Question Hero/Villain Chart

Putting this in Games and Diversions because I think that it will be a fun little experiment.



If you look under the spoiler you will see a Graph.

On the Y-axis is the morality of a character. Positive for Virtuous. Negative for Amoral.

On the X-axis is the power of a character. Now you maybe thinking how do you rate power when there is a mess of different power levels for different mutants and dynamorphs. Well easy, here we are going to define the power of a character of how they shape and change the world around them.

Negative X-axis is Regular Joe, Positive X-axis is the Rothchilds family. Both have money, but one can actively affect the world around them on a whim.

So for example list out coordinates( x , y )

Aquerna might be a ( -9/-8 , 7/8 )


Edit= Trying new chart.

THIS POST

One wonders how you intend to define your deviations? With only twenty two degrees of separation between the 'average' person and an international banking clan that's more than a little vague. And speaking of that average person, what stage of life is he in? Just heading to college or just getting out? Newly weds? Married with Kids and a mortgage? These are very different averages and we haven't even discussed a topic as nebulous as 'morality'.

I'll be interested to see more information.

Whose virtues and sins are we basing this on?

That is a good question. For all we know Dr Reaper is absolutely correct. But in absence of absolute proof that he is correct we must act as if he is mistaken and therefore evil.

Two examples that you simply can't place:

Dr. Dad: His goals are noble, he's very powerful, and he treats his hirelings with utter respect. But he's also totally amoral in his methods, and completely unrelatable because his views are so full of conviction but so counter to societal norms. But on the other hand, he loves and protects his children like any father who is away on business most of the time. And he also came off as very humble and easy to get along with when he met The Outcasts in Australia.

Strega: Publicly, she seems utterly amoral, completely off her rocker in terms of how she thinks Fino/Fina should follow her behavior, but very noble and virtuous towards those who don't cross her. She goes out of her way to keep innocents from harm, but ruthlessly murders or turns her enemies. Oh...and off the charts powerful. But at her heart, she's a very devoted, if stern, single mother.

What about making the X axis a matter of negative to positive use of power (money, political power, eye beams) in term of lives and critical infrastrure cost or destroyed vs. saved or built? "Joe Average" might sit at (0,0) but it would take literally world-saving heroes or world-wrecking villains to out-perform an "unpowered" Gandhi or Stalin.

Not sure what to do about Y axis, but focusing on "needs of the many" vs. "needs of the few" vs. "destruction of the many" may be a way of looking at it.

E. E. Nalley wrote: One wonders how you intend to define your deviations? With only twenty two degrees of separation between the 'average' person and an international banking clan that's more than a little vague. And speaking of that average person, what stage of life is he in? Just heading to college or just getting out? Newly weds? Married with Kids and a mortgage? These are very different averages and we haven't even discussed a topic as nebulous as 'morality'.

I'll be interested to see more information.

Well to try put this chart into perspective, we as readers and pretty 'normal' people. We would be -13 on the x axis. It doesn't stop, it keeps going. We are all completely relatable. We can all understand or try to understand each others problems,fears, and even dreams.

Our society with our laws would probably operate on the 1 to -1 y-axis. Since we don't have supers it makes it a little easier. In the Whateley Verse their society would probably operate on 2 to -2 y axis.

null0trooper wrote: Whose virtues and sins are we basing this on?

Your own/you. That's really the only person who can really understand...well the stuff that makes up you.

Anne wrote: That is a good question. For all we know Dr Reaper is absolutely correct. But in absence of absolute proof that he is correct we must act as if he is mistaken and therefore evil.

Katssun wrote: Two examples that you simply can't place:

Dr. Dad: His goals are noble, he's very powerful, and he treats his hirelings with utter respect. But he's also totally amoral in his methods, and completely unrelatable because his views are so full of conviction but so counter to societal norms. But on the other hand, he loves and protects his children like any father who is away on business most of the time. And he also came off as very humble and easy to get along with when he met The Outcasts in Australia.

Strega: Publicly, she seems utterly amoral, completely off her rocker in terms of how she thinks Fino/Fina should follow her behavior, but very noble and virtuous towards those who don't cross her. She goes out of her way to keep innocents from harm, but ruthlessly murders or turns her enemies. Oh...and off the charts powerful. But at her heart, she's a very devoted, if stern, single mother.

I lump all these together and try to answer them all in one swoop. The Chart really only works the more we see in the inner workings of a character. Since we have multiple limited POV characters we can seen different sides of characters. From a male perspective men might think Hippolyta is mean and heartless. But from a female perspective we find out why she is that way and how different she can be. So rather than seeing 180* of a character we see 300*.

So for doctor Reaper yea we have only seen one side of him and we really don't know why he does those things. However, we do see the other sides/flaws/good parts of Strega and Dr. Dad.

