Quiver Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 How does Prime Invincibility interact with power corruption? Megan says that, whenever she reincarnates, she finds it hardest to control herself. I took that to mean that the reincarnation "counts" as her using her powers (and apparently it counts as using them a lot). What I'm curious about, however, is Steelheart. We know that he has invulnerable skin. Like Obliteration teleporting, it doesn't seem to be something Steel heart can control or turn off. Would someone with invulnerability "count" as constantly using their powers, even if they weren't being attacked? Does that mean epics with the prime invincibility are more susceptible to being corrupted? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1616 Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 How does Prime Invincibility interact with power corruption? Megan says that, whenever she reincarnates, she finds it hardest to control herself. I took that to mean that the reincarnation "counts" as her using her powers (and apparently it counts as using them a lot). What I'm curious about, however, is Steelheart. We know that he has invulnerable skin. Like Obliteration teleporting, it doesn't seem to be something Steel heart can control or turn off. Would someone with invulnerability "count" as constantly using their powers, even if they weren't being attacked? Does that mean epics with the prime invincibility are more susceptible to being corrupted? From how I understand it, passive powers do not trigger the corruption, or at the very least only add the the corruption when they are needed. For example, in the Steelheart prologue, when Steelheart shows up he's not in a furious fit of rage. He doesn't seem to be under a lot of the corruption's influence at the time. A theory I've had for some time now is that there are no passive powers, and instead there are manually activated powers, and automatically activated powers. If this were the case, Steelheart's skin would only be indestructible when under the influence of something that would destroy it to some degree. Likewise, Obliteration's teleportation only activates when he's in danger. I haven't put much thought into this though, so there might be something blatant that I'm missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgedancer Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 From how I understand it, passive powers do not trigger the corruption, or at the very least only add the the corruption when they are needed. For example, in the Steelheart prologue, when Steelheart shows up he's not in a furious fit of rage. He doesn't seem to be under a lot of the corruption's influence at the time. A theory I've had for some time now is that there are no passive powers, and instead there are manually activated powers, and automatically activated powers. If this were the case, Steelheart's skin would only be indestructible when under the influence of something that would destroy it to some degree. Likewise, Obliteration's teleportation only activates when he's in danger. I haven't put much thought into this though, so there might be something blatant that I'm missing. General rage is a pretty bad indicator for the corruption, although he did get rather wrathful when David's father shoot him, transforming an entire city and all that. He already had the "I am a god and these are my people" mindset, showing plenty of corruption. There is some merit to the idea. Given that from Prof we know that powers such as healing can be deactivated but on the other hand Calamity does not seem like the kind of guy that is interested in playing fair concerning the corruption, so it would be entirely possible that Epics such as Steelheart are simply screwed and won't even get the chance to avoid their corruption. One way or another, we can't know for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhoof Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 It feels wrong that Brandon would give some Epics a complete inability to avoid the corruption. If passive powers don't count unless activated, every Epic has the choice and the chance (no matter how unlikely or small) to face their fear or stave off the corruption through force of will. Calamity might not play fair, but I feel like Brandon would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgedancer Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 It feels wrong that Brandon would give some Epics a complete inability to avoid the corruption. If passive powers don't count unless activated, every Epic has the choice and the chance (no matter how unlikely or small) to face their fear or stave off the corruption through force of will. Calamity might not play fair, but I feel like Brandon would. But it's entirely possible that the events of Calamity will change how Epic powers work, so that may be Brandon's version of playing fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angsos Posted August 22, 2015 Report Share Posted August 22, 2015 It probably goes to who the person was before and willpower. Steelheart and Newton were evil before they got powers. Prof was good before and he was strong enough to come back however many time. Sorcefield probably wasn't evil before; she just couldn't resist calamity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiLyghtSansSparkles Posted August 22, 2015 Report Share Posted August 22, 2015 It probably goes to who the person was before and willpower. Steelheart and Newton were evil before they got powers. Prof was good before and he was strong enough to come back however many time. Sorcefield probably wasn't evil before; she just couldn't resist calamity. I'm not sure "evil" is the best way to describe pre-Calamity Newton. She did kill someone as a minor, which is a horrible thing to do, but we have no information on the circumstances of that person's death. It could have been manslaughter or even a complete accident, with enough circumstantial evidence to send her to prison. Now, the circumstances of that person's death don't make their death right by any stretch, but I seem to recall reading that Newton never killed for sport or even to send a message after gaining her powers. Just "quiet executions of rival gang members." That, to me, says Yunmi Park felt enough remorse and horror at her actions for that to inform her motives as an Epic. Were she outright evil before Calamity, I think she would have been as notorious a murderer as Fortuity, having gained a taste for it before she ever got her powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhoof Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 It probably goes to who the person was before and willpower. Steelheart and Newton were evil before they got powers. Prof was good before and he was strong enough to come back however many time. Sorcefield probably wasn't evil before; she just couldn't resist calamity. most Epics probably weren't evil, just like most people aren't evil. But most people are certainly apathetic and will take the easiest option. And when you have superpowers, no consequences for any of your actions, no morality whatsoever to eliminate evil options, and are faced with an obstacle? Yeah, killing people would never be out of the question, especially if they annoy you. I'm not sure "evil" is the best way to describe pre-Calamity Newton. She did kill someone as a minor, which is a horrible thing to do, but we have no information on the circumstances of that person's death. It could have been manslaughter or even a complete accident, with enough circumstantial evidence to send her to prison. Now, the circumstances of that person's death don't make their death right by any stretch, but I seem to recall reading that Newton never killed for sport or even to send a message after gaining her powers. Just "quiet executions of rival gang members." That, to me, says Yunmi Park felt enough remorse and horror at her actions for that to inform her motives as an Epic. Were she outright evil before Calamity, I think she would have been as notorious a murderer as Fortuity, having gained a taste for it before she ever got her powers. Well Newton killed/had those fruit-throwers killed in Firefight, so she wasn't adverse to it. Although the fact that she went to parties and people didn't quickly vacate the room indicates that she wasn't prone to unprovoked violence, as you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgedancer Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Well Newton killed/had those fruit-throwers killed in Firefight, so she wasn't adverse to it. Although the fact that she went to parties and people didn't quickly vacate the room indicates that she wasn't prone to unprovoked violence, as you say. I'd have to go and check my book but wasn't she at least implied to have been worse, before Regalia forced her to behave? Edited August 24, 2015 by Edgedancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhoof Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 That's true, the gangs (and thus presumably Newton) were running rampant before Regalia reined them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts