TheRPGSite

The beginning of the end of my liking X-Men comics came as a result of the infamous X-Men/Micronauts limited series back in 1984.

It changed my view of telepaths. And the ethics of being a superhero with those powers.

The main villain of that story was spawned from the evil side of Professor Xavier's psyche. And was responsible for many thousands of deaths in the Microverse. Sound familiar? It should. It was a precursor to what more than a decade later would become Onslaught.

My first superhero game fell into my hands a couple of years later. The original Marvel Superheroes RPG. Then later Champions.

All during my GMing of those superhero games. I found it very difficult to see telepaths in a heroic light. Specifically mind controlling telepaths in a heroic light. It prevented me from making heroic telepaths of my own. And even caused me great discomfort when using them in a villainous form.

When I finally made the character that has been my ultimate statement on telepaths. The character has a strict code of ethics involving the privacy of other people's minds. And views it as a high crime to delve into the memories of other people without their permission. And has nothing remotely like a mind control ability.

So i'm curious about how other superhero gamers have handled this touchy subject. Reply with your answers below.

I think that considering the ethics of these powers is interesting. When doing so, it's helpful to clarify how such things work.

• Is detecting or listening to thoughts or emotions an active or passive action, i.e. do people broadcast their thoughts or feelings so that they are received without conscious intention or does someone have to consciously try to read the thoughts and feelings of others.
• Telepathy is transmitting information (usually via thoughts). This may or may not include or be limited to emotions. Usually this is an active action and may be separate from receiving thoughts or emotions.
• Mind reading or receiving thoughts is different than transmitting thoughts. This may be a separate ability or it may be bundled with projecting thoughts or emotions. Also sometimes this is an active action. Sometimes it is simply receiving the thoughts or emotions that others, in effect, broadcast.
• Empathy is detecting emotion. Though there could also be an ability that projects emotions (see Telepathy). Often this is a passive action. Though it could be an active action.
• In the case where other people in effect broadcast their thoughts or feelings there is often an ability or discipline for the sensitive to block the thoughts and emotions of others. The ethics will vary based on whether this is or is not available, easily learned, or even innate. As an analogy compare listening at a keyhole vs. hearing someone shouting in a restaurant.

The ethical issues are going to vary depending on how all this stuff works in the game setting.

My opinion od telepathy was to have drawn a distinction between surface thoughts and memories. Surface thoughts tending to be broadcast. But accessing memory would have to be a direct specifically taken action.

However. Champions never really distinguished between surface thoughts and memories. But instead treated all thought access as an attack action.

I always felt like there should have been more of a nuanced distinction.

Comics have played this all across the board.

You have some heros who only listen in on what people broadcast. And often these characters can not turn off the power. Rare have been the hero who can dig deeper and they tend to keep that power reigned in for whatever reason.

When you get abuse of those powers its usually, but not allways, seen as a bad thing or at least as a general no-no when used outside combat situations. Eros with his emotion controlling power for example. Moongragon editing peoples memories. (Though she is only nominally a hero. Every depiction I've seen had her come across as allmost a villainess.) And a few others who have crossed the line.

In the Micronaut/X-Men case you had a hero who was very under control have a part of himself section off and become a villain with far more powers than telepathy in the Microverse.

In the end its no different from alot of other powers. In the hands of one person its used well. But in the hands of someone with less restraint or morals it can and likely eventually will be abused. Example in the same comic Karza in Kitty's body uses her phasing power to kill people.

Or look at the whole pointless point of Squadron Supreme. A device meant to rehabilitate criminals. But in the hands of one rejected lover it is used to alter another members mind. (Much to his regret.)

Or the Invisible Woman. At various times shes pointed out just how easily she could kill anyone. In various creative ways.

But the big factor is. How much control does the telepath have over the power. Is it allways on? Allways picking up surface thoughs? Thats a nightmare for the character.

Real world example: I have a better than average sense of smell. I can pick up stuff normal people cant. Its not enough to be useful. Aside from sometimes telling when certain people walk into the house, or when food is close to going bad, etc. (my mom and aunt used to use me as a sort of smoke detector when they were out driving and smoking pot. (I didnt know. It was just a game to me.:o)) But it was enough to make my life hell when I lived in a town with several large factories.

So I tend to judge this stuff on a case by case basis rather than as a whole because to just say "No one can ever have a pen-knife because someone might use it to kill someone else" is so knee jerk its not even remotely funny. There are so many nuances to just about anything and just about anything can be abused in the wrong hands.

Addendum: so if the game doesnt have a distinction then consider adding one. Also look at wether the power is under the users control or not. Rang can be another added nightmare for the user with no control. And depth just adds more problems. What if all the telepath can read are subconcious thoughts? Or what if the memories they can access are fragmented. Or worse. What if they get EVERYTHING? Every time they get in range of someone.

The heroic telepath I created ultimately had the type of telepathy that would only read broadcast surface thoughts. I thought the distinction was so important that I didn't give her the Telepathy attack power at all. And she is very much a favorite character of mine.

However. Champions GMs tend to be finicky about Telepathy as a sense in any way. So it would always cause an arguement with those GMs that couldn't see beyond the attack power.

This is a weird phenomenon, that started to come up in popular perception only during the last few years. Before that, it depended on whether a telepath was good or not, but now there's this vibe (coming largely from the feminist-left) that argues that all telepathy is Rape Culture or something.

Well, more of a "right to privacy" thing.

Thing is. People unconciously broadcast their thoughts visually too. Its alot more basic. But if someone can pick up on it it is still reading someone.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1022206This is a weird phenomenon, that started to come up in popular perception only during the last few years. Before that, it depended on whether a telepath was good or not, but now there's this vibe (coming largely from the feminist-left) that argues that all telepathy is Rape Culture or something.

Actually it goes at least as far back as Star Trek TNG and the advent of the character of Troi's mother as she came across as invasive. And at the very least acted like the was rifling through more than surface thoughts or emotions. Some viewers didnt like that. They had a shorts arc in Voyager too where they dealt with a group that had outlawed telepaths under the banner that telepaths violate a persons privacy or somesuch.

Quote from: Omega;1022222Thing is. People unconciously broadcast their thoughts visually too. Its alot more basic. But if someone can pick up on it it is still reading someone.

True but generally people consider it different if someone figures out things intuitively by unconsciously and consciously picking up on subtle clues or finding them them out from peeking through a person's windows, bugging their house or breaking in when they're not at home to rifle through their stuff, to use a loose analogy. Someone thick a s brick, a typical person or a Sherlock Holmes can do the former and most wouldn't consider it dodgy, but the former is stalker like to outright illegal. Some people might find both intrusive but odds are they're going to find the latter more so.

Some are going to find telepathy to fall into the former area, mainly because its 'unnatural' and almost impossible for most people to defend against. BUT like other powers its going to depend on how they're used and the motivation. Probing a kidnapper's mind to find out where their victim is might be fine, probing someone's mind to find out their credit card number not so much. You're going to have extremes and subjectivity along the entire range of reactions. Again there are allot of powers that will cause this but as it pertains to what most humans consider sacrosanct, their own thoughts and memories or in the case of Mind Control, their emotions and basic Free Will, reactions may be stronger and more extreme.
It can make for interesting setting elements and role playing. Extremely in depth, non-consensual probing of someone's mind might be considered akin to rape as mental violation equal to the physical violation. In some setting it actually feels like a similar assault. It could be considered worse particularly by a telepathic culture. A somewhat common way for victims of physical assault and rape can take some assurance from is that their attacker may violate their body but not their minds. But that is not the case with a telepath.

In the interest of clarity, Darrin Kelly, did you mean specifically Telepathy or Psionics over all as you mentioned Mind Control which is its own ability in most rpgs and some settings.

Quote from: Omega;1022224Actually it goes at least as far back as Star Trek TNG and the advent of the character of Troi's mother as she came across as invasive. And at the very least acted like the was rifling through more than surface thoughts or emotions. Some viewers didnt like that. They had a shorts arc in Voyager too where they dealt with a group that had outlawed telepaths under the banner that telepaths violate a persons privacy or somesuch.

True!

Telepathy, especially non-consensual telepathy as rape has been a concept for sometime. I recall it coming up in the 70s at least and its likely been around earlier. The idea of something or thing being able to, often casually sort through a persons deepest memories thoughts is frightening, frightening enough that some people find it abhorrent and a violation for whatever reason. I think the morality of psi is like most things complicated and to some degree subjective but I admit I'd find the idea of someone able to read my thoughts and memories, even tamper with them, particularly without my knowledge unnerving. Everyone has things they'd rather not make public (and don't, most have a filter of some sort even just basic shame), we're totally in control of where our minds go. Even 'just' a hyper perceptive person would probably make more guarded and uncomfortable around them and I doubt I'd be alone in that.

Nuke'em from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1022206This is a weird phenomenon, that started to come up in popular perception only during the last few years. Before that, it depended on whether a telepath was good or not, but now there's this vibe (coming largely from the feminist-left) that argues that all telepathy is Rape Culture or something.

That controversy actually started as early as the 80's. And it's largely the reason I became so uncomfortable portraying telepaths.

Any power can be abused by a sick and twisted mind. But this one definitely touches upon an area that can bring up a lot of discomfort.

Quote from: CarlD.;1022240True but generally people consider it different if someone figures out things intuitively by unconsciously and consciously picking up on subtle clues or finding them them out from peeking through a person's windows, bugging their house or breaking in when they're not at home to rifle through their stuff, to use a loose analogy. Someone thick a s brick, a typical person or a Sherlock Holmes can do the former and most wouldn't consider it dodgy, but the former is stalker like to outright illegal. Some people might find both intrusive but odds are they're going to find the latter more so.

