When will we get a genuine hero who uses mind control as their power?
Someone like Miss Heed but who isn’t a total jerk. Professor X doesn’t count
When will we get a genuine hero who uses mind control as their power?
When will we get a genuine hero who uses mind control as their power?
Someone like Miss Heed but who isn’t a total jerk. Professor X doesn’t count
Watch Code Geass
Jericho
She looks illiterate
I mean there's a bunch of other telepaths in the X-Men who are technically heroes. Jean Grey fits the bill, right?
Mins control is inherently evil or at the very least morally grey
Oh absolutely frick this line. Is punching someone "morally grey"? Is restraining someone "inherently evil"? Motherfrickers out there throwing lightning at people are unproblematic faves, without knowing if they're inflecting permanent nerve damage or if they have pacemakers.
Being able to literally stop a criminal in their tracks, end the threat they pose, without endangering bystanders, them, or yourself is probably a more ethical power than having to fight them.
>Is punching someone "morally grey"? Is restraining someone "inherently evil"?
No, but mind control is. They're not remotely similar. I would argue it's more moral to murder someone than mind control them.
Alright go ahead. You're not going to make a utilitarian argument because in all measurable senses be a fundamentally superior method of arresting someone from the harm they're doing or threatening to do. So what's the problem with taking control of someone, and depriving them of their autonomy by putting them in prison, or a bodycast, or a cocoon of chemicals that mimic spiderwebs morally better than taking direct control of them?
No, he's correct.
I myself would be interested in a series about a protagonist who uses mind-control but he couldn't be anything less than an antihero. Overriding someone's free will is not a good guy power. It practically screams narcissism and megalomania.
>So what's the problem with taking control of someone, and depriving them of their autonomy by putting them in prison, or a bodycast, or a cocoon of chemicals that mimic spiderwebs morally better than taking direct control of them?
The problem is that no one from the outside can guarantee the mind controller has good intentions and won't overstep their boundaries, and arguably asserting your understanding of right and wrong on someone is already oversteping.
You could argue it's the same with every vigilante, but it's similar to how Punisher is treated differentlt from most superheroes because he makes a deliberate effort to kill, making him more unpredictable and potentially dangerous since any potential harm he'd be willing to do would be more permanent compared to Spider-Man simply webbing someone up. Similarly, affecting the way someone makes decisions is a more significant violation of their agency/security than simply temporarily disabling them.
>Overriding someone's free will practically screams narcissism and megalomania.
Now megalomania I can understand. I don't get how narcissism a given. Someone who has the ability to take over another person may be experiencing their mind, feeling their feelings, their pair, memories. This has the capacity to make someone with this or any related mental power more empathetic than normally humanly possible.
>The problem is that no one from the outside can guarantee the mind controller has good intentions and won't overstep their boundaries,
Ironically no one other than someone with mental powers could definitely ascertain if another person has good intentions. Everything else relies on imperfect methods to determine how someone thinks. What they see/hear/smell/intuit based on the situation, the physical evidence, reporting, can all can be manipulated, fabricated, or destroyed leading to any number of potential issues. This being confused or abused is pretty stock comic conflict fodder.
>affecting the way someone makes decisions is a more significant violation of their agency/security than simply temporarily disabling them.
You permanently diminish a person's agency when you put them in prison for life. You eliminate it in the moment when you render them unconscious from a concussion. When people are taking direct, overt, criminal actions: why should their right to their mental autonomy be any more sacrosanct than their bodily autonomy?
However I understand your objection leans towards
>It's so easy to get away with if it's an imperceptible, untraceable, and leaves the user anonymous, etc...
What if the answer is "it's actually is obvious"? What if Lady Lobe activates her powers with a big glowing in-universe effect any time she mind controls someone? That continue as long as she controls them. Then a similarly flashy, obvious, visible, audible effect happens when the power ceases: allowing witnesses to account for their use. Then what is your objection?
>omeone who has the ability to take over another person may be experiencing their mind, feeling their feelings, their pair, memories.
That's telepathy, not mind control. Mind control is ignoring the other's feelings and forcing your own on them. Denying someone else's autonomy to make them akin to what you find comfortable.
>You permanently diminish a person's agency when you put them in prison for life. You eliminate it in the moment when you render them unconscious from a concussion. When people are taking direct, overt, criminal actions: why should their right to their mental autonomy be any more sacrosanct than their bodily autonomy?
