phookz

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

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

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

6E1 240 lists 4 examples of Invisibility:

* Ring of Invisibility

* Stealth Plan Effect

* Advanced Hiding In Shadows

* Advanced Sneakiness

 

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

What really has me on edge is any try to use/define MC in a way, that you would never be affected by legislation regarding mental assault (or normal assault, if there is no mental assault) for using them. If you have an MC power and use it, you are as applicable to any assault law as for a usage of blast. No Matter if you define it's special effect as "Emotion Controll", "Mental/Psionic", "Very Persuasive" or "Sexy Beyond Mortal Comprehension".

How I understand what you want to do, is make MC fall under less ethical and jurisdictional restrictions that an Blast, while I say it should always have the same, no matter how the SFX is defined.

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

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

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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

 

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

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

Strong willed.

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

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

etc...

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

In real life, I believe all mind controllers will eventually become evil.

 

1) they have a secret ID, making them immune to most prosecution.

2) The temptation to manipulate others and leave no evidence will be overwhelming. Remember power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely!

3) Mind control has the ability to erase memories. Making any thought crime impossible to prosecute.

4) How does anyone prove mind control in court?

 

I known for a fact that I would abuse mind control. Heck I would buy transformation and make mind slaves. I would end up controlling a corporation, and if caught flee to control a small town rebuilding from there.

---In the end, I would have to be killed.

 

Mind control is a power that works in the comics/games but not in real life. Abuse of that power is just too tempting.

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

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

It is a direct reversal of the description of the power' date=' and it is completely legal. You asserted that Mind Control must, by definition, rob the target of free will because that is in the book description. The book description of Teleportation is that you do not pass through the intervening space, yet we have powers constructed with Teleportation which DO pass through intervening space. The mechanics are building blocks, not straightjackets.[/quote']

 

Yes. I like that so much I'm adding it to my signature. I'd rep you but I gotta spread it around...

 

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.

 

Exactly.

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

Mind Controll is an Attack. It's an attack power. It requires some kind of attack roll.

When you use an attack on someone and your use is detected/proven, the following things will happen:

- the target acts according to the attack

- bystanders act according to the attack

- courts will judge you as an attacker

Being an attack power is a construct of the rules and has nothing to do with ethics. It's a mechanic to achieve an in-game effect. Using Persuasion typically involves a Skill Versus Skill Contest. This is mechanically similar to an attack roll. Rolling dice vs ECV is a game mechanic. This doesn't make it unethical to do. The fact that MC is described as "take control of another character's mind, and thus of his actions" is just describing in-game effects. That implies to me that this power has the potential to be used unethically, but doesn't imply all uses are unethical because that's a game mechanic. Game mechanics are how we achieve things in the analog of the game - whether or not they are ethical depends on how they are defined with SFX and how they are used.

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

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.

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.

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

I wouldn't allow that special effect. If a player wants to be very persuasive' date=' then get lots of Persuasion. I also hate it when people get Postcognition with the special effect "I am a great detective".[/quote']

 

Would you allow an exceptionally stealthy character to buy invisibility with limitations to simulate very high stealth rolls? What about Desolidification with limitations to simulate an exceptional contortionist? I think it's fine if you won't; different strokes for different folks and you should definitely run your games in the manner you choose. But as a toolkit, HERO is designed to support this type of use and I suspect many GMs would allow it.

 

My point is that the nature of the power does not make it unethical to use. The SFX of the power and how it is used define whether or not it is unethical to use.

 

Do I feel that Dr. Mentalist is unethical if his power is defined as "seeing into the targets innermost thoughts and desires and implanting false memories that change the targets beliefs and experiences, if only temporarily, in order to achieve a desired effect" (as in the girl in that movie Push)? Yes, that type of Mind Control would be unethical to use in many situations. Would it be unethical to use it to save the life of someone? Probably not, but it depends. Would it be unethical to use it to get the board of directors to vote his way on the Cafeteria retrofit because he wants a new salad bar? Yes.

 

Now take Miss Persuasive. Her Mind Control is defined as "natural exceptional beauty and sex appeal. Men want to make her happy for the hope of seeing her smile, while women want to be like her." She has Persuasion to spare and also an MC built with limitations (like only to EGO+20 vs Men, EGO+10 vs Women - she's persuasive), and the SFX is that she is extremely beautiful and persuasive, but it's an inborn natural talent. As a character, she's not even aware of the power, she's just always been able to get people to do things for her.

