Protagonism and Mind Control

[greyorm]

So, I was reading over Ron's take on Puppetman, mulling over the conversations about mind control and protagonism, and thinking about Immortal. First, I know absolutely nothing about Puppetman -- what little I do know I have gleaned from these threads alone -- so this really doesn't have anything to do with that.

It does have to do with mind control and protagonism, and the reason I bring up the other post is because the point Ron seems to be making -- and has made in the past -- is that mind control explicitly removes the ability of a protagonist to be a protagonist, because it removes the meaning from the actions of the controlled by taking choice out of the picture.

So...what does this have to do with Immortal?
In 2nd Edition Immortal, specifically, Immortal characters and their enemies are given the ability to "take over" or "control" or what-have-you the Soulless: mortals born without souls, machines of flesh that look and act and behave just like everyone (or everything) else, except for the fact that they really aren't anyone (or anything) in particular.

Now, being that I've adapted Immortal to Sorcerer, I need a way to handle this sort of scenario without stumbling over the nasty bit above.

It occurs to me that actions based around mind-control are only meaningless when viewed in context of the protagonist(s) being subjected to such -- if we view the Soulless (the controlled individuals) as extensions of the protagonist, the choices have meaning from the protagonist's point of view.

The trap lies in trying to make a big deal out of what Ron describes as people stubling around a conflict that they never really meant to create -- and they didn't -- in this case, protagonizing the Soulless and its situation.

The trick to success means ignoring that as a potential focus and remaining centered on the effects and behaviors and reactions of the protagonist -- not on the tools he uses to perform the deed.

I'm really just putting this out for comment and discussion, its a rare and unrefined idea right now, but does it sound reasonable?

[M. J. Young]

Not being familiar with Immortal, I'm working from your description, but it sounds to me that you're on the right track. The souless are not characters; they are tools. They are used by the protagonists or antagonists to achieve goals. Just as you wouldn't be concerned about whether the gun has control of its actions, so you wouldn't be concerned about the same when the protagonist is in control of a body that doesn't have a soul otherwise.

If we're talking about a situation in which a player character is being controlled by another (player or non-player) character, then I have elsewhere (somewhere on a thread on the main forums) suggested that such mind control situations shift the conflict to the battle between the controlled and the controller, such that you have an ongoing struggle in which the character being controlled fights to prevent his body from doing what he does not want it to do. That can be interesting. That's not what you have here, as I read it. You just want bodies to be used as tools, which means they aren't really people at that point.

Unless I'm missing something about the nature of the souless?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Raven,

I agree with M.J. - the very name "soulless" states, to me, that these are not characters.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

MJ and Ron,

Yes, that's exactly what I'm thinking -- like I said, this was more verbal spit-up to dissect (ah, what pleasant imagery!) than anything super coherent about the subject. But with the validation, I'm wondering: does this mean "mind control" powers could work in Sorcerer?

That is, including powers such as telepathy or hypnotic suggestion, which are perhaps only useful against non-sorcerers? Any thoughts or reactions to such a beast and how it might affect or be utilized in play?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Raven,

Pulp-style hypnotism is presented in The Sorcerer's Sword, and I've also discussed how Taint can be used as a mind-control ability given certain definitions of Humanity.

Best,
Ron