The power of love--Firefight spoilers

[Stormgate he/him]

In Firefight, David finds Prof doing chemical reactions he had performed for his class, saying they seemed to push the evil Epic thoughts down, and Megan said spending time with David also helped push down the thoughts. We know Megan loves David, and it's reasonable to assume that Prof loved his students. While facing their fears was how to permanently get rid of their Epic thoughts, it seems that the things they love also help with those. This probably applies only to the Epic's that were good before they became an Epic, like Conflux, Firefight, and Prof.

Also, Megan said she would strangle someone if the secret was the power of love. Let's hope David has a thick neck.

Or at least some bad metaphors.

[Haradion Drogon]

Okay.
Firstly, I just want to apologise, because I haven't actually answered your question.
Instead, it made me question something:
Such as how we differentiate "Epic" Thoughts, from normal, human "Evil" Thoughts.

 

We assume that Epics are "Afflicted" with something, something which impairs their abilities to do good in the world.
I wanted to explore that thought.

Because I think its interesting.

It concerns the nature, of how we define criminal and moral responsibility.

So be warned, I am something of a ramble here, so please feel free to ignore it.

 

 

So.

To begin again.

You've actually reminded me of something I really liked about the Reckoner's series.

And that is the question:
"What do we do with people who have evil impulses, but still desire normality and morality?"

 

Can Epics be considered to be truly evil?

How much is "Their Fault". They didn't chose the Epicness which corrupts them. They just are.

But it raises an interesting point.

Consider the following:

 

To lack the filters that normally bind a person from committing unspeakable acts.

To have the knowledge of morality, and yet not experience it - or even worse, to experience both the impulses to do terrible things, while retaining the disgust for such behaviour?

What is the ethical response there?

Do we treat them as people who are sick? But if we do that, does it diminish ones responsibility?

 

I ask a question, on the nature of Conscience.

Why do we not commit what is considered by our conscience to be wrong? Why does that conscience sometimes prevail and sometimes not?

When we act contrary to our conscience we experience guilt, proving that knowing, or even believing something is wrong, is not enough to prevent that action.

 

While I am no psychologist, and couldn't tell you for certain, I am willing to guess that, just as there are arsonists, murderers or rapists who commit crimes, there must, logically, be people who experience whatever disorder, corruption or trait, and yet, are able to overcome their instinct to do wrong.

And I don't know if that's a comforting thought - that there might be dozens of "potential" Rapists, who actively resist such notions every day of their lives - as an Epic does. Such an individual is clearly in desperate need of help (but that is a seperate issue).

 

In a sense, we tend to be lenient on the Epics themselves, pointing out that it is Calamity that twists them into monsters, not their own and active choice.

That is fascinating for me.

When Conflux went nuts, he wasn't truly at fault, because he didn't *chose* to commit evil. He was twisted into it by Calamity. Corrupted by the Epic Powers.

Yet, how then do we portion blame?

Most people would never dream of committing a hedious crime like rape or murder.

And so - rightly - we judge them when they do and implement our laws.

Except, they have already - by even *considering* committing a crime, established themselves to be fundementally different to the rest of society.

So, can we judge them by the same standards?

Consider the question:

An Epic commits mass murder. And, due to some trait that differentiates from him from humanity, we mitigate his fault.

And yet, if a Human in RL commits the same crime, we are much more critical.

Why do you suppose this is?

Is a person who has even been capable of such a crime, not substantially different from the rest of humanity?

The Madness, the affliction, that gives humans the capability to do great wrong, in effect, decreases the culpability of the wrong.

 

 

Why is this important?

Well, we see in Firefight, that some Epics can and DO resist the evilness.

 

So does that mean that all of the others Epics who did not ARE Somehow culpable? For not trying hard enough to achieve what Megan and Prof Achieved?

WHY only those two?
Clearly there is a component of self restraint there.

Conclusion:

Perhapes the answer isn't some great secret.

Perhapes the answer is as simple as being strong enough to do the right thing.

Having the thoughts, the desires to commit atrocities, is not in itself a thing restricted to Epics.
Humans can have it to.

And we hold Humans to standards of living, despite their thoughts.
So, why not hold Epics to it?

I wonder, if the weakness, is a giant Psychological thing, rendered all the more potent by Calamities power, who, upon giving them powers, floods them with emotion, anger, hatred, all aimed at finding that breaking point.

This is what allows the epics their truley murderous thoughts.

Their inability to resist it, is purely self inflicted.