We see a superpowered mother who wants the best for her children in Strega. Relatable, Moral. Protects who she sees as innocent. Virtuous, but shows she has her own moral code, different from society. Kills her enemies. Amoral/powerful. So for Strega I would put her ( 2/3 , -4/-5 )

Dr. Dad is actually easier to place (IMO) because he has clear goals, and what he will will do to accomplish his goals, and just because he is respectful shows he also operates on his own moral code. The difference being is that with Strega and Dr. Dad we can relate to them being parents. We can all chuckle to Strega having a thought int he middle of battle "Did i leave the iron on?". Whereas Dr. Dad having the thought, "Did I leave the Quantum Quantumnator on Energize?" It might be funny, but we have no frame of reference. So for him i would think (7, -7)

Edit: Since I was typing this up when you responded Null

null0trooper wrote: What about making the X axis a matter of negative to positive use of power (money, political power, eye beams) in term of lives and critical infrastrure cost or destroyed vs. saved or built? "Joe Average" might sit at (0,0) but it would take literally world-saving heroes or world-wrecking villains to out-perform an "unpowered" Gandhi or Stalin.

Not sure what to do about Y axis, but focusing on "needs of the many" vs. "needs of the few" vs. "destruction of the many" may be a way of looking at it.

Maybe Ill change the x axis to fit better. But the Y axis needs to be just two as I don't have a 3d modeling program for the z-axis. ; - ;

If you put us readers universally at -13 on the x-axis, you very much need to come up with a new x-axis in its entirety.

Regular in-reality, human beings can be anywhere along the scale of, "Relatable to 0" and even into the, "0 to Influential to Powerful" side of the x-axis.

That's what a "sense of humor" is, and the very purpose it serves as a social construct. If your peers tell a joke you genuinely cackle, guffaw, giggle, laugh at, or otherwise lose your shit at, you and they have similar values and views, whether you're innocent and naive, or genuinely and truly unempathetic. You can always tell when someone is "out of phase" with the sense of humor of your and your peers. They, "don't quite get it," and are either confused or offended by things your group finds hilarious. Vice versa, they may belly laugh at something you merely smirk at.

Someone influential and powerful has the charisma to transcend that boundary. Or someone relatable fits snugly into your peer group and struggles to branch out of it.

It's all relative.

I'd go more toward "Selfish" vs "Selfless" (which has its own problems) or even more "Lawful" vs "Chaos". There is a reason D&D alignments are such a good system!

OK lets try this new chart

Anne wrote: That is a good question. For all we know Dr Reaper is absolutely correct. But in absence of absolute proof that he is correct we must act as if he is mistaken and therefore evil.

Being mistaken doesn't make somebody evil. It just makes them mistaken. They might be so dangerously mistaken that it is prudent and moral to bring very lethal force to bear against them, but that doesn't require assuming that they're evil.

Anne was a bit imprecise. A mistaken person might not be evil inasmuch that they might have the best intentions, true; but nevertheless, if they are mistaken, their acts can be evil, and they can be seen as consistently doing evil work.

Sir Lee wrote: Anne was a bit imprecise. A mistaken person might not be evil inasmuch that they might have the best intentions, true; but nevertheless, if they are mistaken, their acts can be evil, and they can be seen as consistently doing evil work.

so chaotic Neutral?

Well, to me at least, the word evil doesn't just mean extreme badness. It means intentional extreme badness. By that definition, Dr. Reaper's actions are not evil, since (presumably) he's actively trying to save the world the best way he knows how. His actions are terrifically bad, yes, but not evil. As opposed to the Necromancer's actions, for example, which are clearly motivated by greed and malice, not misguided altruism. The Necromancer is simultaneously less bad and more evil than Dr. Reaper.

Kettlekorn wrote: Well, to me at least, the word evil doesn't just mean extreme badness. It means intentional extreme badness. By that definition, Dr. Reaper's actions are not evil, since (presumably) he's actively trying to save the world the best way he knows how. His actions are terrifically bad, yes, but not evil. As opposed to the Necromancer's actions, for example, which are clearly motivated by greed and malice, not misguided altruism. The Necromancer is simultaneously less bad and more evil than Dr. Reaper.

That assumes that Dr. Reaper is telling the truth. Also that he looked for other ways to save the world, but couldn't find any less lethal methods.

As a simple statement, the underlying idea here is flawed. For evidence, find any of the many, many arguments from the last four to five DECADES about D&D alignment charts.

Simply put, pretty much everyone is the hero to their own perspective.
Even the people who would be classed as chaotic evil.

Because from their own perspective, they're the good guys because they're combating the evils of sloth, apathy, indolence, and ignorance when they slaughter the 'sheeple'. Rare is the person who actually views themselves as objectively evil and objectively a villain, with no justification.

Consider, for instance, Tether's family. Michelle knows that they would be considered on the evil scale for a child's view of good and evil, but justifies their small-time thuggery by pointing out that the flows and trappings of power simply mean they're just trying to get their chip in the pot.

My personal definition of evil is somebody who finds joy in causing suffering. Someone who finds joy in eliminating suffering is good. Someone who is only interested in their personal well-being and doesn't care how their actions affect others is amoral. An evil act is one that causes more suffering than it eliminates*, and evil acts can be performed by any of the above categories of people. The difference is that a good person will naturally try to minimize their evil acts, while an amoral person must be convinced that evil acts will be less effective at achieving their goals than good ones, and an evil person can never be convinced to stop their evil acts, because the acts themselves are the goal.

