...as can other things...heck their personality...can be downloaded as well. With a already grown super hero of any other type I would say it would be harder to do(even for those of weak will).

 

Really? What about an alien Super? How do we know the environment in which he was raised? For that matter, how do we evaluate the DNA of an alien Super - maybe his whole race is grown as clones, and not born like we are - we have no baseline of their DNA to compare.

 

Let's turn that around. If the clones are naturally less resistant to having views imposed on them externally - far more so than any other type of hero - why is it not possible to use that same downloading of skills and values to replace their neo-Nazi ideals with a focus on Truth, Justice and the American Way? That is, what prevents the use of exactly the same technology to supplement, or even replace, the knowledge and viewpoints imparted by the original cloner? That's not to say we hardwire them, to share our values, but it would not seem overly difficult to use the same technology to expand their world view by providing other viewpoints, and leaving the freedom of choice to the clone.

 

If they are, in fact, hard wired, I would say that is a facet of the specific cloning process, or perhaps even the mental conditioning. Why would it work differently on a vat-grown embryo than a normal embryo? For that matter, why would it not be possible to accelerate growth in a surrogate parent rather than in a vat?

 

More specifically, does your character have a Vulnerability or other complication that renders his susceptible to Mind Control? If not, how is he or she the one exception to these easily manipulated clones?

 

One thought though. IN NO WAY DOES HAVING A CLONE MADE OF SOMEONE THE SAME AS RAPING THEM. Yes that is in Caps for a reason. Sexual assault is a much more serious crime than someone making a murderous copy of you. In fact most clones are quite sibling like (as most come from being twins which are 100% identical DNA having split from the same set of cells early in development). It is very annoying to find that there are people who equate identity theft (the usual reason for a bad guy making a clone) with someone violently forcing someone to have sex with them.

 

For that matter, who says this has to be forced? Why would you not generate these clones from a volunteer, physically superior loyal neo-nazi, rather than some lesser person? I didn't see any indication that Jango Fett was unhappy with the millions of clones made from his purchased DNA. In our society, I suspect we'd quickly have standard legal waivers to one's Genetic Rights signed off to license or even sell rights to my DNA.

 

Now we move from a "they have no rights - kill them on sight" model to a "they have no rights - they are property, not people - I can use and abuse them as I see fit" capitalistic model. They become slave labour, they can be exploited in fight games, medical experiments, sexual services, organ transplant farms or what have you to generate money - a brand new slave caste for the 21st century! And it's all perfectly legal, moral and ethical - weren't you listening to Balabanto? These aren't people - they're just things! Would you feel guilty taking a part out of your car? Are you concerned that vibrators and blow up dolls are "molested"? Is it "murder" to chop up a plastic mannequin? These clones are just property - they're not even animals, much less people. Eat clones, not cows!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

This is my game world. I don't believe in pansy Edward and Bella Vampires who marry, have kids, etc.

 

I believe that Vampires should be Count Dracula style classics who are the enemies of life and justice. And for the most part, comic books do too.

 

I cite Blade, Vampire Hunter, the Japanese Manga Vampire Hunter D, and every Batman story where a vampire ever appeared. Even when Looker became a Vampire, they eventually destroyed her, too.

 

Emphasis added - in your game world, vampires are all vile, evil beings. That doesn't mean other game worlds that treat vampires in a different manner are invalid, any more than yours is invalid.

 

The same applies to clones. If, in your game world, all clones are programmable automatons, then that is what they are in your game world. But that's not the case, from reading the posts from your player. Now, would you disallow a Vampire PC? You clearly have not disallowed a Clone PC.

 

DC also had "I, Vampire", which vampire was heroic. Blade himself has some vampiric blood/tendencies. As I recall, he also worked with a vampire who refused to take human life. These examples, vampires who have more depth than "bloodsucker who feeds on humans" get brushed aside because they don't fit the model you want.

 

A few years ago, we saw some pretty decent TV shows starring vampires - some heroic, many villainous. The heroes who broke the mold were pretty entertaining. For many, the hero who must overcome temptation is as, or more, interesting and heroic than the hero who simply lives above temptation.

 

And I assume nothing. I created a world where these things are the way they are. You can fault me for a lot of things' date=' but you can't fault me for the way super powers and certain things work [b']in my own game world[/b]. That's unconscionable.

 

Emphasis added - your presentation of these arguments does not come across as "this is how it works in my game world". It comes across as "this is the only way it can work in any reasonable and logical game world, and is the way things would have to work if these issues existed in the real world". Your statement cuts both ways - it is equally unconscionable to assert that the way things work in your world is any more valid than they way they might work in anyone else's game world.

