Roy_The_Ruthles

Re: His Power Is Faster...

So I'm not going to say that your method is incorrect, but it isn’t how I would have done it. I probably would have done it either of two ways:

+3 Speed, only for Weather powers (thus he uses weather powers only on 2, 6, 10; and acts normally on 4, 8, 12).

+7 secondary speed, only for weather powers, (from the Advanced Players guide) with some limitations.

The real question is, how do you want it to work, and when do you want to do non-weather actions?

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.

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

If either removes free will, than both are immoral.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tell that to those who believe assisted suicide is unethical.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Used under consent, already covered.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

Any other thoughts or arguements?

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

 

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

Or did you mean:

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

list dozens of other examples already given here

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

EDIT: If consent is explicitly given by the target, it is ethical

Re: What sort of technology do you use in yiour games?

Googledocs. for char sheets, laptop for surfing the web when i'm not on stage

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

How do real life humans, not game designers and game players, determine in game effects?

 

In the game itself, mechanics are used to define the ability itself. A Fire Bolt, an acid bath, an electric shock and a burst of freezing cold can all be defined as Blasts. They can have the same damage, range and other mechanics. They are not the same abilities.

 

If it makes you happy, simply assume enough bonuses to interaction skills that failure is as, or less, likely than using Mind Control.

I would point out that hitting a person with a Fire Bolt, acid bath, electric shock or burst of freezing cold is still assault. If you defined it as “I give them a warm hug” it's assault because you do STUN and/or body damage. If you roll no damage, attempted assault is still unethical.

If you make your special effect the most wonderful thing in the world, you are still inflicting harm on someone, even if the special effect is not harm. You can objectively determine that in a game world.

I think there is some confusion on mind control vs. persuasion, and both terms are being used as shields. Please try to debate without using either term, as if we were playing Taboo. http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/

That may increase productivity in this thread.

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.

Case Study:

Is a car with a built in breathalyzer wrong?

Restriction: No longer able to operate that automobile while beyond an objective blood alcohol limit.

Reason: Possessing a 100mg/dL BA concentration or higher can result in diminished judgment. This impaired judgment can cause the potential driver to be a hazard to them self, others, or property.

The trade off, is a restriction from driving, in return you will not be hit by an intoxicated individual (who is driving an automobile, not physical).

I would claim this is a beneficial restriction, although improbable. As long as there is money to be made from a non-breathalyzer car, someone will make it. Either that or there will be instructions on how to disable it, or have a friend start it for you.

Also, there is the question: Is someone with impaired judgment (in this case due to alcohol) possessing the ability to understand his choice to drive? If his judgment impaired enough that he does not understand this choice, it is ethical to remove it from him in the first place. Unfortunately we cannot quantify a person's understanding, so there can be no hard or fast limits. That is a question that must be debated as a society, and determined as an individual.

In HERO games (and I do love HERO games) I don't think very much about special effects, and worry much more about the effect. It's a personal flaw, when I see a blast, I think about how it is constructed rather than what color it was. However in real life the construction is irrelevant with regards to ethics. If you remove free will from an agent, it is unethical. If you build it as Mind Control, that is unethical (because breakout checks are subconscious). If you build it as +30 to all PRE skills, and the GM treats it as if you automagically coerce/force/hug/snuggle/love/reason anyone into compliance with your views (or whatever views you wanted them to have), it is unethical in real life.

In a game, NPCs do not have free will. They are not people. They are philosophical zombies. Thus, removing their free will is not unethical. This is because it is A GAME. Players do have free will. they are upset when it is removed. This is why railroading is bad. Note that because it is a game, and because this sometimes happens (NPCs use mind control), we still let the player control a character who has been mind controlled. Otherwise it is the equivalent of telling them to go sit on the couch and watch everyone else play while you play their character.

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

This depends on what system of ethics you use, and how ethical behavior is determined. I would for example say using mind control to prevent a crime is unethical.

I am defining crime prevention as the aversion of a crime that has not been committed.

Stopping a crime in progress is ethical, to the same degree that any citizen can ethically try and stop a crime (e.g. killing in self defense).