Some are going to find telepathy to fall into the former area, mainly because its 'unnatural' and almost impossible for most people to defend against. BUT like other powers its going to depend on how they're used and the motivation. Probing a kidnapper's mind to find out where their victim is might be fine, probing someone's mind to find out their credit card number not so much. You're going to have extremes and subjectivity along the entire range of reactions. Again there are allot of powers that will cause this but as it pertains to what most humans consider sacrosanct, their own thoughts and memories or in the case of Mind Control, their emotions and basic Free Will, reactions may be stronger and more extreme.
It can make for interesting setting elements and role playing. Extremely in depth, non-consensual probing of someone's mind might be considered akin to rape as mental violation equal to the physical violation. In some setting it actually feels like a similar assault. It could be considered worse particularly by a telepathic culture. A somewhat common way for victims of physical assault and rape can take some assurance from is that their attacker may violate their body but not their minds. But that is not the case with a telepath.

In the interest of clarity, Darrin Kelley, did you mean specifically Telepathy or Psionics over all as you mentioned Mind Control which is its own ability in most rpgs and some settings.

Well my flashpoint of offense was with Professor X. Who has both Telepathy and Mind Control. But yes, it comes down to non-consentual manipulation of another person's mind. Which can cover a host of different psionic powers. The central point to me was the non-consentual part.

I had a player in one of the early Champions campaigns I played in who liked using the other characters in the group as puppets. And who liked actually countering the decisions other players made with their mind control powers. From a player's point of view, it destroyed the experience of playing one's own character. And eventually the player got thrown out of the group due to that and other social problems.

This is why as a DM you sometimes need to just say "NO" when a *whatever* gets abused. Continuity, muh story! or promises not to change things can go straight to hell after a point. If saying "hey, cut back on using that thing so much please?" doesnt work then the players forfeits any rights to complain.

Take the players aside and just say "I made a mistake. Allowing this *whatever* in the campaign is too disruptive and no one wants to reign it in so I have to remove it."

Though if you REALLY dont want to just prune the tree then think about counters. And most games have those in place or just allow you to make them up.

Some examples using just telepathy:
1: Prey: Things that hunt and feed on telepaths. Monsters, aliens, supernaturals, robots, whatever. The more you use, and abuse, the power, the more likely it is to attract these things.

2: Reflect: One of my early Gamma World characters had the mutation to reflect back on someone any mental power used on them.

3: Steal: powers that can outright rip a power from someone else.

4: Copy: A great example in DP7 was a villain with the power to copy and magnify any power used in his viscinity.

5: Dampening: A fairly common tactic. A device or power that shuts down or at least interferes with telepathy in an area.

6: Vulnerability: Probing to someone might allow them free access to probe you right back.

7: Conduit: Probing someone leaves you wide open to being possessed by incorporial beings. Ghosts, demons, aliens, whatever.

8: Comprehension: decades ago I read a short story about an inventor who created a sort of mind reading helmet. Problem was you see things filtered by the targets perceptions and imagination.

9: Mistaken: The telepath thinks they are reading surface thoughts. But instead is reading subconcious thoughts.

10: Feedback: You feel everything the target does. Including pain, drugs, emotions, etc.

11: No Focus/Control: You read everyone in range. Or have a hard time zeroing in on one person.

12: Component: Simmilar to prey. Except someone or something out there wants your brain or power as a key element to their latest invention.

and others.

Remember the Belcerebons of Kakrafoon Kappa. The solution to the curse of telepathy is to have a Disaster Area concert. :D

The events in X-Men/Micronauts was more than mass murder. It had acts of active rape against minors committed by the evil version of Professor Xavier. Including against Professor X's adopted daughter. Danielle Moonstar. It was graphic and horrifying.

I never found the excuse that it was just an evil version of the Professor acceptable. The Professor mind-wiped everyone involved in an attempt to cover up the deed. It was outright mind-rape by a supposed heroic figure to cover up most of the evidence. It was not heroic by any definition.

Marvel seems to have enshrined this story in its canon. And I find it disgusting. That's where I stopped seeing Professor X as a heroic figure.

Onslaught was born of that same evil part of Professor X. A part of him that could never die because the source of that evil was an etched in part of his soul.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1022388The events in X-Men/Micronauts was more than mass murder. It had acts of active rape against minors committed by the evil version of Professor Xavier. Including against Professor X's adopted daughter. Danielle Moonstar. It was graphic and horrifying.

I never found the excuse that it was just an evil version of the Professor acceptable. The Professor mind-wiped everyone involved in an attempt to cover up the deed. It was outright mind-rape by a supposed heroic figure to cover up most of the evidence. It was not heroic by any definition.

Marvel seems to have enshrined this story in its canon. And I find it disgusting. That's where I stopped seeing Professor X as a heroic figure.

Onslaught was born of that same evil part of Professor X. A part of him that could never die because the source of that evil was an etched in part of his soul.

Um... what the fuck version of that comic did you read?

Quote from: Omega;1022478Um... what the fuck version of that comic did you read?

I owned that limited series. I read it directly.

You shouldn't use Wikipedia for comics summaries. They get a lot of said comics stories factually wrong. And are based only on the interpretation of the person who writes the Wikipedia entry. Which is often, heavily watered down.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1022269I had a player in one of the early Champions campaigns I played in who liked using the other characters in the group as puppets. And who liked actually countering the decisions other players made with their mind control powers. From a player's point of view, it destroyed the experience of playing one's own character. And eventually the player got thrown out of the group due to that and other social problems.

Sounds like a messed up player more than any innate issue with the abilities. I've seen similar issues arise from abilities ranging from social skills (a tendency which IMO, lead to the animosity many players feel towards them and that allot game avoid by outlawing them, to working on other PCs) to just being the physically toughest or magically powerful. Any power can be abused.

Quote from: Omega;1022478Um... what the fuck version of that comic did you read?

Check his earlier posts. Make up your own mind about him. But I am surprised this thread stayed as grounded as did for as long as did.

I haven't read the X-Men / Micronauts, but in X-Men and New Mutants I have seen many cases where Professor X reads the inner thoughts of his students and even changes their thoughts - ostensibly for their own good. I also found his character thoroughly despicable.

I do think there are a ton of inherent issues in telepathy, and a number of RPG sources have interesting looks at these. The Zhodani from Traveller are an interesting example. They literally have thought police - but they are seen as largely benevolent, like the friendly beat cop who discourages crime and such.

In games, ethical issues has rarely been a major problem for me. Usually game telepathy requires some sort of attack roll - making it expressly an offensive power, and players generally use it only against active opponents (i.e. villains who are attacking them). Plus, my feelings on the subject may spill over into games.

Still, a long time ago in a futuristic superhero campaign, I had a character who was waging a secret campaign of assassination against the evil world government they were opposing. Many of his top targets were telepaths and mind controllers - as important steps in any secret campaign. He even had a contingency plan to kill a fellow PC telepath. Late in the campaign, the GM gave her a note that she accidentally read his mind and saw his plans to kill her - so she tried to kill him. I felt like this justified his having the plan in the first place. She tried to kill him for thinking of something he might do in the future. The other PCs were on her side, though, so I retired him and he went off to become an NPC.

Quote from: jhkim;1022680I haven't read the X-Men / Micronauts, but in X-Men and New Mutants I have seen many cases where Professor X reads the inner thoughts of his students and even changes their thoughts - ostensibly for their own good. I also found his character thoroughly despicable.

I haven't always agreed with his calls but I've found does think about the ethics and repercussions of what he does and doesn't do so casually or for his own reward or amusement. That is under most writers. I think every character in comics sometimes seems to have MPD when their writer changes or they have lengthy runs. Look at how different Superman and Batmam even the Joker has changed over the years, for example. But I've generally found Xavier positive despite having some of the most tempting to abuse power sets in the genre.

QuoteI do think there are a ton of inherent issues in telepathy, and a number of RPG sources have interesting looks at these. The Zhodani from Traveller are an interesting example. They literally have thought police - but they are seen as largely benevolent, like the friendly beat cop who discourages crime and such.

I don't think the issues are inherent as in this power or having this ability or even using it are automatically bad things. Like any enhanced ability or superhuman being it can be abused, put to immoral , neutral beneficial or criminal use. Psionics is not different to my mind except being high on  potentially corrupting scale. With great power etc etc...

QuoteIn games, ethical issues has rarely been a major problem for me. Usually game telepathy requires some sort of attack roll - making it expressly an offensive power, and players generally use it only against active opponents (i.e. villains who are attacking them). Plus, my feelings on the subject may spill over into games.

Still, a long time ago in a futuristic superhero campaign, I had a character who was waging a secret campaign of assassination against the evil world government they were opposing. Many of his top targets were telepaths and mind controllers - as important steps in any secret campaign. He even had a contingency plan to kill a fellow PC telepath. Late in the campaign, the GM gave her a note that she accidentally read his mind and saw his plans to kill her - so she tried to kill him. I felt like this justified his having the plan in the first place. She tried to kill him for thinking of something he might do in the future. The other PCs were on her side, though, so I retired him and he went off to become an NPC.

But  wan't your character has come up with plans to kill her not just because of what she might do, but because of what she was.  I would be highly antagonistic towards someone that went so far as to make plans to murder me not because of what I did but for what I was. Making thought out plans to kill someone in case isn't a great thing to do. Imagine finding out a colleagues had made plans to kill you in cold blood if you do something they feel  is wrong  or becomes necessary in their opinion because of your ethnicity or some other innate factor of what you are. That would horrify or piss almost anyone off.

Immediately trying to kill him right back was an off  reaction but it is in line with PCs (where deadly violence is often way to casually and immediately resorted too) And This case sounds like GM just did it stir the pot since he passed her note that said she accidentally read his mind unless that's somehow possible in the game system. Otoh  how does the Telepathic PC present their side without it getting meta on all sides.

Sounds like neither PC handled it or was handled particularly well and like most Intra PC conflict it got at least a little metagame personal OOC. At the very least in rpg logic as wonky as it was it seems like both PCs had ample reason to want to do each other in. And that it might have been the gms intent which was a dick move by the gm. Was that kind of relationship between the PC s part of the game?