 

And let me tell you' date=' there would be a significant problem if there was a mummy or vampire that had it's own nation. A lot of Superheroes would probably get together and stomp it into the mud. Remember, a vampire elicits absolute mental control over it's minions and thralls. People don't know how it works, but people who are bitten by a Master vampire enough times fall completely under his sway. This IS a nation of slaves. And slavery is also wrong, the last time I checked my book of ethics. [/quote']

 

Ultimately, slavery is a denial of the basic right of freedom of choice, is it not? How is denying clones the same basic rights any less wrong? I don't see any moral superiority in deciding we can just kill the clones rather than put them into enforced servitude. Neither enjoys any moral high ground.

 

In fact' date=' I'll even quote Wesley Snipes from the Blade movie to demonstrate my point here, just because the quote is cool and your logic IS inherently flawed. "Some ************* are always trying to ice skate uphill." You're sliding all the way to the bottom of this hill, and I haven't even gotten started yet. [/quote']

 

In his game world. Yet in the MU, he has (grudgingly, to be sure) worked with a vampire who has overcome, or attempted to overcome, the baser instincts of vampire kind. Watching for him to slip, because he has an inherent distrust of vampires. To me, the better role player is the one who allows experiences to impact his character's views. The poor role player would simply say "My Psych Limit says I hate vampires, so no amount of evidence can ever persuade my character not to attack that vampire on sight", or alternatively "well, he's a PC vampire, so he's automatically exempt from my character's dislike of vampires".

 

Recent Superman?Batman books have included an unwilling vampire as an ally against other vampires and supernatural threats. Vampires, like anything else, are all evil and vile until someone decides to write one who is not evil and vile.

 

I have played role playing games for a very long time. There are times when I just fail to see the moral dilemmas that some of the people on this thread do because to me' date=' there is no dilemma. In the old days, superheroes just destroyed the clones (Amazing Spider Man), destroyed the vampires (Blade), etc. No one brought these creatures to justice. IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS.[/quote']

 

And the Joker is not dangerous?

 

And before anyone gets on my butt about Morbius' date=' the Living Vampire, he was never a real vampire. He was a scientist with a blood disorder. He could be fixed. And Spider Man treated him as if he could be fixed. [/quote']

 

Another good example. What about Jack Russell, Werewolf by Night? Ghost Rider was a demon - aren't demons inherently bad?

 

And you know something? In those days, comic books were a whole lot better, despite telepathic domination of The Flash from the future (Thanks, Mazden), those old classic Spider Man stories where with great power comes great responsibility. But in those days, writers understood these things:

 

1) Superheroes are the defenders of humanity

 

2) It's fun when Superheroes beat people up. Every so often there are consequences for beating people up, but not too often.

 

3) When was the last time in a comic book that you saw someone say "No, wait! Vampires have rights! You can't stake them and cut their heads off!"

 

In the Pulps, we didn't see someone saying "No, wait! Criminals have rights! You can't shoot them or knock them into vats of acid." This comes down to what you want in your game world. Others may want more depth.

 

I note we also don't see a lot of comics telling us that "Vigilante justice is wrong" and "REAL heroes don't wear masks - CRIMINALS wear masks!"

[Prestige]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

@Hugh Neilson: I'll respond in order to the points you made.

 

1)In all your example of clone vs other genticaly alter supers...you are missing the point...maybe willduly. All of them are alters are ALTERATIONS...mostly randomly. A Clone is engineered to be exactly what you want. That seems to me to allow you greater control...than even a Captain America type super soldier alteration as you dealing with somebody who already as the effect of nutrining over genetics.

 

2) Missing the point again...I have to say probably willfully...you compared clone to twins...completely wrong. It is like saying in a super hero world that a natural earth quake and a man made one are one in the same. Sure a twin is 'forced' on people...just as that earthquake is 'forced ' on somebody. To me(and most importantly the leagle system) there is a major difference between nature and man made things. I guess you never had to deal with the Act of god clause in a insurence policy.

 

3) My character is not the exception to free willed clones. But since cloning in Balabentos game is illeagle mostly villians do it...and they don't really have high ideals to start with...my character was a accident( in that they left to much free will in...or made her too intelligent and she resisted the brainwashing/programing attempt). They are also people in Balabento's world who will using clone technology in dire emergencies for good reason...but it is still illeagle.

 

4) Where does Balabento say clones are killed on sight? Well he might have said that...but he did not mean it as a clone can prove his sentinence...which would be hard to do if they were deemed with a KOS order...also in his universe you can't tell a clone by looking at it...you have to do genetic testing...so it is hard for the whole KOS order to be effective.