 

Do I feel that it's unethical for Miss Persuasive to use her power to get someone to open the door for her? No. Would it be unethical to get someone to buy her lunch? Maybe, it depends on the situation.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think the use of persuasion can be unethical. Manipulating people can be unethical, depending on the situation, are not necessarily unethical. An alternative to MC with limitations would be to buy the Persuasion skill with a huge bonus, like +30. Effectively you've got a low-powered MC with limitations. It's not the power that makes it unethical, it's what you do with the power. Depending on the SFX and limitations, MC is no more unethical than Persuasion is - which is to say that by its nature it is not unethical unless you use it to be so.

 

If you're sitting around with your friends debating where to go to lunch, and one of them really wants Taco Bell but you suggest something else because Taco Bell gives you gas, and after some debate you convince them, grudgingly, to go to Subway? No, not unethical.

 

If you're sitting around with your friends debating where to go to lunch, and one of them really wants Taco Bell but you suggest a bar and drink instead, and one of your friends is a recovering alcoholic. Yes, unethical.

 

I think of unethical behavior in much the way U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described pornography in the '60s - to paraphrase: I can't define it, "But I know it when I see it."

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

Mind control is persuasion in the same way slipping rohypnol into a girl's drink is romance.

...

Mind Control is an assault, no different from punching people in the face, pointing a gun at them, or slipping drugs into their drinks and allowable under the same circumstances where you would be justified in doing any of those things. Conceivably you could modify Mind Control as a mechanic to the point where it's invisible, costs no energy, and won't persuade anyone to do anything they dislike doing, but Persuasion would probably be cheaper and as effective. And that wasn't what Doctor Mind was doing.

I think it depends on the SFX of the Mind Control. If the SFX is that the character is very persuasive then why would it be an assault? I think we're getting too caught up on the game mechanics here. Given the right SFX and limitations, MC could be used as another way to make someone very persuasive. I don't see that as being assault.

The question of ethics is much more complicated. I don't agree with the statement made earlier that ethics are binary. There are shades of gray and they aren't there because of a lack of information IMO.

Re: Free no character point equipment simulating not very powerful powers

I'd explain it as a game balance thing.

Re: Tenure as a perk

Yes. He is. He's the equivalent of a fellow with those stats who uses his exceptional abilities to snatch purses.

Really? How can having a power defined make a character the equivalent of someone who snatches purses? What if he's convincing the other faculty members to vote for equal rights in the face of a neo-natzi fascist society? What if he's using his powers to keep his young friend from having his droids confiscated?

Re: Tenure as a perk

So Obi-wan was on his way to the dark side when he MC'd the storm troopers with "these aren't the droids you're looking for"?

Re: Tenure as a perk

Just because we mechanically write "mind control"' date=' why does that move the ethical bar? Does it change matters if he uses this natural charisma to argue against racism and sexism, or to promote non-violence and peaceful coexistence, instead of for personal gain? I think we're too quick to jump all over the "mental power" mechanics.[/quote']

 

Agreed and repped. Although I like the idea of the fringe-hero, I don't agree that the use of mind control necessitates a descent into villainy. It brings up great questions on the ethics of mind control and where free will starts. I like it.

Re: iPad apps?

There are a couple of apps:

HeroRef - mostly documentation but handy to have. Also has a phase tracker.. There is a typo in it that has not been fixed but was reported a long time ago.

Hero Roller - there is a lite version for free that goes up to 12 DC and a paid version with no (maybe some reasonable max?) limit.

Also check out this thread: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/82621-iPad-uses-in-hero-system

Re: excuses

Those are great Storn! +Rep for you if I could but I'm not spreading it around enough I guess.

Re: Using a D20

Prior to 4th ed' date=' there wasn't any 'game balance' in D&D that I could see: AC didn't scale up with attack bonuses; spell save DC's didn't scale up with saving throw bonuses; etc. (And in spite of both these problems, fighters almost always came off 2nd to spellcasters. WTF?) None of it made any sense, from a game balance point of view. I had some fun with it, but my inner game designer had to hold his nose while I was doing it.[/quote']

 

The thing that I never liked about D&D is that the AC does scale, but it scales under the assumption that your characters will acquire magic items to get it to scale. You want to run a low-magic campaign? Tough - the system isn't designed to work that way and you'll have to house rule something in to keep balance.

 

And yeah, spellcasters have never scaled in that system. It does appear that 4e has improved on that to some degree, but I like 4e less than I did the earlier versions. If I want to play an MMO I won't do it with pen and paper.

