PDA

View Full Version : XE Virus: which fictional or historical figures will do the most damages with it?



Inclusa
2014-Feb-28, 07:31 AM
XE Virus=Evil Virus; a person who catches it will possess superpower according to his/her "wickedness", whether it is suppressed or expressed.
A villain without power will most likely be a petty little tyrant; a villain with superpower is often called "supervillain".
I can't imagine Adolf Hitler and the Nazis with XE Virus.

Noclevername
2014-Feb-28, 07:59 AM
The worst will probably be someone we never heard of, who just didn't act out their hatefulness because they felt powerless or feared punishment. Give them power, and suddenly they'll feel free to take it out on everyone.

I've seen it happen with a little real-world power, so I can easily imagine what kind of abuse super-powers would lead to.

jokergirl
2014-Feb-28, 09:22 AM
I'm thinking Hitler wouldn't be so bad; some of his henchmen would, though.
As for other examples, I fear what serial killers would do.

;)

Shaula
2014-Feb-28, 10:00 AM
My first pet hamster. That thing was the nearest I have ever seen to a demoniacally possessed rodent.

Noclevername
2014-Feb-28, 10:24 PM
What does the XE stand for?

Inclusa
2014-Mar-01, 03:51 AM
XE is the pinyin acronym for Evil in Mandarin (Xie E); it basically turns people's evil wills into superpower.

Noclevername
2014-Mar-01, 06:27 AM
XE is the pinyin acronym for Evil in Mandarin (Xie E); it basically turns people's evil wills into superpower.

So it's like the Wild Card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Cards)virus, but all bad? Or the "evil" gene in the awful, awful Doom movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(film))?

Inclusa
2014-Mar-02, 02:31 AM
The XE virus doesn't kill anything the Wild Card virus does; it just exposes the resident evils of infected people (if a person is already a scoundrel to start with, s/he will become worse.) These people won't become monstrous or deformed, but may perform many acts of evils originally beyond their power.

Solfe
2014-Mar-02, 03:03 AM
I would vote for none of the above.

The most dangerous people are "typical" until they aren't. Most of the worst bad guys changed the rules so they could operate unfettered, a really bad person figures out how to do damage under the currently existing social norms so that the damaging effect becomes normal and expected.

It is kind of hard to talk about without tripping up in politics, but look at fun flash mobs vs. criminal flash mobs. I don't mean to pick on that one situation, but largely it is apolitical in purpose. Another one would be the current trend of computer monitoring software vs. people who call computer owners trying to extract money for PC problems that don't exist or are wholly created by the caller.

Inclusa
2014-Mar-03, 02:42 AM
I would vote for none of the above.

The most dangerous people are "typical" until they aren't. Most of the worst bad guys changed the rules so they could operate unfettered, a really bad person figures out how to do damage under the currently existing social norms so that the damaging effect becomes normal and expected.

It is kind of hard to talk about without tripping up in politics, but look at fun flash mobs vs. criminal flash mobs. I don't mean to pick on that one situation, but largely it is apolitical in purpose. Another one would be the current trend of computer monitoring software vs. people who call computer owners trying to extract money for PC problems that don't exist or are wholly created by the caller.

So, the "lawfully evil" is the worst type? Some people consider "lawfully legal" an oxymoron, though.

Solfe
2014-Mar-03, 03:11 AM
So, the "lawfully evil" is the worst type? Some people consider "lawfully legal" an oxymoron, though.

Neutral evil* is the worst type. A lawful evil doesn't subvert a system for their own ends, they use the law to increase woe for the sake of woe. A neutral evil type is able to work with the system and understand the goals of others, they use both the system and others to meet objectives. That is all fine an well if your goal is a cheese sandwich, but if you mean to wipe out tons of people, its pretty awful. The people and systems are not subverted, they are left intact as they were meant to be, meaning neither was that great to start.

Every system (including human belief or ethics) should have that "out of bounds" rule where the rules no longer apply. If you can convince people to believe there are no "out of bounds" situations, people start doing loony things. And worse, they are doing it in the belief that it is right. Its much worse when you create a system that doesn't "error out", it starts doing bad things. Since "rules" can't make choices, that's a problem.

*Assuming D&D type alignments of good and evil.

Noclevername
2014-Mar-03, 03:26 AM
Neutral evil* is the worst type. A lawful evil doesn't subvert a system for their own ends, they use the law to increase woe for the sake of woe. A neutral evil type is able to work with the system and understand the goals of others, they use both the system and others to meet objectives.

See, I would define someone who works within the system of laws as "lawful evil". Neutral evil is someone who can either keep or break the laws, as long as they do evil. At least according to all the D&D rules I've ever read.