Well, for one, because this hypothetical mind controller superhero would most likely be acting as another vigilante rather than using their powers to help the system. And even if they did help the system, that would still be seen as immoral of the system itself. The current paradigm of existence where telepathy and mind control are impossible means people treat their own thoughts as something very personal and sacred and the idea of the state interfering with that seems very disturbing to them. Basically, someone having and using mind control powers means one of two things, either a) there's an independent vigilante force that can take away your free will on a whim, or b) there's an entire state that can take away your free will on a whim. Both are pretty depressing scenarios to consider.
>What if the answer is "it's actually is obvious"? What if Lady Lobe activates her powers with a big glowing in-universe effect any time she mind controls someone?
That doesn't change much. That makes it easier to hold the mind controller accountable for any potential abuse, but that doesn't get rid of the inherent violation of something perceived as deeply intimate involved in this process.
What if there’s a mind controller who’s as pacifist. Neither a vigilante nor a cop but simply someone who will step in if something bad is happening in front of her. Someone who otherwise lives a normal life
That's a vigilante by definition. Anyone who enacts their idea of justice independently from the law is a vigilante.
Perhaps so, but I was thinking more of an occasional citizen’s arrest, though maybe not.
Regardless I personally have a mind control character I’m working on who is neither a hero nor villain. She’s an EMT who sometimes calms people down on the way to the hospital
Well that's honestly a pretty innocent fantasy, I was expecting something wilder.
Well her story is pretty wild, but I always wanted her to be a shining light of kindness in a cruel and chaotic world. A nice person with a bad power who’s doing her best to help
I think true total mind control probably won't be featured as a popular hero's power any time soon. Consider that mind control is more of a spectrum of powers though.
When you say someone has a strength power, that invites a huge scale of powers they could actually have. Are they peak human, beyond peak, godlike, there are levels to it. Just like mind control.
Wonder Woman's lasso of truth is technically a mind control implement, it's just that it is a minor form of it and used for good. I think it's reasonable to say it's likely a good hero could use a minor form of mind control,
anon is another practical application where mind control would be strictly beneficial. Maybe a therapist who helps patients make breakthroughs by bestowing them false courage to admit their problems. It's out there, it just isn't being done yet and may not be on a grand enough scale to be a main character people would inherently agree with.
>That's telepathy, not mind control.
"That's a different power" is not the answer I hoped for. It's circular reasoning to say "Mind controllers are always sociopaths" and "The application of mind control must exemplify sociopathy".
>The current paradigm of existence where telepathy and mind control are impossible means people treat their own thoughts as something very personal
By itself this would suggest with enough saturation of telepathy/mind control it would be moral? People "know about the risk". But the rest of your response seems to agree this'd more horrible because of the expectation of the violation.
>The individual or the state can violate your autonomy
When you're robing a nuclear bank and UltraSWAT is sent after you: they're trying to take away your autonomy. Threatening to killing you if they can't arrest you. Some hostage may pull out a gun and shoot you dead. Legally that's allowed, least in the US. He wants in abstract to take away your autonomy because of how you're using it. A nonlethal alternative real Police use are tasers. Weapons that discharge energy intended to cause all of your muscles to tense they can: literally blind you, cause heart attacks, shut down organs, twist your testicles, shut down your higher brain functions, cause memory loss, unconsciousness or seizures. This roundly eliminates your autonomy and capacity for thought as well. By the reasoning that "autonomy" and "free willis a cornerstone of your objection that this momentary violation would be greater than being killed.. though lesser that being forced to disarm and submit to arrest by way of mental influence.
>doesn't get rid of the inherent violation of something perceived as deeply intimate
What would? If a law said he could? If the user was a cop? If the target was given warnings before the power was used? If the target doesn't remember the experience and can't be traumatized by its experience? If the user was a god you violated religious tenants?
The application of mind control exemplifies violation of the most private and personal aspects of yourself, which is why it's seen as disturbing and not a traditionally heroic thing to do. When people are physically harmed, they can at least subconsciously find some small solace in their thoughts and reflections afterwards. Mind control is denying them even that, to an extent it's the murder of identity.
None of what you suggest would take that inherent violation awy. The way I see it, the only things that could potentially make mind control look semi-moral is if it was 1) done to a truly abhorrent person few would feel sorry for, or 2) consensual, and even then it would be a grey area because the mind controller could be arguing to be taking advantage of a vulnerable person.
Mind control doesn't exist it's fiction. And there are all sorts of ways to write it. You can make it a suggestion where the mook comes up with their own reason to punch his fellow mook "Hey I saw ya looking at my sandwhich!". You can make it a sleeplike state where they are basically a zombie with no memory. Or you can make them fully conscious and it's like a psychic battle of will thing.