 

I agree he should not have used the word rape...as it has more personal implication to people. Though I would like to point out that rape can be defines as the plundering or sacking of a city...or any gross violation, assault, or abuse(which the context he was using I believe).

 

Also I agree Babalento's sweeping message and and inability to use word likew 'In my campaign world...' or 'Well this what I do...' is very annoying as his habit as a poster...but I really think this issue needs to one of those agree to disagree issues.

 

3)

[Prestige]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Emphasis added - in your game world, vampires are all vile, evil beings. That doesn't mean other game worlds that treat vampires in a different manner are invalid, any more than yours is invalid.

 

The same applies to clones. If, in your game world, all clones are programmable automatons, then that is what they are in your game world. But that's not the case, from reading the posts from your player. Now, would you disallow a Vampire PC? You clearly have not disallowed a Clone PC.

 

I agree with the first paragraph whole heartly...

 

The second as his player I say Vampires are inherently evil in his world. They are no Angels...or Spikes...it ispossible to get vampire like powers in his world(though magical ritural dumbly interrupted by a very young moster hunter...or even though Science!)...yes I play that character too...but playing a real vampire is out.

 

Though clone in in his universe are not inherently evil.

 

Demons are a trickier subject...but as Aliens there are treated as immigrants...and there are demons who have been redeemed(one of my character has one as a DNPC)

 

But all that is besides the point...just agree to disagree guys...really what is the point here?

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

That's ridiculous. There's still a child. .

 

Having an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy may make rape worse. (And by "may" I mean "probably does". ) But the trauma of rape is not dependant on a child resulting from it, aborting it doesn't make things all better, and people do not react the same way to a birth control failure or the sudden appearance of an unknown sibling the way they do to having been raped. And of course there's no particular need for the genetic donor to be unwilling or even alive.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Hmm....*takes notes*

 

~Rex

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

For that matter' date=' who says this has to be forced? Why would you not generate these clones from a volunteer, physically superior loyal neo-nazi, rather than some lesser person? I didn't see any indication that Jango Fett was unhappy with the millions of clones made from his purchased DNA. In our society, I suspect we'd quickly have standard legal waivers to one's Genetic Rights signed off to license or even sell rights to my DNA. [/quote']

The basis in the OP was a volunteer to that time. He even was their leader once they came out of the vat and only later changed sides.

 

And about buying someones genes: A lot of men are paid, so women have a chance to get half of their genes into their children: Sperm Banks.

 

Your point of view is completely skewed. Vampires are dead. You can't kill that which is already dead. You can destroy it' date=' or contain it, but dead is dead. I've had this argument with dozens of GMs dozens of times. In one game I had to send a vampire to prison because the GM argued they were alive. I was like 'Sure enough, everyone in the prison will be dominated and under the vampires control.' Three months later, that was exactly what happened. Unfortunately, my character is the only one in the game powerful enough to fix it if there were characters of equal power to go with me. But there aren't. And I would have had to hand over my sheet if I 'killed' the vampire. That made me real mad.[/quote']

Then either the world was not prepared to deal with it, or the GM had different viewpoitns than you.

 

But I wonder how you not living changes a thing:

Data isn't living

Red Tornado isn't living

Amazo(from JLU) isn't living

Asuming you had a bullet that works and they comitted crimes, would you kill them rather than sending them into a properly build prison?

 

Menton also has Mind Controll Powers.

would you kill him rather than sending him into a properly build prison?

 

If the answer to both is no, what is left except "Special Dietary Requirements" (that can be overcome)?

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

But I wonder how you not living changes a thing:

Data isn't living

Red Tornado isn't living

Amazo(from JLU) isn't living

Asuming you had a bullet that works and they comitted crimes, would you kill them rather than sending them into a properly build prison?

 

That is incidentally, just what an authentic silver age campaign would do. Artificial beings were not covered by codes versus killing and they were dealt with by smashing them up. After all, they could always be rebuilt.

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

That is incidentally' date=' just what an authentic silver age campaign would do. Artificial beings were not covered by codes versus killing and they were dealt with by smashing them up. After all, they could always be rebuilt.[/quote']

They just kill a sentient being? If they can be reconstructed you say (I gues in a Mechanon style with thousand lives), then it wouldn't be killing.

 

But a unique, not rebuildable artificial being with no spare lives?

[caris]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

They just kill a sentient being? If they can be reconstructed you say (I gues in a Mechanon style with thousand lives), then it wouldn't be killing.

 

But a unique, not rebuildable artificial being with no spare lives?

 

Pretty much, if it was villainous.