 

Consider:

Calamity selected psychopaths, humans with the primal, bestial urges, wanton selfishness and moral apathy, and cruelty to become epics.

As more and more Epics turned to cruelty and evil, people began to draw the dots, and connect them.

Once Epics were suspected of losing their moral compass, it became self fulfilling.

The Humans who were already psychopaths went on dangerous killing sprees.

 

Then, when future epics become more and more used to the idea of Calamity eroding their will and conscience, that they begin to adapt to it. They become morally desensitised to the whole thing.

 

A Key point for me, is that, apart from the rending, most epics aren't Evil, so much as they are completely amoral.

They want things.
And they don't have them.

So they'll kill you for your things.

They become, simple minded. Like children, with unformed moral codes.

When a person has something else to hold on to, they trust in someone else to dictate their Moral Codes for them. They surrender to their inability to discern right from wrong, and trust in David, or Prof's Kids, to do it for them.

 

 

 

Anyway, that went on longer than expected.

Umm...

 

Sorry for the essay.

Those are more halfbaked thoughts, than a true answer.

Sorry.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Okay.

Firstly, I just want to apologise, because I haven't actually answered your question.

Instead, it made me question something:

Such as how we differentiate "Epic" Thoughts, from normal, human "Evil" Thoughts.

 

We assume that Epics are "Afflicted" with something, something which impairs their abilities to do good in the world.

I wanted to explore that thought.

Because I think its interesting.

It concerns the nature, of how we define criminal and moral responsibility.

So be warned, I am something of a ramble here, so please feel free to ignore it.

 

 

So.

To begin again.

You've actually reminded me of something I really liked about the Reckoner's series.

And that is the question:

"What do we do with people who have evil impulses, but still desire normality and morality?"

 

Can Epics be considered to be truly evil?

How much is "Their Fault". They didn't chose the Epicness which corrupts them. They just are.

But it raises an interesting point.

Consider the following:

 

To lack the filters that normally bind a person from committing unspeakable acts.

To have the knowledge of morality, and yet not experience it - or even worse, to experience both the impulses to do terrible things, while retaining the disgust for such behaviour?

What is the ethical response there?

Do we treat them as people who are sick? But if we do that, does it diminish ones responsibility?

 

I ask a question, on the nature of Conscience.

Why do we not commit what is considered by our conscience to be wrong? Why does that conscience sometimes prevail and sometimes not?

When we act contrary to our conscience we experience guilt, proving that knowing, or even believing something is wrong, is not enough to prevent that action.

 

While I am no psychologist, and couldn't tell you for certain, I am willing to guess that, just as there are arsonists, murderers or rapists who commit crimes, there must, logically, be people who experience whatever disorder, corruption or trait, and yet, are able to overcome their instinct to do wrong.

And I don't know if that's a comforting thought - that there might be dozens of "potential" Rapists, who actively resist such notions every day of their lives - as an Epic does. Such an individual is clearly in desperate need of help (but that is a seperate issue).

 

In a sense, we tend to be lenient on the Epics themselves, pointing out that it is Calamity that twists them into monsters, not their own and active choice.

That is fascinating for me.

When Conflux went nuts, he wasn't truly at fault, because he didn't *chose* to commit evil. He was twisted into it by Calamity. Corrupted by the Epic Powers.

Yet, how then do we portion blame?

Most people would never dream of committing a hedious crime like rape or murder.

And so - rightly - we judge them when they do and implement our laws.

Except, they have already - by even *considering* committing a crime, established themselves to be fundementally different to the rest of society.

So, can we judge them by the same standards?

Consider the question:

An Epic commits mass murder. And, due to some trait that differentiates from him from humanity, we mitigate his fault.

And yet, if a Human in RL commits the same crime, we are much more critical.

Why do you suppose this is?

Is a person who has even been capable of such a crime, not substantially different from the rest of humanity?

The Madness, the affliction, that gives humans the capability to do great wrong, in effect, decreases the culpability of the wrong.

 

 

Why is this important?

Well, we see in Firefight, that some Epics can and DO resist the evilness.

 

So does that mean that all of the others Epics who did not ARE Somehow culpable? For not trying hard enough to achieve what Megan and Prof Achieved?

WHY only those two?

Clearly there is a component of self restraint there.

Conclusion:

Perhapes the answer isn't some great secret.

Perhapes the answer is as simple as being strong enough to do the right thing.

Having the thoughts, the desires to commit atrocities, is not in itself a thing restricted to Epics.

Humans can have it to.

And we hold Humans to standards of living, despite their thoughts.

So, why not hold Epics to it?