A more realistic or at least rational reaction might have been to call out the assassin out. OTOH, there's no easy way to prove his plans even exist unless her accidental discovery revealed material means as well. It almost sounds like the plot of a thriller. Similar scenarios have come up in comics "Oh I came up with ways, plans, means to kill you because you're a psi, mutant, alien, really power, etc... you never know. Why are you so mad?" It can be dramatic but I think those sort of things are better either worked out with players before hand or to come up 'naturally' over the course of the game not egineered by the gm. It feels heavy handed. But then again, a secret that never comes to light is wasted in fiction and rpgs. On the gripping hand, IME Murderous intra PC conflict rarely ends well unless that's what everyone signed on for. Its important to discuss that sort of thing before the game begins.

Quote from: jhkim;1022680..... He even had a contingency plan to kill a fellow PC telepath. Late in the campaign, the GM gave her a note that she accidentally read his mind and saw his plans to kill her - so she tried to kill him. I felt like this justified his having the plan in the first place. She tried to kill him for thinking of something he might do in the future. The other PCs were on her side, though, so I retired him and he went off to become an NPC.

Like I said, nuke'em from orbit.  Nuke'em all.

Telepathy/Mind-Reading has always given me migraines in games. Depending on the system, it can be too easy for a PC to basically get you to give them the write up for the adventure. Justifying every major villain having some form of mind shield can get just as difficult. Mental powers can work in comics because the writer has full control over them and what they can and can't do, as well as when they get used. Putting them in the hands of a player, however, opens up a whole new can of worms. I would generally allow for surface thoughts and emotions to be sensed relatively easily, but reading a hostile, resisting target would be harder, and the difficulty would ramp up the deeper you try and go.

Quote from: The Black Ferret;1022807Telepathy/Mind-Reading has always given me migraines in games. Depending on the system, it can be too easy for a PC to basically get you to give them the write up for the adventure. Justifying every major villain having some form of mind shield can get just as difficult. Mental powers can work in comics because the writer has full control over them and what they can and can't do, as well as when they get used. Putting them in the hands of a player, however, opens up a whole new can of worms. I would generally allow for surface thoughts and emotions to be sensed relatively easily, but reading a hostile, resisting target would be harder, and the difficulty would ramp up the deeper you try and go.

Telepathy and other psionics can also can also cause the netrunner problem. A character being in another realm completely disconnected realm from the other characters. And it's just plain unfair to make the other players wait around uninvolved while the one astral crawling character faces all of the action solo.

analogy for my opinion is that its like a society of blind where occasionally though some fluke some are born with sight. They have a large advantage over most in many ways (includong the ability to spy and conspire in ways the bulk of society can't and possibly can't concieve of).

I complelely understand why some of majority would feel disturbed by their existence and even suspicious of the Sighed and their extra sense, and jealous which rarely leads anywhere good. I probably would too if I was in there situation. But I wouldn't feel it was right if that society either exiled, impriseoned or exiled the Sighted or require their eyes be gouged out before they've done anything.

Quote from: The Black Ferret;1022807Telepathy/Mind-Reading has always given me migraines in games. Depending on the system, it can be too easy for a PC to basically get you to give them the write up for the adventure. Justifying every major villain having some form of mind shield can get just as difficult. Mental powers can work in comics because the writer has full control over them and what they can and can't do, as well as when they get used. Putting them in the hands of a player, however, opens up a whole new can of worms. I would generally allow for surface thoughts and emotions to be sensed relatively easily, but reading a hostile, resisting target would be harder, and the difficulty would ramp up the deeper you try and go.

Moving away from the mind field of personal ethics regarding imaginary abilities, Mental powers can make handling mysteries a chore. Its important to keep track of relatively minor details in some cases like who was actually there for exactly what and what imoressions (real or otherwise) they might have gotten (people don't always remember things accurately. Memory is very volitale and fragile particularly over time and with emotion. Two people can have entirely different recollections of the same event. Which makes it a bit less of a pain than many forms of Retrocognition.

Quote from: CarlD.;1022813Moving away from the mind field of personal ethics regarding imaginary abilities, Mental powers can make handling mysteries a chore. Its important to keep track of relatively minor details in some cases like who was actually there for exactly what and what imoressions (real or otherwise) they might have gotten (people don't always remember things accurately. Memory is very volitale and fragile particularly over time and with emotion. Two people can have entirely different recollections of the same event. Which makes it a bit less of a pain than many forms of Retrocognition.

Remember that Batman movie with Heath Ledger as the Joker, and how he robbed the bank at the beginning of the movie? All of his minions were fed just enough information to play out their part of the plan with no idea what anyone else was doing. A good bad villain can use this to their advantage, using expendable pawns to forward a plan without any of them even knowing what the plan is. In fact, no one even knew who the Joker was until he introduced himself. He could have kept doing what he was doing, and a telepath would be really hard pressed to figure out why all this chaos was happening. Even if a telepath reads psychic impressions, that might still not give any useful information away. I'd go even a step further and have most of the hired help not even know who they are really working for. Use expendable proxies as go betweens who let their guard down because the boss just have them a promotion, and make sure their bodies are cold by the time the mind reader gets near them. :D

I do like your point about people having different recollections of the same event. That totally happens all the time. Their mental state determines the details they fixate on, which get reinforced while other information gets fuzzy.

In the Star Wars Clone Wars series, Mandalorians were trained to resist Jedi mind tricks, in addition to cool shields that could block lightsabers. Monks in D&D have had ways of resisting mind control and charm like abilities, and Rogues in 3.Xe could learn Slippery Mind with the right Prestige Class, Shadowdancer I think. The point is, fiction has good examples of normal people being able to learn how to resist psychic powers, or at the very least hide their surface thoughts from passive scans. Now any GM that uses that regularly is a dick unless they have good reason, like an antagonist group which deliberately trains their people because their plans have been screwed up by telepaths one too many times. Which means at least once. So in that case whomever is in charge may have a history with telepaths, if they are not one themselves.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1021638The beginning of the end of my liking X-Men comics came as a result of the infamous X-Men/Micronauts limited series back in 1984.

It changed my view of telepaths. And the ethics of being a superhero with those powers.

For those looking for background on this series, it's covered really well on this blog entry--complete with images of panels.  

http://www.comicscube.com/2013/09/back-issue-ben-x-men-vs-micronauts.html

(The story to me--the concept of the Entity--might be a prototype for Onslaught--but this feels more like a prototype for the polar opposite of Xavier, the Shadow King, who basically did the same thing the entity did a lot).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1022206This is a weird phenomenon, that started to come up in popular perception only during the la
st few years. Before that, it depended on whether a telepath was good or not, but now there's this vibe (coming largely from the feminist-left) that argues that all telepathy is Rape Culture or something.

Actually, this stuff came up quite frankly in X-Men comics themselves.  The ethics of telepathy is touched on many times, especially in the Chris Claremont issues.  This goes back decades.  Maybe the simple reading of thoughts (as opposed to mental control) is a more sensitive subject, but at the very minimum reading of thoughts has always been seen as a somewhat invasion of privacy at minimum.

Quote from: jhkimStill, a long time ago in a futuristic superhero campaign, I had a character who was waging a secret campaign of assassination against the evil world government they were opposing. Many of his top targets were telepaths and mind controllers - as important steps in any secret campaign. He even had a contingency plan to kill a fellow PC telepath. Late in the campaign, the GM gave her a note that she accidentally read his mind and saw his plans to kill her - so she tried to kill him. I felt like this justified his having the plan in the first place. She tried to kill him for thinking of something he might do in the future. The other PCs were on her side, though, so I retired him and he went off to become an NPC.

Quote from: CarlD.;1022700Sounds like neither PC handled it or was handled particularly well and like most Intra PC conflict it got at least a little metagame personal OOC. At the very least in rpg logic as wonky as it was it seems like both PCs had ample reason to want to do each other in. And that it might have been the gms intent which was a dick move by the gm. Was that kind of relationship between the PC s part of the game?

A more realistic or at least rational reaction might have been to call out the assassin out. OTOH, there's no easy way to prove his plans even exist unless her accidental discovery revealed material means as well. It almost sounds like the plot of a thriller.

Actually, there wasn't any inter-player personal conflict between me and Allesandra - the player of the telepath. I was angry at the GM, in that I felt like he set these things up without giving my PC Blackout his due, but I was fine with her PC trying to kill my PC.

My PC Blackout was a teleporter with his own pocket dimension, and it would be very difficult to (a) collect any physical evidence, or (b) keep him locked up if he was found guilty. He was intentionally a borderline psycho, and I didn't mind him dying - but I did mind him being misrepresented, which I felt like the GM did. He had been tortured by the world government, and when he gained his freedom, he played dumb while secretly working to eliminate them, using several alter-egos through creative use of his powers.

Quote from: CarlDSimilar scenarios have come up in comics "Oh I came up with ways, plans, means to kill you because you're a psi, mutant, alien, really power, etc... you never know. Why are you so mad?" It can be dramatic but I think those sort of things are better either worked out with players before hand or to come up 'naturally' over the course of the game not egineered by the gm. It feels heavy handed. But then again, a secret that never comes to light is wasted in fiction and rpgs. On the gripping hand, IME Murderous intra PC conflict rarely ends well unless that's what everyone signed on for. Its important to discuss that sort of thing before the game begins.

I mostly agree. I think the GM should have consulted more with me before setting up that sort of plot line. I intended Blackout to be a wrench in the works, but he mostly had murderous intent towards the admittedly totalitarian government, not against other PCs. The plan against the other PC was a contingency, not something he really wanted. By having her specifically see the plan against her, he jumped up the conflict.

Quote from: JRT;1022843For those looking for background on this series, it's covered really well on this blog entry--complete with images of panels.  

http://www.comicscube.com/2013/09/back-issue-ben-x-men-vs-micronauts.html

The offending page of the quite horrible act is showcased on that blog. It was a straight up sexual assault on a minor. There is nothing to dispute about it. No question of what it was.

Quote from: CarlD.;1022813analogy for my opinion is that its like a society of blind where occasionally though some fluke some are born with sight. They have a large advantage over most in many ways (includong the ability to spy and conspire in ways the bulk of society can't and possibly can't concieve of).