In your example, it is unethical to mind control a cop to not give you a speeding ticket or escort you. The ethical solution is to have the cop call emergency medical personnel to provide aid to the dying person. If you are speeding with a dying person in your back seat, that doesn’t make you any less of a danger to yourself or others on the road. Thus if you get caught, you should be appropriately fined.

Subgrades of ethics is a better way of saying “I know what I’m doing is wrong and I’m rationalizing it to feel better”. Ethical situations are binary, an action is either ethical or unethical. Some situations may require further clarification (if X then ethical, else unethical), but the end result is either Ethical or Unethical. EDIT: shades of gray are the result of insufficient information to determine the ethics of a situation, they are unavoidable in real life, but that doesn't excuse acting unethically if a determination can be made.

For other powers the ethics are different. For example healing has many ethical implications, resistant protection has very few ethical questions.

Tl:dr Ends don’t justify the means.

Double Edit: To cover myself, I'll claim that ethically neutral actions can exist, and I'm sure people this forum will give examples, but this is not one of them.

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

I'd say that' date=' if the levels have OAF, then they are tied to that specific OAF piece of equipment. He's very good with his custom .44, but if he loses it and picks up another gun, not so good. However, purchased without the OAF, the levels would also apply when his own .44 is lost, and he is able to take one from a downed opponent.[/quote']

 

Works for me (not that that matters). As long as you are consistent with how they work, it's all of 1 point saved. Plus 6E1 uses the example "broadswords" so that means a 2 point CSL could cover "revolvers" or .44s or however limiting the GM wants to be.

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

Even then it depends. If the CSLs are inherent to that specific gun, it should have the OAF to represent that. After all, you could theoretically damage the weapon in a way that the CSLs are rendered useless, or fail to maintain it (assuming Real Weapon Limitation) and the CSLs inherent to the gun reduce over time.

 

There are a great number of reasons a CSL could have a Limitation, and they are also priced that oftentimes the Limitation is redundant. Take it on a case-by-case.

In this case, I’d say OAF was a -0 limitation because it is not limiting. If you lose the OAF for the base attack, you can’t use the CSLs regardless if they have OAF or not. I’m not saying that CSLs can never have limitations, but their limitations should be limiting, so as to justify the points saved.

For heroic gear, it is far less relevant because characters buy equipment with money and the GM makes all the equipment. I’m more concerned with superheroic games.

Re: Here be dragons... or Dragon?

If they want to just stab it in the face, you should determine if this problem can be solved by face stabbings. If you feel that this problem is one where the application of face stabbings is appropriate, I would change it to a monster which you are not attached to and want to see the players kill.

If you want this to be a huge “don’t attack this, it will kill you” sign, that’s harder. Modifying player behavior really depends on the PCs and I don’t know yours, so you should discount my advice if you don’t think it would work:

Usually my groups investigate things we plan to kill if we can, so drop lots of hints that this dragon totally kills epic heroes and is considered a heroic way to die (fighting this thing). If they still want to fight it, use a giant PRE attack to open up the combat. Losing your first action is a solid way to suggest that leaving is appropriate. Sprinkle that with “the dragon is disinclined to pursue” or else players will just reason that they can’t outrun it any more than they can outfight it (since chases are completely non-random)

Re: Limitations on Combat Skill Levels - same as the attack itself?

Depends on the limitation. If you had a gun with OAF, then bought the skill levels with the same OAF, I would see that as double dipping. You can't use the gun unless you have the gun, and you can't use the skill levels that only apply to the gun unless you have the gun.

OTOH if they were broader levels, limitations seem more applicable.

Re: Stunning enemies (and Dragons too!!)

It's part of the Automation Powers suite. It's for things like Zombies' date=' Skeletons and oozes that don't matter where you hit them, they take the same amount of stun and body.[/quote']

 

No hit locations is an Automaton power, +8 DCV vs. Called shots is not, and I was suggested it be a -1 limitation.

Re: Stunning enemies (and Dragons too!!)

mmmhhh

maybe i'll use the dcv "only to avoid head shots"... x_x

(btw is a -2 limitation? or just -1?)

I'm not sure, It's an NPC power for NPCs. PCs just buy "No hit locations" and justify it somehow. If I were guessing i'd say -1, because the people who have it would otherwise get headshotted down.