In summary, a good person must be educated so that they avoid inadvertent evil, an amoral person must be manipulated** so that evil is less desirable, and an evil person must be isolated.

And everybody has a little bit of all three in them. The question is where the balances lie.

*I generally consider suffering to be non-quantifiable. Which kind of makes the above definition absurd. Make of that what you will.

** generally speaking, you achieve this manipulation not by tricking the person but instead by changing the costs and rewards of their decisions. For example: punishing theft, or rewarding charity. I see this as the fundamental role of government in a community, but that's a digression.

Kaitha39 wrote: As a simple statement, the underlying idea here is flawed. For evidence, find any of the many, many arguments from the last four to five DECADES about D&D alignment charts.

Simply put, pretty much everyone is the hero to their own perspective.
Even the people who would be classed as chaotic evil.

Because from their own perspective, they're the good guys because they're combating the evils of sloth, apathy, indolence, and ignorance when they slaughter the 'sheeple'. Rare is the person who actually views themselves as objectively evil and objectively a villain, with no justification.

Consider, for instance, Tether's family. Michelle knows that they would be considered on the evil scale for a child's view of good and evil, but justifies their small-time thuggery by pointing out that the flows and trappings of power simply mean they're just trying to get their chip in the pot.

I have to disagree, there are characters out that are just evil for evils sake. I've played them in D&D campaigns, times when I've taken command of undead and sent them at the nearest village, just because I could. Started riots, just because it was fun.

Arcanist Lupus wrote: An evil act is one that causes more suffering than it eliminates

Evil is a very strong word. Like, "we should probably go kill them" strong. So I don't think it's a good idea to call an action that's just slightly more bad than good evil. Even an action that's significantly bad. Say somebody stole my truck while I was asleep in my home. That would cause me some suffering, but I would not call it evil. I would call it very bad, perhaps even loathsome. I'd even say that it would justify me using lethal force to stop them from doing it if I woke up and caught them at it. But evil? No. It is not sufficiently extreme or vile.

Kettlekorn wrote:

Arcanist Lupus wrote: An evil act is one that causes more suffering than it eliminates

Evil is a very strong word. Like, "we should probably go kill them" strong. So I don't think it's a good idea to call an action that's just slightly more bad than good evil. Even an action that's significantly bad. Say somebody stole my truck while I was asleep in my home. That would cause me some suffering, but I would not call it evil. I would call it very bad, perhaps even loathsome. I'd even say that it would justify me using lethal force to stop them from doing it if I woke up and caught them at it. But evil? No. It is not sufficiently extreme or vile.

You might be right. I have not examined my definition for evil acts nearly as much as my definition for evil people.

Let me drop a little something that I came up with years ago:


MORGAN'S SCALE OF SUBJECTIVE MORALITY
When you scrape away all the justifications and self-serving sophistry, Morality tends to devolve into a matter of three basic distinctions:

If something wants to eat Them, then it's 'Aggressive'

If something wants to eat You, then it's 'Dangerous',

But if something wants to eat ME, then it's EVIL, and it must be destroyed at ALL COSTS!

Bek D Corbin wrote: But if something wants to eat ME, then it's EVIL, and it must be destroyed at ALL COSTS!

But if it does eat you and dies, you're poisonous. There may or may not be a lesson for its progeny to learn about poor meal choices and the long-term survival of that species.

Ebola wrote:

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ] [ Click to hide ]

OK lets try this new chart

Soooo....

Where would you place a character who places his loyalty to his employer's bottom line above all nearly all else except maybe his assigned mission, followed by specific family members, his crew, and really only counts himself as it affects them. (Normally not very far above the helpful guideline "No unnecessary killing." And that has caused numerous problems when "This person needs to die before they get me killed." conflicts with "They're not totally worthless to the mission/company")

Mind you, he does tell potential employers and crew up-front that he will take no job that targets said employer, and that anyone shooting a cop is going to be the next to die. Consequently, even on side jobs it's assumed he represents the company's interests (Yes. Of course he makes a full report to his superiors afterwards ... and nothing's going to save them if they are acting against the Company's interests.)

He does reward those who do good work for him, because that's just how business works. (Everyone needs a slice of the pie. Everyone wants more. If the pie isn't big enough to go around; then more pie must be made. Those who get caught taking more than what's coming don't get more.) So if an info broker says, X is the price for Y data, he pays that with the understanding that the price of future business will go down if it isn't worth that if he survives using it. (This has come up, and the broker was entertained by watching the character bluescreen trying to understand how anyone could proceed otherwise.)

If he happens to break a freaking troll's arm in the mosh pit ... well that's a known risk, right? It's just good practice to set and heal it. If the troll's cute, maybe buy him a beer...

OR, does there come a point where insanity just doesn't fit any of the curves?