I complelely understand why some of majority would feel disturbed by their existence and even suspicious of the Sighed and their extra sense, and jealous which rarely leads anywhere good. I probably would too if I was in there situation. But I wouldn't feel it was right if that society either exiled, impriseoned or exiled the Sighted or require their eyes be gouged out before they've done anything.



Moving away from the mind field of personal ethics regarding imaginary abilities, Mental powers can make handling mysteries a chore. Its important to keep track of relatively minor details in some cases like who was actually there for exactly what and what imoressions (real or otherwise) they might have gotten (people don't always remember things accurately. Memory is very volitale and fragile particularly over time and with emotion. Two people can have entirely different recollections of the same event. Which makes it a bit less of a pain than many forms of Retrocognition.

That's true. I never thought of the "Rashomon Effect".

Quote from: jhkim;1022680He even had a contingency plan to kill a fellow PC telepath. Late in the campaign, the GM gave her a note that she accidentally read his mind and saw his plans to kill her - so she tried to kill him. I felt like this justified his having the plan in the first place. She tried to kill him for thinking of something he might do in the future. The other PCs were on her side, though, so I retired him and he went off to become an NPC.

He (your PC) sounds like the Batman...Except maybe for the killing.

Bible Man is watching you masturbate! (http://i.imgur.com/UuqZfGE.gif)

As Bren replied earlier, it depends on what the abilities are, how they work, how they can be resisted, etc. In general though, reading someone's mind can be really powerful, and against their will, extremely invasive. I don't really like the power dynamics of great mental powers, because if they get powerful enough, then can dominate how things are done in the game, and tend to make the game largely about them, and can make it no fun to not be a telepath. Also the ability tends to be a matter of "yep, I just have this power - is it better than yours or not?" which I don't find to be a situation I like much. I also tend to avoid supers games in general, so I'll try to resist chiming in too much.

Quote from: Krimson;1022815Remember that Batman movie with Heath Ledger as the Joker, and how he robbed the bank at the beginning of the movie? All of his minions were fed just enough information to play out their part of the plan with no idea what anyone else was doing. A good bad villain can use this to their advantage, using expendable pawns to forward a plan without any of them even knowing what the plan is. In fact, no one even knew who the Joker was until he introduced himself. He could have kept doing what he was doing, and a telepath would be really hard pressed to figure out why all this chaos was happening. Even if a telepath reads psychic impressions, that might still not give any useful information away. I'd go even a step further and have most of the hired help not even know who they are really working for. Use expendable proxies as go betweens who let their guard down because the boss just have them a promotion, and make sure their bodies are cold by the time the mind reader gets near them. :D

Oh yeah, there are work arounds for it. Telepathy might be a spoiler like insanely high Detectice abilities or social skills but they can be handled. I'm not unsympathetic to gms that find it more work than they want to do. Just creating a good mystery or plot can be take a boat load of effoct.

But then its probably incumbent on those indivduals to restrict or ban powers in their games they don't want to and can't deal with, IMO.

QuoteI do like your point about people having different recollections of the same event. That totally happens all the time. Their mental state determines the details they fixate on, which get reinforced while other information gets fuzzy.

I read a really interesting article on how fragile memory can be that included accounts from people about their high school experience where, for example, bullies remebered those years and the event so differently that the truly thought there targets where among their best friends.

QuoteIn the Star Wars Clone Wars series, Mandalorians were trained to resist Jedi mind tricks, in addition to cool shields that could block lightsabers. Monks in D&D have had ways of resisting mind control and charm like abilities, and Rogues in 3.Xe could learn Slippery Mind with the right Prestige Class, Shadowdancer I think. The point is, fiction has good examples of normal people being able to learn how to resist psychic powers, or at the very least hide their surface thoughts from passive scans. Now any GM that uses that regularly is a dick unless they have good reason, like an antagonist group which deliberately trains their people because their plans have been screwed up by telepaths one too many times. Which means at least once. So in that case whomever is in charge may have a history with telepaths, if they are not one themselves.

Good point, the longer and more well known telepaths are they more structures and procedures will be in place to trip them up. From the opposite end, if they're largely unknown and/or distrusted just reading someone's mind may not be enough. You'd have something tangible to verify your findings.

Quote from: jhkim;1022894Actually, there wasn't any inter-player personal conflict between me and Allesandra - the player of the telepath. I was angry at the GM, in that I felt like he set these things up without giving my PC Blackout his due, but I was fine with her PC trying to kill my PC.

I wasn't there so I'm not going to argue with you. Experiences with similar situations has shown me there is usually some degree of resentment involved i these situations though, even when the participants don't realize or acknowledge it. In in any case, it seems to have left an impression.

QuoteI mostly agree. I think the GM should have consulted more with me before setting up that sort of plot line. I intended Blackout to be a wrench in the works, but he mostly had murderous intent towards the admittedly totalitarian government, not against other PCs. The plan against the other PC was a contingency, not something he really wanted. By having her specifically see the plan against her, he jumped up the conflict.

It seems like there were three responsible parties: both players and the gm. I would agree the gm takes the lions share of it as he seems to have stirred the pot in a very provactive way without consultation or much consideration.

As far as the in setting fiction goes, I'd be more sympathetic to the telepath in this guess. Knowing nothing else about her aside from she has telepathy (something you appear from earlier statements to have misgiving about as a rule) or "Blackout" aside from he's a frequent killer who seems those to share those views I can understand her being horrified and infuriated that he'd made plans to kill her even it was supposedly only just in case particularly if he didn't have such contingencies for everyone else just her because of what she was. Going immediately to homicide strikes me as classic PC reaction on her part but isn't completely out of bounds from what I know of ths situation at the moment.

It could have made for interestng rp but it was handled poorly, IMO.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1022212Well, more of a "right to privacy" thing.

Well, I've seen several leftists associating telepathy as a metaphor for nonconsensual sex. Which I guess ties into feminist efforts to suggest that if man is charming and you say an enthusiastic free-willed yes, have sex, and then regret it a couple of days or weeks or years later, he "raped" you.

MOD EDIT: this is NOT an invitation for anyone else to start talking about the broader subjects of consent, sex, rape, or feminist ideas of consent/rape.  Going off topic will not be welcome on this thread. You can talk about consent or feminism or rape culture ONLY in the very strict context of whether or not telepaths are 'problematic' in RPGs or pop culture.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023639Well, I've seen several leftists associating telepathy as a metaphor for nonconsensual sex.

That was something I was hoping not to even go near. Because I think of it as a crock.

All of my statements in this conversation have been in opposition of the use of Mind Control abilities to straight up force someone to do something against their will. Or to make use of offensive telepathy to force ones way beyond just surface thoughts.

The act of forcing someone to do something against their will I do believe has a valid comparison to rape.

Yeah, well, that was the previous standard. You had Good Telepaths and Evil Telepaths; the former not abusing their great power. But now we seem to have a new 'narrative' of all telepathy being Inherently Problematic because Rape Culture.

I've seen Telepaths reviled for a number of reasons. The catagorization of telepathy as an innately a violation analogous to rape does go pretty far back. Its been treated as invading the most sacred and private thing a person has: their mind and an element of horror or sometime. Mind rape has old term. Its not a hard comparison to understand: the horror and helplessness it could engender would be akin to a brutal physical violation.

Rape is a visceral term. It strikes a innate revulsion in most people. I don't think that particular way to vilify has any direct connection to "rape culture" aside from being a way of articulating intense repugnance and innate wrong similar to Right to Privacy and sanctity in the mind for those that feel those are powerful and intrinsic aspect of humanity. People that are repulsed by the idea are going to associate and compare it to horrible things. Rape is one of them.

Basically, if some thing squicks you its going to be associated with something else that squicks you.

Personally, I think that it is an over generalization. Any ability can be abused, any can be beneficial but it the ideas can make for interesting fiction in any numnber of ways.

Yes, telepathy (especially involuntary mind-reading, not to mention mind-control, memory erasing, and telekinetic or pyrokinetic attacks) have pretty much forever been reviled because of fear. People having invisible powers that you can't resist or even perceive is terrifying and can put you at their mercy in many ways especially if they use it intelligently.

And yes, privacy is taken seriously and/or treated as a extremely important by many people, and being able to read minds involuntarily is especially horrifying to such people (not sure how many, but it certainly horrifies me). See for example 1984's Mind Screens, which were just TV's everywhere which could record everyone.

Bringing in the word rape isn't even necessary.

(And trying to jump from ethics of telepathy backwards to rape culture, feminists, leftists, and that amazing line above about false rape accusations, is just off-the-scale ridiculous.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023954Yeah, well, that was the previous standard. You had Good Telepaths and Evil Telepaths; the former not abusing their great power. But now we seem to have a new 'narrative' of all telepathy being Inherently Problematic because Rape Culture.

I still go by that previous standard. My teenage years were the 80's.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023954Yeah, well, that was the previous standard. You had Good Telepaths and Evil Telepaths; the former not abusing their great power. But now we seem to have a new 'narrative' of all telepathy being Inherently Problematic because Rape Culture.

Where?

Quote from: Baron Opal;1024058Where?

I think Star Trek, TNG dealt with this a few times, from Deanna Troi's mother's tendency to use to read people without permission to one episode which was flat out described as mind-rape regarding an alien with mental abilities.

It's funny - I love Telepathy. I know a lot of GM's that hate it. But for me the ethics come into place not by doing it - but by the motives of doing (reading someone's mind) and what you do that is actionable based on it.

I think a lot of GM's hate it because it often forces them to extemporaneously make moment by moment decisions that they rarely consider consciously within their game. It's what I call the "What's in the crate?" question. When a PC asks you what's the contents of some random thing and you have to come up with it on the spot. I'm really good at that and I often use those random moments to introduce random elements of potential interest.

I do the same thing with telepathy. If a player uses it a lot - I might decide to put something interesting in there for them to discover. The fun part is people rarely fully understand their own thoughts. Or they don't know the entirety of what they think they do - Players that operate off of these half-truths will often get themselves into trouble. This is why being a telepath in-game requires discipline. Disciplined players once they get stung a few times by making bad assumptions start being better telepath-PC's and usually ratchet down their play to more subtle levels.