I wonder, if the weakness, is a giant Psychological thing, rendered all the more potent by Calamities power, who, upon giving them powers, floods them with emotion, anger, hatred, all aimed at finding that breaking point.

This is what allows the epics their truley murderous thoughts.

Their inability to resist it, is purely self inflicted.

 

Consider:

Calamity selected psychopaths, humans with the primal, bestial urges, wanton selfishness and moral apathy, and cruelty to become epics.

As more and more Epics turned to cruelty and evil, people began to draw the dots, and connect them.

Once Epics were suspected of losing their moral compass, it became self fulfilling.

The Humans who were already psychopaths went on dangerous killing sprees.

 

Then, when future epics become more and more used to the idea of Calamity eroding their will and conscience, that they begin to adapt to it. They become morally desensitised to the whole thing.

 

A Key point for me, is that, apart from the rending, most epics aren't Evil, so much as they are completely amoral.

They want things.

And they don't have them.

So they'll kill you for your things.

They become, simple minded. Like children, with unformed moral codes.

When a person has something else to hold on to, they trust in someone else to dictate their Moral Codes for them. They surrender to their inability to discern right from wrong, and trust in David, or Prof's Kids, to do it for them.

 

 

 

Anyway, that went on longer than expected.

Umm...

 

Sorry for the essay.

Those are more halfbaked thoughts, than a true answer.

Sorry.

 

You have some good thoughts, especially about whether or not Epics can be considered truly responsible, but some of your conclusions conflict with what we learned in Firefight. 

 

Spoilers for anyone who hasn't read it yet. 

 

 

If you haven't read it yet, do it now. 

 

As we learn in Firefight, Calamity doesn't choose people who were already psychopaths—not so far as we know. The one uniting factor is past trauma. Megan's house burned down when she was a child and she had to crawl through smoke and flames to safety. Newton's parents were strongly implied to have been emotionally and psychologically abusive. Other weaknesses hint at similar traumas. Fortuity's weakness was being publicly humiliated by a woman to whom he was attracted, which hints at his having been left at the altar or something equally awful. Regalia's weakness was being proven wrong, hinting at a moment during her tenure as a judge when being wrong cost her and/or someone else dearly. 

 

Now, so far as traumas go, this doesn't seem like justification for becoming a serial killer, does it? No. But speaking from personal experience, let me say that trauma messes you up in ways that people who haven't been through it can't predict. Yes, it leaves you with triggers, fears, and sometimes flashbacks, but that fear drives you to do things. To be better than others, to prove you're better, to be more powerful, to elevate yourself above the thing that brought you low. If anyone comes close to triggering your memories of that trauma, you'll be inclined to lash out at them. Often, this happens without you connecting the trigger to the initial trauma. All you know is that the other person has pushed your buttons, and you want to make sure they don't do it again. 

 

In the real world, this rarely escalates to violence. So it seems evident that Calamity does something to push those people toward acting out on their trauma in the worst possible way. We know this to be true; it's just the mechanics that aren't known at this point. Calamity lowers their inhibitions to the point where an Epic's strength doesn't matter. Prof and Megan lucked out, plain and simple: Prof was a gifter and thus able to give large quantities of his power away, and Megan was only powerful just after resurrection. Other Epics—powerful Epics, non-gifter Epics? They don't stand a chance. They are effectively incapable of doing the right thing until they've faced their guiding trauma and rid themselves of the corruption for good.

Edited October 23, 2015 by TwiLyghtSansSparkles

[Kobold King he/him]

Firefight spoilers:

 

I think it's clear that Calamity takes away people's inhibitions. Take Megan in the first book, for instance--she almost kills David for shaking loose dust into her eyes. Dust is annoying, but even the worst criminals don't make a habit of conducting casual slaughter on the scale of Epics. It seems highly unlikely that Megan in her unaltered state would have been willing to commit murder over a trifling annoyance like this.

 

The conclusion I come to is that Epics possess their full faculties, but without their moral compasses or inhibitions against doing evil deeds. The moral compass is what makes us human. I believe that every human being has wicked impulses and dark, even twisted thoughts. I'd be lying if I said my mind has always been strictly pure, or that I'd never fantasized about blowing up someone snotty or otherwise unpleasant. Such impulses don't make anyone a bad person, because a person's moral compass is what truly defines their merit. For all we know, Fortuity constantly worked to keep lustful and wrathful thoughts out of his head, constantly striving to improve himself and make himself a better human being.

