- Location
- Germany
I seriously love your writing Lithos, but goddamn it did you have to remind me why i dislike canon MM so much?
So what is Regent? My whole point is that it's pretty hard to define "Master" such that it includes all the obvious Masters without also including "just talking" powers. (You may be able to, but I suspect it would be quite awkward)You're confusing a Thinker power with a Master power. A Thinker power would be always knowing what someone wants/needs. A Master power would be making another person want what you want.
It's not always easy to distinguish between the two. In this particular instance, Annatar could say that her power is knowing what a person wants, and it's still technically correct even if it was her power making them want it. All they have is Annatar's word against it. Miss Militia can either trust her or not. And given the persecution of master capes, not all of them would admit to having master powers, if they can explain them otherwise.You're confusing a Thinker power with a Master power. A Thinker power would be always knowing what someone wants/needs. A Master power would be making another person want what you want.
A Master. You fight him by going for him and not his minion body puppets if possible. If he's limiting himself to making people twitch and the like, then he's Blaster.So what is Regent? My whole point is that it's pretty hard to define "Master" such that it includes all the obvious Masters without also including "just talking" powers. (You may be able to, but I suspect it would be quite awkward)
Yeah I agree. As a side note I think Heartbreaker works this way as well, though he is one of the most powerful Masters ever.Take out Annatar, and her loyal confederates (who might be said to be Mastered) remain loyal and will continue to strive to do things her way, and aren't likely to be grateful to be "freed."
My point with Rune was really to illustrate how thin the line between a Shaker and a Master can be if you aren't careful to keep in mind what it is you're actually trying to rate.Yeah I agree. As a side note I think Heartbreaker works this way as well, though he is one of the most powerful Masters ever.
I'm not sure about Rune, but *shrug* not really interested in getting that deep.
The line between Shaker and Master is confusing when you realize that Rune is a Shaker, but a person who animated statues and made them fly around would be termed a "master" just because her telekinetic effect gave a semblance of creature-like motion.
I get that, though I disagree that Shakers aren't about battlefield control. Vista is 100% battlefield control, and she's a high-rated Shaker. Rune's power is also good at battlefield control. That she uses it as mid-grade attack (i.e. Blaster) and to facilitate Mover abilities is more an indication of how uncreative she is with it.I'm not so sure about that leap of logic. The nuances between Shaker, Master, Blaster are more complicated than that, IMO. Blaster powers are about direct-damage power projected by powers; it's why Rune is a Shaker, more than a Blaster. Meanwhile, Shaker powers are about territory and battlefield control, while being Manton-limited to not be able to directly affect humans/biology directly, which is why Rune *isn't* a Master. The first important qualifier of Master powers is how they allow the controlling cape to directly affect psychology and/or biology of other humans without faceplanting into their Manton Limit. Any cape that has this ability (Regent, Gallant, Glory Girl, Panacea, Bonesaw) qualify as Masters. The second important qualifier of a Master power is the ability to create, control or enhance minions; having these minions be strictly under the master's control is probably even secondary in this point; this is why Bitch, Skitter and Nilbog are/were all Masters, despite the former two not having power over humans. Minion autonomy is also a probable factor: animating a bunch of rocks or a statue to fight in human is a Shaker power if the statue collapses if the Shaker stops concentrating on moving it, but a Master power if the Master can just animate, order and forget (Master unconsciousness stopping the animated statues optional).
That said "official" in-story ratings of any kind have to be taken with a side serving of unreliable narrator. I'm pretty sure it's canon (or at least WoG from Wildbow) that the PRT deliberately inflates the Master ratings of villains and downplays or even completely glosses over those of heroic capes. And by inflates/downplays, I mean more than just the raw numbers. There's enough room for creative interpretation that they could put Panacea's power fully under Striker, for instance. In fact, thinking about the PR aspect of it, it would make complete sense for this vagueness and overlap between the categories to be deliberate, so the PRT can stay within the rules while manipulating the ratings to reinforce hero/villain biases within the population.
Regent is pretty clearly a Master power. I mean...it's a pretty classic Master power. It lets him control other people's bodies.So what is Regent? My whole point is that it's pretty hard to define "Master" such that it includes all the obvious Masters without also including "just talking" powers. (You may be able to, but I suspect it would be quite awkward)
The point is moot, though, given that the way you deal with a Thinker who can literally know you so well that he can push your buttons or bribe you perfectly to do what he wants/gain your loyalty/trick you into behaving as he wishes is the same as you deal with a Master who can implant irresistible suggestions into your mind.Being a Master doesn't mean you can't have Thinker capabilities as well. But there IS a pretty clear distinction between Thinker and Master--while a Thinker can be incredibly persuasive and manipulative, a Master doesn't have to be--a Master can influence or control you without any additional information, because its power is controlling others (where such Master powers apply; not all Masters control or influence other people; some just control things like insects).
Not entirely moot, since there are different ethical considerations regarding each of those powers.The point is moot, though, given that the way you deal with a Thinker who can literally know you so well that he can push your buttons or bribe you perfectly to do what he wants/gain your loyalty/trick you into behaving as he wishes is the same as you deal with a Master who can implant irresistible suggestions into your mind.