It's a great way to disseminate game information too. Plus I like to keep telepathy in context with the game by the fact that there are likely to be other telepaths in play too. And perhaps that interaction has other unspoken issues until it's too late.

Anyone that has telepathy will be unethical in the sense of privacy. Its going to happen. But whether they do actionable things based on what they read... that's far more unethical.

Quote from: tenbones;1024246It's funny - I love Telepathy. I know a lot of GM's that hate it. But for me the ethics come into place not by doing it - but by the motives of doing (reading someone's mind) and what you do that is actionable based on it.

I think a lot of GM's hate it because it often forces them to extemporaneously make moment by moment decisions that they rarely consider consciously within their game. It's what I call the "What's in the crate?" question. When a PC asks you what's the contents of some random thing and you have to come up with it on the spot. I'm really good at that and I often use those random moments to introduce random elements of potential interest.

I do the same thing with telepathy. If a player uses it a lot - I might decide to put something interesting in there for them to discover. The fun part is people rarely fully understand their own thoughts. Or they don't know the entirety of what they think they do - Players that operate off of these half-truths will often get themselves into trouble. This is why being a telepath in-game requires discipline. Disciplined players once they get stung a few times by making bad assumptions start being better telepath-PC's and usually ratchet down their play to more subtle levels.

It's a great way to disseminate game information too. Plus I like to keep telepathy in context with the game by the fact that there are likely to be other telepaths in play too. And perhaps that interaction has other unspoken issues until it's too late.

Anyone that has telepathy will be unethical in the sense of privacy. Its going to happen. But whether they do actionable things based on what they read... that's far more unethical.

You have shown me just by these statements. That if you were in a superhero game of mine. I wouldn't let you near telepathy at all.

Superhero games are morality plays. And nothing is moral about randomly traipsing around in more than the surface level of someone's mind. Once you go to the level of of someone's intimate thoughts and memories, you are committing an act of intimate violence against them. In other words: Mind Rape.

I am not a politically correct person. Far from it. But on this topic my view is straight up black and white, right and wrong. This is stuff heroes do not do. It's only in the realm of villains.

And yes, I view antiheroes as villains.

I've been looking for a book I once had, a novella from the 1950s or 60s. The title is, I believe, Mutant by Henry Kuttner.

In short, people start being born telepathic, manifesting in puberty. I think you might find it interesting.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1024257You have shown me just by these statements. That if you were in a superhero game of mine. I wouldn't let you near telepathy at all.

Superhero games are morality plays. And nothing is moral about randomly traipsing around in more than the surface level of someone's mind. Once you go to the level of of someone's intimate thoughts and memories, you are committing an act of intimate violence against them. In other words: Mind Rape.

And this is where you show an extreme lack of discernment on exactly what I said. There is a big difference between "traipsing around someone's mind" and say "reading surface thoughts" for an impression. Right? You're building a strawman that doesn't exactly resemble me. When you claim "Supers are morality plays" whose morality are you talking about? Yours or mine? Universal morality?  You make the extreme mistake that people's thoughts are somehow perfect in conception. A casual glance at social media should disabuse you of that.

Here's the litmus test for your morality - if I have the thought about killing Dr. Doom and how it would solve all my problems as a superhero in saving the world - but I don't act on it, because it's "just a passing thought". And you happened to be reading my mind - but all you know is I'm thinking about killing Dr. Doom. What does your morality tell you to do?

What if by me not acting - and Dr. Doom pulls off his dastardly plan, does it make me or YOU culpable for letting it happen? This is why it becomes an *act* that is a higher morality. The act of reading someone's mind *is* the power. What you do with it is entirely different. If you do nothing, then nothing happens, right?

It sounds like for you - telepathy is something *no one* could use without causing you some kind of umbrage to your morality, or when, to you, is using telepathy never "MIND RAPE"?

Which telepaths in comics are not Mind Rapists to you? I'll prove you wrong by your own standards *every* *single* *time*. Professor X? He has mind-controlled entire nations to ignore the shenannigans of the X-men. Mind wiped people from remembering aspects of their past, even created his own set of protocols to kill people he deemed too powerful via telepathy. Jean Grey? do I even need to start? Anyone related to Jean Grey - her clones, her clone's daughter? Her time-shifted younger version of her self that telepathically gaslit Iceman into believing he's gay? Yeah it's there. What you're advocating is to ignore the particulars and deem the use of the power as wrong in and of itself.

Is that the same for other powers? Like when collateral damage happens? Is that also the same thing?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1024257I am not a politically correct person. Far from it. But on this topic my view is straight up black and white, right and wrong. This is stuff heroes do not do. It's only in the realm of villains.

And yes, I view antiheroes as villains.

What does political correctness have to do with having super-powers that let you read minds? Or any other power for that matter? Because to me - it's what you do with it. "Mind Rape" I agree is something that could happen with a telepath. I think you're being far to liberal with the term.

Edit - I want to add. The moment "political correctness" gets introduced to a Supers game... I scratch my head. How long is it before the realization that beings with the gigantic powers available to metahumans places them beyond the ridiculous nature of political correctness? PC-ness would render most heroes utter villains. Superman has the power to act on a global scale but chooses not to unless the circumstances permit - that's why he's the greatest superhero. The *act* (including the choice to not act) is what defines the ethics of a power. Is Superman EYE Raping people when he uses his X-ray vision across the planet? No one gives him permission to watch them do their private deeds... right?

The moment you start using stupid debate tricks like trying to call out 'straw man arguments', you leave the realm of polite conversation behind. And signal you want to turn it into a war. i'm not playing that.

I do not believe in tolerating moral relativism.

The shades of grey you are trying to drag me into kicking and screaming have exactly zero interest to me.

Modern comics have become absolutely polluted by that to the point that you can't tell the heroes from the villains anymore. And that's trash I don't want to read.

It used to be in the bronze age, that adding nuance made stories more interesting and compelling. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. And modern writers have completely lost the heroic perspective.

So stop it with the shades of grey nonsense. I am not the audience for it.

As for who am I to decided what is moral and what is not? When I am the GM, I am the final authority on everything that goes on the campaign. It's my judgement that determines when a player has acted outside of the perameters set at the beginning of the campaign for what is acceptable and what is not.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1024407The moment you start using stupid debate tricks like trying to call out 'straw man arguements, you leave the realm of polite conversation behind.

I do not believe in tolerating moral relativism.

The shades of grey you are trying to drag me into kicking and screaming have exactly zero interest to me.

Modern comics have become absolutely polluted by that to the point that you can't tell the heroes from the villains anymore. And that's trash I don't want to read.

It used to be in the bronze age, that adding nuance made stories more interesting and compelling. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. And modern writers have completely lost the heroic perspective.

So stop it with the shades of grey nonsense. I am not the audience for it.

I'm not using stupid debate tricks. You're making claims (let alone saying that *I* am some type of person that you would never allow in your games to have Telepathy - when I never even said one thing about what *I* would do with telepathy as a player) that I'm asking questions about. The intimation of your post is that what I condone in my Supers game is tantamount to what you call "MIND RAPE". I'm merely calling your attention to it and saying you're wrong. You'll note I'm not advocating "shades of grey" either - I'm clearly pointing out where the line is: the ACT of what you do with it. I would no sooner blame a farmer for animal cruelty than I would a telepath for reading someone's mind. There is a manner in which one can exact those roles without being in moral jeopardy. I'm ADVOCATING nuance. That's what I posted where you implied I'm advocating MIND RAPE.

Ethics happens to be very important to me as an individual. And it is a big deal in my supers games (which I'm running one right now) because at the central core of Supers is a bunch of people with abilities that would break so many laws by merely following the conventions of the genre - that it renders what you think of as "Mind Rape" fairly par for the course.

In keeping with the idea of Telepathy and Ethics - I'm genuinely interested in that. Otherwise you're saying just ignore it (like they did in the Bronze Age). Why? I'm pretty aware of what was/wasn't going on in comics (I used to write comics for a living). It's funny that you mention the Bronze Age as your place of preference - it's mine too. That's when I started actively collecting (well a little before - I started in '68) but in the same post you say you don't tolerate moral-relativism? That's an odd set of remarks to make in a thread about the ethics of telepathy? Because whether you read someone's mind in the 70's and whether you did it in 2018 doesn't make the act less immoral? Does it? That *is* the very definition of moral relativism. And I do agree with you - modern comics fucks all this up. But what you seem to be missing is your view on this topic in gaming is precisely what is wrong in comics. The inability to discern the differences of the act in use and the moral and ethical implication of it.

Let's be clear here too - gaming in the Supers genre ISN'T the same thing as writing a comicbook either. There is a metric shit-ton of Handwavomancy that has to occur in Comics - but in an RPG you choose to decide what is/isn't the ethical norm for your game (campaign parameters withstanding). If you're saying you pretend no one cares that Professor X is mind-fucking the shit out of government officials, and everyone watching his teenage students wreck shop fighting Magneto on a launchpad - great. But that doesn't answer the ACTUAL question in the thread does it?

You could ask this question about ALL metahuman powers as it pertains to Supers gameplay. Or you know... you could just ignore it. In which case - what is the point of the thread?

Quote from: The Black Ferret;1024237I think Star Trek, TNG dealt with this a few times, from Deanna Troi's mother's tendency to use to read people without permission to one episode which was flat out described as mind-rape regarding an alien with mental abilities.

But hey! those mudbaths are fun! Lwaxana knows how to party.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1024407As for who am I to decided what is moral and what is not? When I am the GM, I am the final authority on everything that goes on the campaign. It's my judgement that determines when a player has acted outside of the perameters set at the beginning of the campaign for what is acceptable and what is not.

So since being a GM gives you your moral compass (news to me!) what does it inform you on other Supers genre parameters? Do you allow collateral damage in your game? Do you have heroes knocking down buildings? Causing power-outages? Do your characters fly in restricted air-spaces? Do they go into private places or do they call friends on the police force and get warrants? Who do they drop off the villains to? Why are they not arrested for being vigilantes? Or do you handwave all these things?