 

Personally, I wouldn't blame Fortuity for his crimes if he'd had his moral compass taken from him, because if this is the case, then I don't think you can really equate him with the person he was before Calamity. We don't judge a man by how wicked he could be--we judge him by how good he chooses to be, and if Calamity removes a person's ability to choose, then I lay the blame for the Epic's actions solely on Calamity's shoulders.

 

 

But none of that has anything to do with love. As I see it, there is an aspect of love that is inherently selfish. (Not the whole emotion, mind you--just a single aspect.) Part of love is wanting to see good things happen to the person you love, but another part is a strong belief that you are happier with that person in your life than you would be without. Epics are inherently selfish creatures--how could they be anything but, with their moral compasses stripped from them?--but it is the selfish side of love that gives them a bridge back to humanity. Because Megan even at her worse realizes she's happier having David around than she would be standing over his corpse. When she stared into that fire, she was faced with two conflicting strong desires: to flee from those dancing flames and never look back, or to risk it all to find David and keep him in her life.

 

In the end, her desire to be with David outweighed her desire to flee from the flames, and she faced her fear. It's like the old saying--"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." You can face any Epic with his weakness, but he needs an incentive to actually face it. Love is that incentive.

 

 

Aaaand upon writing that I realized I basically just came to the same conclusion as Stormgate, but this took a while to type up so I'll post it anyway.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Kobold King

[Blackhoof]

It seems to me that love is just perhaps the one thing powerful enough to push Epics into even potentially facing their fears. The one thing that, when you are an immortal demigod, could possibly make you value another person's life above or equal to your own.

[Stormgate he/him]

Okay.

Firstly, I just want to apologise, because I haven't actually answered your question.

Instead, it made me question something:

Such as how we differentiate "Epic" Thoughts, from normal, human "Evil" Thoughts.

 

We assume that Epics are "Afflicted" with something, something which impairs their abilities to do good in the world.

I wanted to explore that thought.

Because I think its interesting.

It concerns the nature, of how we define criminal and moral responsibility.

So be warned, I am something of a ramble here, so please feel free to ignore it.

 

 

So.

To begin again.

You've actually reminded me of something I really liked about the Reckoner's series.

And that is the question:

"What do we do with people who have evil impulses, but still desire normality and morality?"

 

Can Epics be considered to be truly evil?

How much is "Their Fault". They didn't chose the Epicness which corrupts them. They just are.

But it raises an interesting point.

Consider the following:

 

To lack the filters that normally bind a person from committing unspeakable acts.

To have the knowledge of morality, and yet not experience it - or even worse, to experience both the impulses to do terrible things, while retaining the disgust for such behaviour?

What is the ethical response there?

Do we treat them as people who are sick? But if we do that, does it diminish ones responsibility?

 

I ask a question, on the nature of Conscience.

Why do we not commit what is considered by our conscience to be wrong? Why does that conscience sometimes prevail and sometimes not?

When we act contrary to our conscience we experience guilt, proving that knowing, or even believing something is wrong, is not enough to prevent that action.

 

While I am no psychologist, and couldn't tell you for certain, I am willing to guess that, just as there are arsonists, murderers or rapists who commit crimes, there must, logically, be people who experience whatever disorder, corruption or trait, and yet, are able to overcome their instinct to do wrong.

And I don't know if that's a comforting thought - that there might be dozens of "potential" Rapists, who actively resist such notions every day of their lives - as an Epic does. Such an individual is clearly in desperate need of help (but that is a seperate issue).

 

In a sense, we tend to be lenient on the Epics themselves, pointing out that it is Calamity that twists them into monsters, not their own and active choice.

That is fascinating for me.

When Conflux went nuts, he wasn't truly at fault, because he didn't *chose* to commit evil. He was twisted into it by Calamity. Corrupted by the Epic Powers.

Yet, how then do we portion blame?

Most people would never dream of committing a hedious crime like rape or murder.

And so - rightly - we judge them when they do and implement our laws.

Except, they have already - by even *considering* committing a crime, established themselves to be fundementally different to the rest of society.

So, can we judge them by the same standards?

Consider the question:

An Epic commits mass murder. And, due to some trait that differentiates from him from humanity, we mitigate his fault.

And yet, if a Human in RL commits the same crime, we are much more critical.

Why do you suppose this is?

Is a person who has even been capable of such a crime, not substantially different from the rest of humanity?

The Madness, the affliction, that gives humans the capability to do great wrong, in effect, decreases the culpability of the wrong.

 

 

Why is this important?

Well, we see in Firefight, that some Epics can and DO resist the evilness.