Yes and no. If I can figure out how to push your buttons until you will react in a way that is malfeasant but serves my ends, even if it's totally your choice to do so (albeit an emotional one), it's still pretty unethical.Not entirely moot, since there are different ethical considerations regarding each of those powers.
Taylor exerts influence on a level that has some people worried that it's a Master effect, when she's actually just got an intuitive understanding of what people want. If she were stripping people of their free will in some way, it would be wrong for her to use her power on friendlies, civilians, etc. Instead, the biggest ethical consideration is whether it's okay to hire her to do your Christmas shopping for you.
But not in a way that has anything at all to do with her powers. Bribing someone is wrong because it's a bribe, not because her power lets her pick a good one.Yes and no. If I can figure out how to push your buttons until you will react in a way that is malfeasant but serves my ends, even if it's totally your choice to do so (albeit an emotional one), it's still pretty unethical.
The fact that you have to come up with a scenario where the person has to specifically ask for the powers to be used in order for their use to be ethical is enough to show that it's ethically a different situation than just knowing what people want, which has no such moral stipulations.On the other hand, if you can actually change people's desires, and somebody with a horrible drug habit came to you and begged you to help them by making them want more strongly to get off drugs than they want to get their next fix, and you made that shift for them, you'd be perfectly ethical, because even if your mind-controlled them, it was a mind-control they both wanted before and after you instituted it, so it was a form of helping them be the person they wanted to be.
Then the problem is that she's overthrowing the PRT, not that she's really persuasive. It would be just as wrong for her to attempt this even if her persuasive ability were basically nil.Ethics of social influence can be complicated. If Taylor were to use her ability to influence people via understanding them to convince them to help her overthrow the PRT, for instance, that would be rather rightfully treated as a Master effect. "Don't let Annatar talk to you; she'll sway you to her side!"
The biggest single problem with the PRT ratings is that they lump 'minions' and 'mind control' in under the same heading.As a useful "here's an idea how to deal with these guys," a lot of the "master" ratings are lousy. "Skitter is Master 7! We have to go in prepared to take out our own guys if they get Mastered!" is as useless as "Valefor is Master 6! We have to keep our eyes on him and ignore his minions to maximize our chance of taking him out!"
My point really isn't about ethics; it's about the PRT rating system being supposedly there to help prepare people to make proper tactical decisions. So my bad for being side-tracked on the ethical debate, but the point I was trying to make to begin with is precisely that "tactical equivocation" is the whole point of the rating system. It's about selecting the right tactics.Also, you're engaging in (for lack of a better term) tactical equivocation. Just because you would use the same tactics to deal with a persuasive person trying to overthrow the PRT that you would use against a mind-controlling person trying to overthrow the PRT does not make persuasion and mind-control morally equivalent.
Maybe not the biggest, but it is certainly in the top 5.The biggest single problem with the PRT ratings is that they lump 'minions' and 'mind control' in under the same heading.
The biggest single problem with the PRT ratings is that they lump 'minions' and 'mind control' in under the same heading.
Yes, but the threat from 'guy who has projections' is completely different from 'guy who can make your allies turn on you'.Well, that's because they're threat ratings. They're about how to take down a cape with that type of power, not how the power works.
I think you're missing a good portion of the system's point. From what I've gathered of canon and fanon, the main point of the rating system is actually to enable quick cooperation between capes unfamiliar with each other (primarily in Endbringer fights), without a whole introduction session of everyone explaining their powers. I don't think the rating system is really about creating a shorthand list of appropriate tactical choices for bringing down a cape, even if it can be used as such in a pinch. When cape vs cape fights are concerned, the most utility that should be pulled solely out of the rating system (as opposed to prior experience and reported information beyond the raw ratings) is basic threat assessment, rather than specific tactical guidelines. Things like "Should we avoid those guys or fight them?" "Does our team cover all the bases against them or do they have a power we can't counter?"; at most "Which capes in that group are the priority targets for us?"."tactical equivocation" is the whole point of the rating system.
Didn't you just describe tactical equivocation in the manner I was saying it's used? I feel like I just read, "No, no, you're totally wrong; it's exactly what you said it is."I think you're missing a good portion of the system's point. From what I've gathered of canon and fanon, the main point of the rating system is actually to enable quick cooperation between capes unfamiliar with each other (primarily in Endbringer fights), without a whole introduction session of everyone explaining their powers. I don't think the rating system is really about creating a shorthand list of appropriate tactical choices for bringing down a cape, even if it can be used as such in a pinch. When cape vs cape fights are concerned, the most utility that should be pulled solely out of the rating system (as opposed to prior experience and reported information beyond the raw ratings) is basic threat assessment, rather than specific tactical guidelines. Things like "Should we avoid those guys or fight them?" "Does our team cover all the bases against them or do they have a power we can't counter?"; at most "Which capes in that group are the priority targets for us?".
Basically, the rating system is handy for deciding if it's a good idea to scrap up with an opponent in the first place, but a competent fighting cape doesn't put so much faith in it as to make tactical decisions off it.
Making us wait an extra negative 24 hours? You monster!I feel quite silly for not realizing this sooner, but I won't be at my PC on Friday. As such, the chapter that would have been released then will instead be released tomorrow. So sorry for the inconvenience of releasing a chapter early.
Now to see if I can finish Blaze before posting time. Be nice to have an entire arc of backlog, even for only a few hours...
"It's not glitter, it's majesty!"