Are these ethical concerns too? I mean if telepathy invites this level of discussion about ethics and you seem so sure of it's use equating to "MIND RAPE" - what about these other things?

Or you know - you could say, yes there's a difference between Telepathy = MIND RAPE, and say there are some distinct differences between its various uses.

Edit: Frankly I think Telepathy is one of the lesser concerns of the genre. Heh. I mean - did anyone watch Superman vs. Batman? Yeaaaah... that's probably a bigger concern.

Quote from: tenbones;1024421But hey! those mudbaths are fun! Lwaxana knows how to party.

It was pretty hilarious when she was on the holodeck and was entranced by the bartender because she couldn't read him, not know he was a hologram.

Quote from: The Black Ferret;1024442It was pretty hilarious when she was on the holodeck and was entranced by the bartender because she couldn't read him, not know he was a hologram.

That is very close to my point about in-genre conceits of being a telepath. They would do it unconsciously. It doesn't mean they're necessarily doing a deep-anus-probe on you mentally. TNG covered a lot of that including actual mind-rape. Lwaxana used it as high-speed communication, by accessing surface thoughts you can expedite "normal" communication with far greater efficiency and probably more accuracy. She did it because in her culture it was normal to do it. It certainly wasn't mind-rape.

I do get how unnerving it is. But that's also because most people aren't self-aware of their own thought processes until they stop to think about it, however the moment you pose the question it sets everyone on edge, because then it dawns on them how their minds run around like spinning wheels most of the time.

That's why I think it's fun to have telepathy in any game (but especially Supers). The vast majority of people do not think in slow linear terms like the written word, they think in abstract shorthand being shaped by whatever passes for their cognitive reasoning and emotional state(s) that can shift moment by moment.

It's one of those things I kind of laugh about when people think "mind rape" - by having someone read even their surface thoughts. Because it's taken as the potential threat of having their "real" feelings be revealed. Which I understand, as someone that has practiced meditation for decades, it IS scary when you first realize how our monkey-minds skitter around without regard. There's puh-lenty of cognitive science that illustrates this (like trying not to imagine something that is merely spoken to you).

But this is the *likely* the reverse for a telepath. Think about how scary it would be to subject yourself to another(s) monkey-mind thoughts? Why is it everyone assumes that wouldn't be nightmarish and run their use of telepathy like that? That alone would instill the discipline I'm talking about required to effectively play it. And to effectively GM it.

The ethics of telepathy is going to vary based on how telepathy works and this is true regardless of how the information gets used. It's also likely to vary based on how much the person being read cares about their own privacy. Someone with little concern for their personal privacy may not be at all concerned about having their thoughts read. Someone who values their personal privacy a lot is likely to be a lot more concerned. And this is independent of how the information gets used.

• If someone is in your house do they open up and look inside the medicine cabinet and your unlocked bureau drawers?
• If you hear the people in the next apartment talking loudly do you listen in or do you leave the apartment or put on headphones so you can't even inadvertently hear their conversation?
• What about that person talking loudly on their cell phone as they walk down the street; do you listen in or walk far away so you can no longer hear them?

Which of these things is most like telepathy in your game setting?

Quote from: Bren;1024629The ethics of telepathy is going to vary based on how telepathy works and this is true regardless of how the information gets used. It's also likely to vary based on how much the person being read cares about their own privacy. Someone with little concern for their personal privacy may not be at all concerned about having their thoughts read. Someone who values their personal privacy a lot is likely to be a lot more concerned. And this is independent of how the information gets used.

This is a more rational discussion. This is what I meant upthread about your campaign parameters. There is a gigantic difference between telepathy in The Marvel Universe and say telepathy in the movie Scanners - where telepaths can't stop scanning people's thoughts (the idea being people broadcast their thoughts), for example. So yes, that needs to be established! But my position doesn't change. For the conceits of having the power I'm not going to ding someone for having the power and using it. It only matters to me how they use it and what they do with it.

I care a *lot* about personal privacy. I'm more scared about other people's comprehension abilities more than anything else, especially these days. But I'm also pretty aware of how random surface-thoughts are. They can be manipulated with mere verbal queuing for most people - but to me that's just great RP fodder, right? I think most people misconstrue the fine subtleties of "surface thoughts" vs. "deep held beliefs" and "memories".


okay on to the list!

Quote from: Bren;1024629

• If someone is in your house do they open up and look inside the medicine cabinet and your unlocked bureau drawers?
• If you hear the people in the next apartment talking loudly do you listen in or do you leave the apartment or put on headphones so you can't even inadvertently hear their conversation?
• What about that person talking loudly on their cell phone as they walk down the street; do you listen in or walk far away so you can no longer hear them?

Which of these things is most like telepathy in your game setting?

If the issue is according to the OP 1) you have telepathy 2) it's like the Marvel/DC universe - then I assume #1 will be happening with PC characters all the time.

But there are gradations within that description. Using #1 as an analagy to telepathy - reading surface thoughts might be going up to a door and seeing if it's locked, and if not listening at the door or just walking in to peek with the assumption that whomever lives there will never know. Is it ethical? Nope. Doing a deeper-scan into memories and beliefs etc would be like walking into the owners rooms and checking out the medicine cabinet, drawers etc. would it be ethical? Nope. But we're talking supers... few super-powers in use don't cross the ethical boundary when using normal genre conceits. Mind rape is when you start rearranging the furniture and/or burning the place down.

Quote from: tenbones;1024450That is very close to my point about in-genre conceits of being a telepath. They would do it unconsciously. It doesn't mean they're necessarily doing a deep-anus-probe on you mentally. TNG covered a lot of that including actual mind-rape. Lwaxana used it as high-speed communication, by accessing surface thoughts you can expedite "normal" communication with far greater efficiency and probably more accuracy. She did it because in her culture it was normal to do it. It certainly wasn't mind-rape.

I don't like the term "mind-rape" because it's an analogy that doesn't work well. On the other hand, I don't think that just because in some alien culture something is normal, that means it's acceptable. Lots of aliens in Star Trek and otherwise have practices that are morally reprehensible to us. Also, I don't think that just because something is automatic and thus passive that it is OK. All sorts of powers could be automatic - like sapping the life force of those around you, or mind control where everyone around just tries to do what you want.

I recall an interesting supers NPC that was a "Man of the Crowd" - who would automatically slightly drain the strength of everyone around him to make him stronger. Thus, whenever he was in a crowd he was super-strong (plus other abilities, I think). Everyone with him was only minorly affected. It was a peculiar ability that had a number of ethical implications.

Quote from: tenbones;1024450That is very close to my point about in-genre conceits of being a telepath. They would do it unconsciously. It doesn't mean they're necessarily doing a deep-anus-probe on you mentally. TNG covered a lot of that including actual mind-rape. Lwaxana used it as high-speed communication, by accessing surface thoughts you can expedite "normal" communication with far greater efficiency and probably more accuracy. She did it because in her culture it was normal to do it. It certainly wasn't mind-rape.

I do get how unnerving it is. But that's also because most people aren't self-aware of their own thought processes until they stop to think about it, however the moment you pose the question it sets everyone on edge, because then it dawns on them how their minds run around like spinning wheels most of the time.

That's why I think it's fun to have telepathy in any game (but especially Supers). The vast majority of people do not think in slow linear terms like the written word, they think in abstract shorthand being shaped by whatever passes for their cognitive reasoning and emotional state(s) that can shift moment by moment.

It's one of those things I kind of laugh about when people think "mind rape" - by having someone read even their surface thoughts. Because it's taken as the potential threat of having their "real" feelings be revealed. Which I understand, as someone that has practiced meditation for decades, it IS scary when you first realize how our monkey-minds skitter around without regard. There's puh-lenty of cognitive science that illustrates this (like trying not to imagine something that is merely spoken to you).

But this is the *likely* the reverse for a telepath. Think about how scary it would be to subject yourself to another(s) monkey-mind thoughts? Why is it everyone assumes that wouldn't be nightmarish and run their use of telepathy like that? That alone would instill the discipline I'm talking about required to effectively play it. And to effectively GM it.

I can see where you're coming from. In a way, it's much like the tactile forms of communication some people use. Some people are huggers, or like to put their hand on your shoulder, or pat you on the back, or otherwise use some form of physical contact during conversation. It's just a natural part of the way they interact with others, whether it's their personal quirk or they have been raised to do it. Some people will be fine with it and others, like myself will be more "Don't. Effing. Touch. Me."

Quote from: jhkim;1024662I don't like the term "mind-rape" because it's an analogy that doesn't work well. On the other hand, I don't think that just because in some alien culture something is normal, that means it's acceptable. Lots of aliens in Star Trek and otherwise have practices that are morally reprehensible to us. Also, I don't think that just because something is automatic and thus passive that it is OK. All sorts of powers could be automatic - like sapping the life force of those around you, or mind control where everyone around just tries to do what you want.

I recall an interesting supers NPC that was a "Man of the Crowd" - who would automatically slightly drain the strength of everyone around him to make him stronger. Thus, whenever he was in a crowd he was super-strong (plus other abilities, I think). Everyone with him was only minorly affected. It was a peculiar ability that had a number of ethical implications.

I'm only using "Mind Rape" because the OP insists that that's what these things are.

And yes - ethics for us, a non-telepathic race would have different stipulations for a race of telepaths would would have evolved with such abilities. Their entire culture would have likewise evolved a code of ethics and presumably various means to protect or limit ones ability to telepathically screw them over...

But in the Supers Genre... that's not the norm. For me - explaining these things out, even if you're just handwaving it away as inconsequential - matters. Genre fidelity to fiction is not the same thing as playing an RPG campaign within those same fictional environments unless you all agree this is how we're doing it. But at that point - the OP's thread is moot.

Who gives a crap about Telepaths using telepathy when according to the OP its use is highly unethical and is the power of villains. Strike the power from the record and play on, if  it's that big of a deal to you?

I'm not without my own prohibitions - I don't allow Matter Rearrangement powers for heroes in my game. Too easy to subvert everything. But I probably could be convinced.

