Kraken

Hi, all:

I've actually had a HERO Games account for 10+ years but haven't posted to this latest incarnation of the boards.

How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)?

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

His needs would be so infinately different than any other being' date=' it would be as it he didn't have needs at all.[/quote']

You basically just restated a point I made originally: that such a being, like robots, has no needs. It was the same point in which I introduced the completely invulnerable being example; indeed, the only purpose of this (obviously absurd, as you say) example was to illustrate the relationship between invulnerable beings and robots. It was also the point which you singled out immediately (in the very next post) for criticism. I believe your exact words were: "I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion."

 

While I have been surprised by some of the hostility shown me, I have donned my thickest skin, have taken no offense, and have ever tried to confine my statements to the ideas involved (even if my style of presentation may have inadvertently pushed some others' buttons). (I would especially like to thank Korvar for dealing with me so agreeably, even while strongly disagreeing with me.) However, since the responses I have elicited are now threatening to derail a thread which has otherwise been full of some really interesting and useful ideas, I will withdraw myself back to lurker-land.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

If we're talking about metahumans' date=' then Mr. Invulnerable is going to still have those needs. They aren't simply desires, and they most certainly aren't whims - they are deep, inbuilt needs.[/quote']

As far as I can tell, the root of our disagreement is the position that these desires are inbuilt. I would argue instead that all our desires for things (be they physical items or psychological states) develop as we learn--through the pleasure-joy/pain-suffering mechanism--to regard them as needs (as things which promote our welfare and happiness). There was an earlier post in this thread (by RDU Neil) which, IMO, very clearly traced an evolution of needs and desires from human infancy to maturity and projected very convincingly a similar evolution of needs and desires from humanity into metahumanity.

 

Korvar, you have brought me around on my use of the word "whim". However one comes down on the issue of whether or not core psychological needs remain constant, one's desires for such things would never be whims. (Even "habit" carries more of a connotation for thoughtlessness than I think is accurate.)

 

Finally, the example of Mr. Invulnerable is taking on a life I never intended. When I introduced the idea of a completely invulnerable being, I didn't mean someone merely more powerful than other human beings (like someone very wealthy), I meant someone incapable of being harmed or even hindered by any force in the universe! I introduced him as a philosophic idea (the limiting case of a powerful being), not as a potential PC or NPC in a supers campaign. Personally, I think he would make a really terrible PC/NPC (who could stop him, after all), though he might provide a useful device for motivating plots.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

I'll point out that in the Heirarchy of Needs, after Physiological and Safety needs (which we can safely assume Mr. Invulnerable has sorted), there come Love, Esteem and Self-Actualisation.

...

So Mr. Invulnerable's choices can quite easily have quite appreciable effects on his situation. The way he is percieved by others can have a large impact on him. And that's hardly acting on a whim...

The relevant question is: why would Mr. Invulnerable need any of these things?! One's answer rests largely on one's views regarding the source and purpose of human emotions, so I honestly don't think the question can or will be answered to anyone's satisfaction in this forum.

While I have no problem accepting that Mr. Invulnerable desires things, I just don't think he would ever actually need any of the things he desires, so that his desires amount to habits or whims, psychological artifacts of a time when he was not invulnerable.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion.

But you just saw me come to this conclusion!

In invulnerable human can choose. A programmed robot cannot. Consequences are relevant to everyone' date=' though something without choice won't care, and even someone with choice may choose not to care. Basically, it's not that the consequences of the actions of superbeings are irrelevant, it's just that some superbeings might not give a crap about them.[/quote']

My point wasn't that an invulnerable being might not have choice, only that choice would be irrelevant to him if nothing he chooses to do affects his condition in any appreciable way. Of course, his actions might have enormous consequences, positive or negative, for other beings. And (as bblackmoor points out), he might still be motivated emotionally, which I described as acting on whim. (If you don't regard Galactus' "need" for companionship to be a whim--after all, what would he have in common with anyone?!--I'm not sure I'd be able to convince you in a casual exchange on an RPG board! )

 

Apathy is still a human concept, and applies just fine to the superhuman.

 

If nothing else, think about the terms we use; Superhuman, Metahuman, etc. All they are is human plus powers. The method of thinking isn't changed at all.

 

I will conceed that the sudden acquisition of superpowers, or being raised with them, could lead to severe psychological disorders, including sociopathy, megalomania and many other traits often attributed to villains. Just because a human, even a superhuman, goes insane, doesn't mean that morality doesn't apply (though the individual may believe it does not apply to themself).

Whether or not the method of thinking changes depends on the nature of the powers. Typically, Champions characters are just human beings enhanced with powers (as you say), but the comic genre contains many examples of alien beings. If I am a being of pure energy whose senses do not directly convey the existence of solid objects, who is fed by electric fields of a certain pattern but harmed by electric fields of another, then my needs and method of thinking are radically different (from humans). Some of my actions (e.g. blowing power grids while feeding) might be bad for human beings, even though they are good for us energy beings.

 

At some point, adding powers to a human might make him so alien that what used to be good for him becomes irrelevant (e.g. food to a guy with the appropriate Life Support) or even bad (e.g. human contact is a deadly Susceptibility). Does this change human morality? No, but it certainly affects his own moral code and motivations, which makes for interesting role-playing possibilities.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

As to the need issue... I would define "following programming" exactly as a fulfilling a need. I defined a need as that which is necessary for existence based on the human (or in this case robot) condition. Just as humans are "programmed" to find shelter' date=' eat, search out security, etc., so the robots programming defines their needs.[/quote']

The difference' date=' however, is that humans may choose to ignore their needs.[/quote']

Actually, I would argue that the difference is that a human (or any other living being) which ignores its needs necessarily brings about suffering or destruction (i.e. some actual change in its condition), whereas a robot (or a furnace with a thermostat, for that matter) which ignores its programming directives does not. Of course, such a machine might be programmed in such a way that failure brings destruction, but such a consequence would be as irrelevant to the robot as any other result of its programming, which it follows in any case.

 

What human choice adds is fallibility: i.e., a human can be mistaken about what constitutes its needs (choosing something of little or no actual consequence or failing to recognize something important) or, as you say, choose not to pursue what it considers its needs (actual or not). In this sense, human beings are not "programmed" in any way like robots. By contrast, a plant has needs but lacks choice: it always acts in pursuit of its needs, even though its range of action may be insufficient to do so successfully (so that it dies).

 

Bringing all this back to the thread, metahumans have needs which are often radically different from those of human beings. (Truly invulnerable beings have the same status as robots: the consequences of their actions are basically irrelevant to them. To the extent they choose to act at all, they are acting basically on whim or habit.) If a metahuman starts off as more-or-less a normal human being, then acquires his powers, will he even recognize if/that his needs have changed? How will his concepts of right and wrong as well as his motivations and other emotional reactions evolve as he learns? I fully agree with Neil that these questions are among the most interesting encountered when role-playing supers.

Re: Introduction/ myself and to the Hero System

Welcome to the boards!

I recently posted a thread in the Player Finder area, looking for a gaming group near Wilmington... (I introduce my gaming background and interests briefly there.)

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18213

Assuming you're nearby (a good bet, in Delaware!), might you be interested in another (experienced but probably rusty) HERO player?