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

More DEF can make people so tough they cannot be hurt, wears DR scales nicely. DR also works on many other things (AVAD, Drain STUN, etc). Often in games I play, we have a limit of X amount of DEF, with Y amount of DR = Z amount of DEF (So X = Z + DEF). It is more expensive to get DR and DEF, but usually provides more protection. DR also makes recoveries better.

Re: Stunning enemies (and Dragons too!!)

My group had headshot issues with dragons when we first started playing. The solutions we use are:

1) No hit locations when it makes sense

2) +8 DCV, only to avoid head shots

2) may seem cheap, but it works quite well to keep characters with targeting PSLs from casually headshotting large things with low DCV.

These fixes are not needed for things with high (or average) DCVs obviously.

Also, HERO has a "generic hit at the body" it's called Chest Shot and has a -3 OCV penalty. Basically what you did was eliminate the x1 and x2 STUN locations (for killing attacks), and replace them with x3. This moves the average higher, and thus you shouldn't be supprised that people take more stun.

Re: Anime Hero - What would be in it?

If I thought this was a needed book (and I’m undecided on that), here is how I’d do it…

I’d include a list of sub genres that specifically feel “anime”: giant mecha, magical animal fights, magical girl anime, harem animes, etc.

Then I’d have a bunch of ways to cross over anime with other genres (anime fantasy, anime champions, anime star hero).

Add in a bunch of anima based character concepts, tropes, plots etc. You’d want some extra optional rules to model things but I can’t think of any that aren’t “too silly”. I would try and stick with widely popular to keep anime-phobic people from needlessly hating (they will still hate but no reason to give them valid arguments).

Re: Stunning enemies (and Dragons too!!)

mmmhhh i think i lost you with the "8 psl means a +½" >_<

 

So, if they have 8 targeting PSLs, treat their attack as if it had a +1/2 advantage when looking at DCs. It's very similar to buying +2 Stun Multiple (going from x3 (average) to x5). Also, Killing Attacks are better at stunning because the smaller number of dice translates into a larger standard deviation. Higher randomization on damage is good for whichever side has more characters (in this case the PCs), although generically it is better for NPCs as the NPCs will show up in fewer fights, so if they streak once and win it is better for them.

 

My suggestion is to not use the dragons straight out of the book, and rework them based on your PCs and their abilities.

 

As far as ending up with all opponents unconscious rather than dead, that is a genre thing. In a fantasy game where the PCs would be out of character to execute all downed foes, my group uses a genre convention that they wake up after the PCs leave. When they wake up they realize the error of their ways and never show up again. If they reoccur again after being KO’d and left behind, then you just teach the PCs to execute everyone.

Re: Star Trek: How dangerous are phasers?

Which Star Trek are you modeling? They are different “ages”

TOS: Golden Age

TNG: Silver Age

DS9: Iron Age

Voyager: Iron Age

And obviously they blend into other ages and have some mixup, none of them is pure “one thing” but if I was modeling a TNG phaser it would be different from a DS9 phaser, as well as the campaign caps are different (in TNG, everyone has a 3 OCV, no CSLs and spreads their phasor, in DS9 people actually have training and skill).

Re: Stunning enemies (and Dragons too!!)

I would have expected the dragon to have Damage Reduction if it was meant to be a "solo" monster (meaning a challenge to a party of PCs). If you meant for it to be part of a group, DR isn’t as important.

Targeting PSLs should be rated as DCs, (not at 1 for 5 but 8 targeting PSLs is about +1/2 (+2 Stun Multiple)). HKA would have probably been even better for headshotting (x5 stun multiple), and +1/2 in increased stun multiple rather than autofire. So if it is broken, it’s not optimized to be broken.

If you are using the bestiary, make sure you add CSLs and defenses as needed.

Re: PCs owning slaves: Do, or Don't?

Depends on the genre and players, it's not inherently bad.

Re: removing/reducing the STUNx

The question is, do you want people to go unconcious before death? With low stun damage relative to body damage, people are more likely to die before they go unconcious.

Re: Electromagnetic pulse as ranged attack?

Shut down permanently? Or shut down temporarily? Have you pondered a killing attack that only works on electronic foci and is AVAD power defense?