Quote from: tenbones;1024658Doing a deeper-scan into memories and beliefs etc would be like walking into the owners rooms and checking out the medicine cabinet, drawers etc. would it be ethical? Nope.

There is a reason I used that specific analogy. I understand that there are people who do look in other people's medicine cabinets. More or less automatically and without even considering whether that is intrusive or not. There are other people who worry about people who would look in their medicine cabinets, bureau drawers, closets, etc. Apparently people doing stuff like this isn't really rare and so people get concerned.

Personally, until I had people bring up the subject it never occurred to me that someone would want to pry into other people's lives by looking inside closed (but not locked) containers. Now if my view of normal behavior and some other people's view of normal behavior is this far apart it seems reasonable that different people (different cultures, different species) are likely to have very different views about privacy of the mind. I think those sorts of nuances tend to be ignored in popular media.

And to bring this back to RPGs, I had a PC who was a ship's captain in Star Trek who was concerned about having his mind read. Both for practical reasons (classified information, safety of his ship and crew, and such) and personal reasons (he was a private guy who liked keeping secrets). So the topic is something I've considered previously in an RPG context even beyond the concerns in OD&D about the use and abuse of Medallions of Esp 6" range. (Or was it 9"?)

Quote from: Bren;1024674There is a reason I used that specific analogy. I understand that there are people who do look in other people's medicine cabinets. More or less automatically and without even considering whether that is intrusive or not. There are other people who worry about people who would look in their medicine cabinets, bureau drawers, closets, etc. Apparently people doing stuff like this isn't really rare and so people get concerned.

I've known about people like this too - though personally I've never seen anyone do it. It's very skeezy to me. But again - depends what they do after. Do they just look? Do they take something? Do they tell everyone what they saw/took?

Yeah there are degrees here. But I think we both agree it starts with some level of unethical behavior because ultimately the intent is self-serving. Right? In a Supers game - a telepath is presumably doing it for the purposes of helping people, to the degree that this is "ethical" is dependent highly on the circumstances. It's definitely grey-area. But I'm okay with that. Telepaths that are just probing around for self-serving pathological reasons, is not a good person.

Quote from: Bren;1024674Personally, until I had people bring up the subject it never occurred to me that someone would want to pry into other people's lives by looking inside closed (but not locked) containers. Now if my view of normal behavior and some other people's view of normal behavior is this far apart it seems reasonable that different people (different cultures, different species) are likely to have very different views about privacy of the mind. I think those sorts of nuances tend to be ignored in popular media.

And to bring this back to RPGs, I had a PC who was a ship's captain in Star Trek who was concerned about having his mind read. Both for practical reasons (classified information, safety of his ship and crew, and such) and personal reasons (he was a private guy who liked keeping secrets). So the topic is something I've considered previously in an RPG context even beyond the concerns in OD&D about the use and abuse of Medallions of Esp 6" range. (Or was it 9"?)

Totally agree. I think the moment anyone realizes telepaths are in play, precautions should be taken. First thing Magneto does is construct his helmet. No one thinks to ask why. It's because the assumption of what Professor X really does (which doesn't really get pointed out until years later in Ultimate X-Men) about what he's *really* doing to keep the X-Men incognito. And of course it makes perfect sense. Which is the greater moral jeopardy - to know that your kind is being systematically hunted down by the US Government? Or to use your powers subtly to nudge people away from such thoughts? Or in some cases to overtly change people's memories to forget they ever existed in order to prevent genocide? And you best friend knows and realizes he could easily be doing that to you, because if he found out what you really believed... he'd probably kill you.

Yeah - that's not Bronze-Age comics but the implications of those things are *right there*. And that's great gaming fodder for long-term Supers games. Even by Marvel's earliest historical standards, Magneto does have a persuasive argument: the Government has created machines of vast destruction for the purposes of destroying their kind. What do you do? The ethical argument is not whether Professor X's use of Telepathy is unethical (it is) or whether Magneto has a right to defend himself (he does) - the real ethical question is to what degree, and what are the emergent ramifications of those actions? And what greater good do these actions serve?

That's half the fun, if you want a little depth. It's all about where you want to put conflict in the game.

If you want episodic adventures-of-the-week then who cares? Just let it fly and next week it's something else. The way I do it - I can have all of it. The Ethical and Moral issues of metahumans has been part of the genre even well into the Bronze Age. That would be a fun discussion too.

I don't want there to be any moral ambiguity about this aspect of the superhero games I play in and run. I want clear lines drawn. "This is what heroes do" "This is what villains do." And never the twain shall meet.

The focus of my campaigns are at the beginning of the superheroic age. With high levels of influence by the Pulp, Golden, and Silver ages. And some sprinkling of Bronze age elements.

If A player wants to explore the muddied modern age tropes. Well they will have to look elsewhere. Because they aren't going to be there for them. And I don't want too be pressured or bullied into providing elements that I don't think are suitable for the campaign.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1024713If A player wants to explore the muddied modern age tropes. Well they will have to look elsewhere. Because they aren't going to be there for them. And I don't want too be pressured or bullied into providing elements that I don't think are suitable for the campaign.

That your opinion based on your take on Psionic. There are alternatives as other pointed out. Psionics like magic is 100% completely made up shit so everything ethics, effects of society is dependent on the specifics.

Can the details result in experience as traumatic as a rape or torture? Sure. I think the conversation has moved beyond that to explore other forms psionics can take.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1024713I don't want there to be any moral ambiguity about this aspect of the superhero games I play in and run. I want clear lines drawn. "This is what heroes do" "This is what villains do." And never the twain shall meet.

The focus of my campaigns are at the beginning of the superheroic age. With high levels of influence by the Pulp, Golden, and Silver ages. And some sprinkling of Bronze age elements.

If A player wants to explore the muddied modern age tropes. Well they will have to look elsewhere. Because they aren't going to be there for them. And I don't want too be pressured or bullied into providing elements that I don't think are suitable for the campaign.

I think I'm confused. There is a BIG disconnect with me when you say you don't want there to be moral ambiguity - then say "this is what heroes do" vs. "this is what villains do" with only Telepathy and it's apparent villain status as the main point of discussion. Then you specifically toss in the caveat of Golden Age, Pulp with a Sprinkle of Bronze as indicators.

Well if you're not a moral relativist as you stated quite clearly upthread... then my first reaction is: Is the Shadow a hero to you? He reads people's minds NON-STOP. He mindfucks the shit out of people. And he kills bad guys with little effort. He *is* a hero of the very era you're speaking of. Moral relativism is at play here based only on your self-described conceits. (I love the Shadow btw. He's one of my favorite heroes). But I think this is a superb question for you, on your own thread. The Shadow by your standards should pose a serious ethical and moral dilemma, if ethics is even a concern - but based on the title of the thread, I assume it is?

Of course if you chalk him up to just being an anti-hero... well I think that probably moves your conceits more into the Silver Age 4-color era of comics alone, where they toned down a lot of shit. I'm still curious as to when using telepathy wouldn't be prohibitive to you?

I'm not a moral relativist either. But I don't think a guy wearing wearing a costume with superhuman powers running around doing whatever they want isn't unethical either - but I do believe there are greater purposes as work. Its all in the execution. But then I read a lot of Nietzsche and he makes for great super-hero justification, heh.

Edit: I also don't think players *want* to explore the moral or ethical ramifications of playing a superhero. Those are things the GM usually brings up. The analogy in writing comics is when the superhero trounces the villain by smashing a car on him - then finding out from a crying bystander on the street that the birthday-gift puppy for their kid was in the backseat... or whatever. It's what you decide is in play. If everyone is "Golly-gee-whillakers Batman! You sure licked the Joker good after he killed all those cub-scouts!" well that's fine too. But if ethics are indeed a concern, then this is probably not too consistent. I suspect there are a lot of power that will call into question your premise.

What about invisibility?

Quote from: estar;1024746Can the details result in experience as traumatic as a rape or torture? Sure. I think the conversation has moved beyond that to explore other forms psionics can take.

Yeah - the premise of "telepathy being ethical" - is moot based on the other supporting criteria which the question is premised on. It's probably easier to ask - what *isn't* ethical to use? Superpowers/Spells etc. violate most ethical concerns *because* our cultures don't assume anyone has them, and have evolved accordingly. That's half the fun of RPG's is getting to play in these genres and toy with these conceits. It gets especially... thorny... when one insists on not being a moral relativist and disregards morality and ethics writ-large when the genre ones touts tends to flout those very ethics we tend to hold dear in real life.

I certainly don't make those claims. I just have my NPC's react accordingly for the setting.

Quote from: tenbones;1024682I've known about people like this too - though personally I've never seen anyone do it.

If they are successful in their snooping you won't see them doing their snooping now will you. ;)

QuoteIt's very skeezy to me. But again - depends what they do after. Do they just look? Do they take something? Do they tell everyone what they saw/took?

What they do after get's judged on what they do. But the act of snooping is itself a violation or transgression of someone's right to privacy regardless of what the snooper does with that knowledge.

QuoteYeah there are degrees here. But I think we both agree it starts with some level of unethical behavior because ultimately the intent is self-serving. Right?

The snooper may have benevolent motives, but altruistically snooping is still a privacy rights violation.

QuoteTelepaths that are just probing around for self-serving pathological reasons, is not a good person.

Speaking personally, I don't want a do-gooding snooper rifling through my mental drawers regardless of their motive.

QuoteTotally agree. I think the moment anyone realizes telepaths are in play, precautions should be taken. First thing Magneto does is construct his helmet. No one thinks to ask why.

Clearly Magneto doesn't want to be controlled by someone else nor does he want his thoughts and plans revealed to someone else who may not be in total sympathy with Magneto's goals and methods. And Professor X is clearly not in agreement as to goals or methods.

QuoteWhich is the greater moral jeopardy - to know that your kind is being systematically hunted down by the US Government? Or to use your powers subtly to nudge people away from such thoughts?