 

To get back on topic - I agree with others that the bell curve is a feature. It's still random, it's just that the distribution is not linear and flat. It's the bell curve that means a +3 is a significant bonus to skill rolls and +5 is almost assured success. Without the bell curve these values have a lot less meaning. Switch to a d20 and you'll have a very different game experience.

 

For example, consider an 11- skill roll. Out of the box you have a 62.5% chance of success with 3D6. With a D20 you have a 55% chance. Arguable close enough.

 

Now add +5 to the roll. An 11- skill roll becomes a 16-, which has a 98.1% chance of success with 3D6. However, on a D20 only has a 80% chance of success.

Re: Historical Late Medieval Period RPG

Partly as a result of this thread, I've done something I've been putting off for far too long: updating my medieval farming calendar.

 

So instead of the major overhaul I've been failing to find the time to do, it's had a little spruce up.

 

Among the changes are removal of the Harnic references - I'll upload a dedicated Harnic farming calendar shortly (but not tonight).

 

Anyway, the new medieval one is here: http://www.penultimateharn.com/history/medievalfarmingyear.html

Nice work. Very informative and well written. Repped!

Re: What would you do as GM when our intrepid . . . . . .

Second' date=' its [i']the haunted evil forest.[/i] Players are too stupid to not stay together?

The OP did state that it was a horror campaign. I'd say splitting up, stupid or not, is part of the genre

Third, the character was rolling to find some food. How do you get from there to having them possessed by an evil spirit? A failure should be no food, or perhaps some harmful/tainted food, or a minor injury (stepped in a hole and twisted your knee shooting at said food. -1 body). Something like that. Possessed is a whole different issue. Unless that was something I was planning for the story to start with, I certainly would not come up with that over a botched survival roll, especially one that seems unjustified in calling for in the first place.

 

If I had been the player, I would feel like that was a excessivly harsh result from a botched roll.

I think in the context of a horror game the roll and possible ill effects are completely justified. I think using the roll mechanic presents an opportunity for the GM to have something interesting happen outside of the standard encounter plan. I'm not suggesting that the campaign should be ruled by dice rolls, but I think using a critically botched roll (OP did state they used critical hits and fumbles) as a catalyst for something interesting can add spontaneity to the game.

Re: Spells in MUltipowers?

Thread resurrection. Mark brings up a vital point that I think many have overlooked. Buying every slot as a fixed/ultra slot at the maximum points for the pool effectively locks out the pool to one spell at a time.

On top of this, I think the primary reason that players don't always buy to maximum point values is GM oversight. With great power comes great responsibility, and that responsibility is to stay within campaign guidelines, and it falls on the shoulders of GMs and players alike. Campaign guidelines go beyond active point limitations, and I like Markdoc's approach of controlling the creation of spells. I would rep him but can't seem to figure out how to do it on the mobile version of the forums. I'm not saying that GM defined spells are right for every campaign, but it can be a very effective way to contol power inflation.

Re: What would you do as GM when our intrepid . . . . . .

If you can't get a minor, temporary sprain from a botched skill roll, when can you get it? Only in combat? I think it's a way to add dramatic tension and would be perfectly suitable for the genre. I would love for a GM to do it to my character in a horror game. I love it when I'm brought to the edge of my seat in anticipation of what is going to happen next.

I would agree that fatality is overly harsh.

Re: What would you do as GM when our intrepid . . . . . .

I like Manic Typist's suggestion of injury and evil bad-nasty stalking him/her from the shadows. Throw in some nice and spooky unexplained stuff ala Blair Witch or something. Depending on how much tension you had built so far, this could either be an actual fight or not.

Maybe have him get hurt, start the limp/crawl back to camp with something following him from just out of sight. Meanwhile, back at camp, there are noises from just beyond the trees. The group doesn't know the forester has been hurt, and they are challenged to investigate the strange happenings while keeping an eye on the witch prisoner. Throw in a few weird phenomena, maybe a small stack of stones that wasn't there before. A bundle of twigs and branches hanging in the branches somewhere else. The key is to not actually let the players see anything for certain.

Then when the forester finally shows up, and the group is already spread out, you can decide to either have an actual encounter or maybe make it something not supernatural at all. Perhaps the bad-nasty is nothing more than a curious critter. Or maybe it is a real threat, like wolves or something, but they are easily dispatched or frightened off back at camp. Whew! That problem is solved, but it doesn't explain the rocks and twigs back at camp.

Cue spooky music...