 

So does that mean that all of the others Epics who did not ARE Somehow culpable? For not trying hard enough to achieve what Megan and Prof Achieved?

WHY only those two?

Clearly there is a component of self restraint there.

Conclusion:

Perhapes the answer isn't some great secret.

Perhapes the answer is as simple as being strong enough to do the right thing.

Having the thoughts, the desires to commit atrocities, is not in itself a thing restricted to Epics.

Humans can have it to.

And we hold Humans to standards of living, despite their thoughts.

So, why not hold Epics to it?

I wonder, if the weakness, is a giant Psychological thing, rendered all the more potent by Calamities power, who, upon giving them powers, floods them with emotion, anger, hatred, all aimed at finding that breaking point.

This is what allows the epics their truley murderous thoughts.

Their inability to resist it, is purely self inflicted.

 

Consider:

Calamity selected psychopaths, humans with the primal, bestial urges, wanton selfishness and moral apathy, and cruelty to become epics.

As more and more Epics turned to cruelty and evil, people began to draw the dots, and connect them.

Once Epics were suspected of losing their moral compass, it became self fulfilling.

The Humans who were already psychopaths went on dangerous killing sprees.

 

Then, when future epics become more and more used to the idea of Calamity eroding their will and conscience, that they begin to adapt to it. They become morally desensitised to the whole thing.

 

A Key point for me, is that, apart from the rending, most epics aren't Evil, so much as they are completely amoral.

They want things.

And they don't have them.

So they'll kill you for your things.

They become, simple minded. Like children, with unformed moral codes.

When a person has something else to hold on to, they trust in someone else to dictate their Moral Codes for them. They surrender to their inability to discern right from wrong, and trust in David, or Prof's Kids, to do it for them.

 

 

 

Anyway, that went on longer than expected.

Umm...

 

Sorry for the essay.

Those are more halfbaked thoughts, than a true answer.

Sorry.

Thank you, Ham. Welcome to the 17th Shard.

[soulcastJam he/him]

My thoughts: I think the difference between epics and normal humans in this regard is how quickly an impulse becomes an action. An average person might have a thought about rape and discard it because it is repugnant. But if they continue to dwell on the thought, over time it becomes more likely they will change thought to action. With epics, the time frame is much shorter and more of a steep slope.

I see epics as a kind of addict where their self control is limited in certain areas. Successful recovered addicts avoid scenarios that tempt them and have plans for how to overcome the inevitable temptation. Same with epics except not many of them ever get to EA. ( Hi, I'm Conflux and I haven't used my powers in 3 days...)

[Kasimir he/him]

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

-David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II: "Of the Passions."

[Arrae]

 

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

-David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II: "Of the Passions."

 

Is that a philosophical thing?

 

I think love probably isn't the "cure" to being, ahem, a bad tempered epic, but maybe like a symptom reliever. For example, Epics might realize that they actually value certain people and take steps to contain themselves around them so they don't kill their loved ones. That might help them realize that they have an issue with self-control... or maybe give them motivation to face their fears...

 

If it's all the power of love, I will follow Megan's example and strangle someone.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Arraenae

[Kasimir he/him]

Is that a philosophical thing?

 

I think love probably isn't the "cure" to being, ahem, a bad tempered epic, but maybe like a symptom reliever. For example, Epics might realize that they actually value certain people and take steps to contain themselves around them so they don't kill their loved ones. That might help them realize that they have an issue with self-control... or maybe give them motivation to face their fears...

 

If it's all the power of love, I will follow Megan's example and strangle someone.

It's the claim that we do not do things because reason magically compels us to follow it. Which is the problem with certain views *cough* Kant *cough*. The reason why that particular passage is so beautiful/insightful is not because Hume says we're unreasonable beings: he's claiming minimally that if we do not have a 'passion' [desire, in modern parlance] to do something, then no matter how good the reasons for doing something are, we won't do it. [Note: we could have a desire to get something, e.g. to get healthy teeth, and know that seeing the dentist will help in furthering this goal. But furthermore, the desire must be stronger than our desire to avoid pain, than our desire to stay away from the scary dentist...]

I felt this was somewhat germane to the conversation: it just seemed to me, a bit, that the Epics are pretty much people whose desires were full-strength. They simply can't and don't override them with other desires the way we do. (At least on the Humean picture...) Furthermore, it puts the 'love' suggestion in a different light: less the power of love, but a different, strong, desire that might put the brakes on some of the overriding ones they have.

P.S. I'm not exactly a Humean about desire, just thought it was an interesting connection with the way the thread was going.