If you want we can even explore the morality of it. Say the hero see's an opportunity to get something he wants but it's not exactly ethical. Or we could make the hero morally grey. Or an anti-hero. Or we could make the hero a woman because women are seen as more morally good. If a woman mind controls a guy it's not as bad as if the reverse happens. In fact it can even be 'empowering' if it's like a seductress thing.
Did you read my posts? I started by saying that any mind controller would inevitably at the very least be an anti-hero and not a villain. Because mind control at its core is about being dissatisfied with other people's very thoughts and forcing your own thoughts onto them.
>In fact it can even be 'empowering' if it's like a seductress thing.
That's a controversial topic in itself, but the reason not everyone sees it as immoral is because, for the majority of human history, the only way for women to get anywhere in life was to seduce a man.
>but the reason not everyone sees it as immoral is because, for the majority of human history, the only way for women to get anywhere in life was to seduce a man.
If I asked every person I know why a woman using mind control on a man is seen as less moral than a man none of them would give that response. So if you think "everyone sees" it as immoral you are in an echo chamber of feminisms BS. And it is preciously such echo chambers that would defend a female more so than a male character because they will always take the woman's side. You yourself have proven that. You'll conjure up the most stupid reasons to justify those instincts.
People don't have to consciously understand things to believe them. If anything most thoughts are essentially rationalizations of emotional impulses that came before them.
And I'm not justifying anything (if anything I hate the kinds of people who praise OnlyFans prostitutes for manipulating depressed lonely people into giving them money). I'm explaining the actual reason it's seen this way. Any discrepancy between how males and females are judged ties back to the fundamental differences in biology, which would usually lead to fundamental differences in social roles.
Hey, I don't wanna assume, but isn't it pretty funny how you fantasize about a mind-controlling hero and also hate trying to understand how other people think, preferring to be reductive instead? 🙂
I'm not someone that wants a mind-control hero. I'm just on the internet argueing.
>People don't have to consciously understand things to believe them. If anything most thoughts are essentially rationalizations of emotional impulses that came before them.
Yep.
You will not enter my mind, and I'll shoot you if you try to, mutie.
>Is punching someone "morally grey"
This has got to be the most moronic comparison ever a more accurate comparison would be use rape to stop criminals, physically violating vs mentally violating a person.
You've got the sequence of events completely out of order. Violence is a cause. Rape is a result. Someone gets raped after they're beaten to the point they can't fight back, or are isolated and terrorized into fearing violence, or are blackmailed, or drugged, etc. That doesn't mean everyone being extorted or catching a beating is getting raped.
I feel like that’s not a perfect comparison. Knockout gas is more similar. Or drugs injecting them with drugs
miss heed was never a jerk, a villain maybe but her motivations were based on self-interest and the desire to be loved on a grandiose scale, not malice.
otherwise i agree with you cannot be a hero with such a power.
have a nice day, andreahomosexual
no thanks <3
You homosexuals frick off, AndreaQueen is the only reason why we post here anymore, she's the coolest and hottest cartoon chick I've ever known, you two wouldn't know good taste if it bit you on the dick and shook you around like a ragdoll.
eloquently put, my delightful serf. a kiss to you.~<3
Thank you! You're always the best!
of course i'm the best, hun. you know you've made it big when you get this much attention, positive or negative. soon you will all learn to love.
>Hun
Oh, you fluster me! I'm always at your service!
that's my specialty! thank you for being so loyal to yours truly.
struck a nerve, have i? if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, love. <3
God, piss off, moron
t. miss heed
Villains are jerks.
Jesse Custer says hi and God bless.
Is this a Heed thread, or a bullshit one that just used her as a decoy for some boring topic?
It should be half Heedposting half a morality discussion
Jannies, please murder andreahomosexual
Wrong board
GO
BACK
she can’t control minds
No cause stripping someone's free will is inherently evil act regardless of your intentions
She cute
Jesse Custer?
Someone hot like Miss Heed too, with canonical porn. That would really subvert my expectations haha.
Mind control is an inherently evil ability. You can't make it heroic.
A hero story about a person with mind control powers will constantly question the ethics of having said powers.
which isn't real fun
There's no way to make Mind Control heroic as a power. It's inherently rapey and cruel to deprive someone of their free will and it will always seem fricked up even if you don't really harm them
Characters can get assaulted or even killed. That's cruel and rapey.
What if the only way you can mind control someone is by seizing control of someone's evil intent, so it doesn't work on good people?