Well that kind of depends on who you are doesn't it? It's not like Professor X asked permission before rifling around in the minds, emotions, and desires of those poor benighted normals. I doubt they'd be OK with his actions. At least with Magneto you know who your enemy is and what he's trying to do to you.

Quote from: tenbones;1024798Well if you're not a moral relativist as you stated quite clearly upthread... then my first reaction is: Is the Shadow a hero to you? He reads people's minds NON-STOP. He mindfucks the shit out of people. And he kills bad guys with little effort. He *is* a hero of the very era you're speaking of. Moral relativism is at play here based only on your self-described conceits. (I love the Shadow btw. He's one of my favorite heroes). But I think this is a superb question for you, on your own thread. The Shadow by your standards should pose a serious ethical and moral dilemma, if ethics is even a concern - but based on the title of the thread, I assume it is?

I'm also a big fan of the Shadow. The shadow doesn't really read minds. On the radio he clouds men's minds so they cannot see him. He often uses his invisibility on the radio to scare bad guys into confessing, but he doesn't read their minds. In the pulps he doesn't cloud minds though he uses a lot of disguises. His degree of uncanniness varies throughout the pulp series. In some stories he seems a bit supernatural - kind of a living shadow really - but in most stories he's more like Batman (or more correctly, Batman is like the Shadow). Nothing the Shadow does is supernatural, just highly skilled, peak human performance.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1024058Where?

Which "where" are you referring to? The former or the latter? Because formerly, there were all kinds of good telepaths and bad telepaths.  Until recent years, I'd never heard any moral ambiguity about Professor X or Saturn Girl being heroes.

As for the latter, it's been cited by certain Usual Suspects all over the internet. Moreso about the Professor Xs out there than the Saturn Girls, because of course women (being absolutely perfect and strong and brave and feminist and right) can be trusted to read/control our minds in the right way, but people with penises are pretty much rapists to begin with, never mind if they can also read your thoughts!

Quote from: Bren;1024822I'm also a big fan of the Shadow. The shadow doesn't really read minds. On the radio he clouds men's minds so they cannot see him. He often uses his invisibility on the radio to scare bad guys into confessing, but he doesn't read their minds. In the pulps he doesn't cloud minds though he uses a lot of disguises. His degree of uncanniness varies throughout the pulp series. In some stories he seems a bit supernatural - kind of a living shadow really - but in most stories he's more like Batman (or more correctly, Batman is like the Shadow). Nothing the Shadow does is supernatural, just highly skilled, peak human performance.

That is true! In terms of the pulps. But I was referring to his comic-book assumed powers. Where he can hypnotize people (i.e. change their thought and memories etc.) and of course his disguise is more mystical than physical.

But even *then*... this is an ethical side-show compared to the people he pretty much kills out of hand (granted they're all bad guys).

Quote from: Bren;1024821If they are successful in their snooping you won't see them doing their snooping now will you. ;)

What they do after get's judged on what they do. But the act of snooping is itself a violation or transgression of someone's right to privacy regardless of what the snooper does with that knowledge.

 The snooper may have benevolent motives, but altruistically snooping is still a privacy rights violation.

Speaking personally, I don't want a do-gooding snooper rifling through my mental drawers regardless of their motive.

Clearly Magneto doesn't want to be controlled by someone else nor does he want his thoughts and plans revealed to someone else who may not be in total sympathy with Magneto's goals and methods. And Professor X is clearly not in agreement as to goals or methods.

Well that kind of depends on who you are doesn't it? It's not like Professor X asked permission before rifling around in the minds, emotions, and desires of those poor benighted normals. I doubt they'd be OK with his actions. At least with Magneto you know who your enemy is and what he's trying to do to you.

At no point in this thread do you *ever* see me saying using telepathy doesn't have some level of ethical jeopardy. Of course it does. But in terms of, as you put it, who you are, is less pertinent. I think the rubber hits the road with what you do with the power and the information gleaned. You actions will dictate who you really are.

What people here are not wanting to delve into - where Supers RPGs diverge from Comicbooks is the assumptions of how one goes about using those powers alongside the rest of the assumed conceits of your gaming world. If you want to adhere to Handwavium Effects and your supers do their derring-do, trash whole city-blocks or get into GI-Joe firefights and no one but the combatants get knocked out, then yeah, Telepathy is probably only a villain-power.

But if you pretend to never ask - Just how does Professor X deal with being attacked by government sponsored multi-story man-killing robots on his elite private school campus where the roof gets routinely torn off and children get flash-frozen or cable-yanked into the grips of these monstrosities - sometimes in the middle of the shopping centers of the town near the school and no one asks why... well there is probably a good reason for that. heh. Of course... this assumes you like a little reality in your game. Which is all we're talking about here. I get it.

But then theres a LOT of powers that would be rendered sub-standard in such games (especially if the GM is willing to tack on ethical demands on the use of each power).

There could also be ethical dilemmas in a different way, such as finding out that certain non human species may in fact be sapient. You'd have all sorts of interesting implications, though the immediate reaction from non telepaths would probably be declaring it fake news or some sort of conspiracy.

Quote from: Krimson;1025093There could also be ethical dilemmas in a different way, such as finding out that certain non human species may in fact be sapient. You'd have all sorts of interesting implications, though the immediate reaction from non telepaths would probably be declaring it fake news or some sort of conspiracy.

Or the Skrull dilemma. Which might justify a telepath to go hogwild in assuaging paranoia.

Quote from: tenbones;1024799It's probably easier to ask - what *isn't* ethical to use? Superpowers/Spells etc. violate most ethical concerns *because* our cultures don't assume anyone has them, and have evolved accordingly.

For example the Zhodani, a human major race, of the Third Imperium setting view the regular use of Telepathy as a positive preventative for many type of mental illness. One view they have of the Third Imperium is that it is a madhouse of the mentally sick and insane.

Of course if you read their history, you find that the Psionics rose among in a culturally conservative region (feudal monarchies ) of their homeworld which rost to prominence after dominant civilization (a democratic union of human and chirper (regressed droyne) culture) fell when a plague was unleashed when first contact was made with a chirper population resident on their moon.

So in a sense the Zhodani civilization can be as an autocratic state far far worse than anything imagined by Orwell in 1984.

Quote from: estar;1025127For example the Zhodani, a human major race, of the Third Imperium setting view the regular use of Telepathy as a positive preventative for many type of mental illness. One view they have of the Third Imperium is that it is a madhouse of the mentally sick and insane.

Of course if you read their history, you find that the Psionics rose among in a culturally conservative region (feudal monarchies ) of their homeworld which rost to prominence after dominant civilization (a democratic union of human and chirper (regressed droyne) culture) fell when a plague was unleashed when first contact was made with a chirper population resident on their moon.

So in a sense the Zhodani civilization can be as an autocratic state far far worse than anything imagined by Orwell in 1984.

Yeah! That would be scary as hell to a Human under normal circumstances. There's a LOT that had to assumed culturally to accept the idea of telepathy as normative in a society. There would have to be an immense amount of cultural-trust without it resorting to cultural paranoia and fear. But I suspect that any society aware of telepathy among their own kind would have come to grips with this over time - or committed genocide to the offenders.

Quote from: tenbones;1025080That is true! In terms of the pulps. But I was referring to his comic-book assumed powers.

You must have read different comics. One of my favorite comics is the 4 part cross over of The Shadow and Doc Savage. The writers nicely captured the different tones and attitudes of the two heroes. Including an instance of the creepy brain surgery that Doc used to "cure" criminals.

QuoteBut even *then*... this is an ethical side-show compared to the people he pretty much kills out of hand (granted they're all bad guys).

In the pulps the Shadow is shooting down bad guys who are shooting at him or doing something tricksy like rejiggering some villains death trap so they end up gassed, electrocuted, or whatever by their own device. Even the radio plays had a few instances of the Shadow setting up a bad guy with his own trap.

Quote from: Bren;1025216You must have read different comics. One of my favorite comics is the 4 part cross over of The Shadow and Doc Savage. The writers nicely captured the different tones and attitudes of the two heroes. Including an instance of the creepy brain surgery that Doc used to "cure" criminals.

In the pulps the Shadow is shooting down bad guys who are shooting at him or doing something tricksy like rejiggering some villains death trap so they end up gassed, electrocuted, or whatever by their own device. Even the radio plays had a few instances of the Shadow setting up a bad guy with his own trap.

Hah! Nothing ethically grey here! Move along!

This might be worthy of a separate thread - killing in Supers. Because oft-repeated notion of modern vs. older era would seem this prohibition itself is a modern thing that emerged from the Comics-Code era rather than by overt choice on the writers of the Pulp era.

Quote from: tenbones;1025290This might be worthy of a separate thread - killing in Supers. Because oft-repeated notion of modern vs. older era would seem this prohibition itself is a modern thing that emerged from the Comics-Code era rather than by overt choice on the writers of the Pulp era.

I think the Comics Code was a big later influence to death free superhero conflicts. But the earlier pulps varied a lot in their level of violence and it's consequences. You had heroes like the Shadow where villains getting killed was the usual end of the story and gangland tales could have quite a bit of shooting and even bombings. But at the same time you also had the Avenger who used Mike and Ike his knife and custom .22 to disable rather than kill villains and Doc Savage who used tranquilizer bullets and other nonlethal methods of defeating his villains. I think Doc's surgical rehabilitation was kind of creepy, but it was written at a time when lobotomy and electroshock were standard of care methods of treatment. I'm sure Doc's surgery was intended to be a type of benevolent sort of rehabilitation. And honestly rewiring villains so they stop killing and stealing does beat the Arkham Asylum revolving door we see in some comics. But back to the deadly heroes you had the fever dream craziness of the Spider - Master of Men - whose stories routinely had death tolls in the hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands. Pulp stories were often targeted to very specific, often niche markets and they varied a lot in their lethality based on the intended audience and expected tone. But yeah all that may be bit of a derail in an ethics of superhero mind reading thread.

I feel like telepath stuff can carry a lot of different ideas. In one franchise it might make sense to focus on the intrusive nature of telepathy, in another it might just be a fun power.

I think like any other ability, it depends on how you use it.