Orkhepaj: ofc , probably would result in 90%+ dead but then world would be awesome :P

Oddeus: Yep, all evil people jump from a cliff. Hello, peace in the world!

KiNgBrAdLeY7: Well, i am at odds with the world and i got a tiny little glimpse of a special perk or two. Nothing grand, spectacular, or awe inspiring of legends... I can control only myself and even if i could control somebody else, i still wouldn't. Loss of freedom is the penultimate transgression. People acting not by their own accord but at the behest of others, is miserable, broken and too sad, to become a valid source of entertainment (or "leverage" of any kind). True fools abolish freedom by their own will, true oppressors remove it by force from others.

Reverse psychology rarely cuts it, but mirrorring can sometimes catch others off guard; problem is, it is a bit too situational and if you cannot overwhelm the other person's trait(s), then it is actually a waste (and *ends* you up jeopardized/trapped).

If you are at odds with something you can't win against, just let it go. Too much "power" (tension? motion?), especially when gathered somewhere, explodes abruptly or devours something slowly, from within. If you cannot defeat power with more power, then defeat power with a bit of brains. If all else fails, smokescreen and hit the road like there is no tomorrow. Sometimes, removing a valid target right before a critical moment is reached, instantly ends whatever dispute, prevents a clash effectively.

And who knows? Maybe there is no tomorrow, either way. LoL

Cavalary: Heh, I am at odds with the world, just without any powers...

But to answer the question, mind control is an extreme intervention, and punishment, only acceptable in case of the most heinous crimes. So it'd be wrong to use it on people in general, but I'd use it on those who do commit such crimes, yes... And there are sadly plenty of them to keep me busy even so, I guess, and do a fair bit of good even if the world as a whole would keep being steered by people in general full speed ahead in the wrong direction, as it now is, and has generally been throughout history...

Timboli: All people should be able to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they aren't negatively impacting others.

So any great power I had, would be just used to ensure that and punish the deliberately wicked.

If you do more than that, then really you are no different to all those politicians who have tried to impose their own personal agendas on their society and even the world.

An exception maybe, would be to put the Earth first, that would be my agenda outside the other I mentioned. But I don't really see that as an imposition on anyone anyway, except maybe the rich, who in all reality don't deserve their riches, not at the expense of others. There is way more than enough to go around, and to serve both humanity and the Earth.

dtgreene: In this scenario, I may not be able to change anyone's opinion, but I could still control them. So, what I would do is control some people, and have them try to convince others that my point of view is correct.

For example, if it's something that could be demonstrated scientifically, I would control a group of reputable scientists, have them do an experiment that would demonstrate my point of view to be correct (perhaps letting them do some of the work without my control), then make sure it gets published in a widely-read scientific journal.

Or I could control some people, have them leave the church, have them convince their friends to leave the church, and then relinquish control (at which point the people I controlled would likely rejoin the church).

This is, of course, ignoring any ethical considerations as to the ethics of controlling other people this way.

kohlrak: Seems you're the first to get the point of my thread. Fundamentally, i'm asking, in a roundabout way, a question someone asked me before: "If it meant you were in control of morality, would you be a tyrant, or would you prefer everyone had freedom even if it meant they would most likely disagree with you?" The question clearly comes from the story of Jesus' temptation by Satan. It's also fundamental to modern politics. You can see who the tyrants are by their answers.

KiNgBrAdLeY7: Son, i am always pro freedom. EVERYBODY's freedom. Even if they disagree with me. Even if they fight against me viciously, dirty and unfairly. Sophisticated, civilized, thinking people have arguments, healthy minds participate in dialogue; cattle of sheeple have pitiful excuses of the "it's for your own good" sort.

People (or people who have a say over other people) who sacrifice freedom for safety/security, deserve none (and end up having absolutely neither).

Anothername: If I'm changed to such an extreme that I'm at odds with the world why would there be a moral dilemma? If I still have my morals and ethics how could I be at odds with the whole world?

kohlrak: I think there is indeed some points where there needs to be a bit more nuanced of an answer.

1. If you know someone is planning to attempt initiating force against yourself or another.

2. In the case of children desiring to act on their own wills unfettered.

In both situations, we are already morally expected to intervene without said powers. You don't generally allow someone to commit murder, for example with point 1. For point 2, we generally don't allow our own children to steal, to have sex with adults, etc. I believe it is in this area that genuine complex conversation can be gleened from this, however my main point in asking the question was to see how many tyrants on the gog forums would be dumb enough to come in here and completely miss that i was asking the "are you a bad person" question in so many words. Sure enough, we had a few people expose themselves.

KiNgBrAdLeY7: Hmmm. Valid points. People always get exposed, though. Only problem is what other people perceive as "virtue" or "sin". Too much confusion regarding words and meanings, lately. I myself draw the red line, where somebody else's freedom starts treading on mine; or when somebody else, forcibly removes my freedom, while aggressively expanding theirs (usually, at other people's expense).

Freedom is a heavy word and requires effort, to acquire. Double that effort, in order to preserve, too. In older eras, freedom was so highly sought after, that came before the life of an individual themselves, by their own choice/volition at that. Today, people fight to abolish their freedoms and call that a "right"; that's the "norm".