The Lawful Evil types vary; but since they all obey the laws, they are harder to recognize as evil and harder to hold responsible for the bad they cause. They may even believe that they are the "good guys". Some of the worst acts in history have been caused by fanatics thinking the were saviors or messiahs.

Noclevername
2014-Mar-03, 03:37 AM
In fact, now that I think about it, that's the problem with this whole scenario: Good and Evil are defined by results as much as motives. A virus cannot determine whether a person will do harm because they think the ends justify the means. There have been people all through history who have acted in ways many of us would consider horrible, yet been held up as heroes within their own time and culture. Crusaders, holy warriors, defenders of the faith, and yet mass murderers, torturers, and worse.

So the "Xtra evil" virus is problematic unless one posits an intelligent disease with its own defined good and evil standards. Otherwise, it just doesn't work.

Solfe
2014-Mar-03, 03:54 AM
See, I would define someone who works within the system of laws as "lawful evil". Neutral evil is someone who can either keep or break the laws, as long as they do evil. At least according to all the D&D rules I've ever read.


The issue with neutral evil is, they are the ONLY alignment that takes the feelings and morals of others into account as a primary definition. Not even the good or lawful alignments do that, so a neutral evil will absolute bend or break a law, but they either check that it is ok first or make sure they are the person in charge... or the next person in line to be charge.

They are also not under the requirement to do evil, they just do what they want. Want a house in Tahoe? Rent it, buy it or steal it? There is a 2/3 chance they will do something totally ethical. Add in "armed insurrection followed by land redistribution" and half the time they still do the legal thing. The problem with them is you have a person actually considering "armed insurrection" while selecting "cash, credit, debit" at the grocery store. They're jerks like that. :)

As far as the virus thing, I took that to mean the viral aspect of doing right or doing wrong.

Noclevername
2014-Mar-03, 03:57 AM
As far as the virus thing, I took that to mean the viral aspect of doing right or doing wrong.

I have no idea what that means. What is the viral aspect?

Solfe
2014-Mar-03, 11:16 PM
Generally people associate by deed; if you make good choices, your friends have a tendency to make good choices. Not many criminals associate with upstanding citizens, they hang with other criminals. There is a modeling aspect to all of this, your friends have similar ideals, but also try to emulate. Usually, once you commit to doing good or doing bad, you are in it all the way. Our choices typically aren't all that grand, but can be spelled out in terms of good, nice, acceptable, bad, foolish, etc. Once you choose a path, change is painful.

Noclevername
2014-Mar-04, 12:11 AM
Generally people associate by deed; if you make good choices, your friends have a tendency to make good choices. Not many criminals associate with upstanding citizens, they hang with other criminals. There is a modeling aspect to all of this, your friends have similar ideals, but also try to emulate. Usually, once you commit to doing good or doing bad, you are in it all the way. Our choices typically aren't all that grand, but can be spelled out in terms of good, nice, acceptable, bad, foolish, etc. Once you choose a path, change is painful.

OK, what does that have to do with super powers?

Solfe
2014-Mar-04, 12:31 AM
OK, what does that have to do with super powers?

Ah... I got lost?

Inclusa
2014-Mar-11, 05:43 AM
OK, the premise is that the more "evil" a person gets, the more superpower he/she has.
Even if the conscience may question, a person may get deeper into evil due to the fear of losing the power.
The unfortunate fact is: even without such a virus, many people sink deeper into "chaotic evil" if they go unchecked.

Noclevername
2014-Mar-11, 07:47 AM
OK, the premise is that the more "evil" a person gets, the more superpower he/she has.
Even if the conscience may question, a person may get deeper into evil due to the fear of losing the power.
The unfortunate fact is: even without such a virus, many people sink deeper into "chaotic evil" if they go unchecked.

But how does a virus measure "evil"?

Inclusa
2014-Mar-13, 07:05 AM
The premise is a little puzzling, though.
I guess "evil" means going against accepted ethics in the society.....
I'm not too sure how "chaotic good" functions, though.

Solfe
2014-Mar-13, 10:32 PM
The premise is a little puzzling, though.
I guess "evil" means going against accepted ethics in the society.....
I'm not too sure how "chaotic good" functions, though.

Think Han Solo or Robin Hood: bad for the right reasons. Generally, they don't get upset about laws, the get upset about poorly applied laws then give themselves free reign to break other laws is humorous ways. They want to show up people not systems, as if they can't recognize a system of laws. Usually they never think of subverting major laws, they think in terms of bending the rules for benefit, perhaps not even their own.

Robin Hood sticks his neck out because he is more of a law man than the Sherrif and doesn't want others risking themselves. It's his weakness.