[SE] "Your child is a sociopath? Fear not, we will take care of this!"

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I just don't see how that would. Even the most deeply trained Sense of Duty of CoH due to brainwashing is going to be superficial. It's going to be super-superficial in the case of sociopathic types, who already have plastic self-concepts and tend to tell people what they think they want to hear. Even if you "instilled" such a code, most would impulsively disobey it, particularly in the case of the psychopaths. A well-indoctrinated sociopath will give you well-indoctrinated rationalizations as to why their misbehavior is excused, why they are justified, why everyone else is out to get them, etc.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Are you saying that a character can ignore Disadvantages if s/he also happens to be Callous/Low Empathy? I mean, most people behave decently because they have P:Reluctant Killer, Quirk-level Honesty and 0-point level of empathy (i.e. not Low, not Callous). But what's wrong about refraining from antisocial behaviour due to other traits, such as a CoH or a SoD?

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Are you saying that a character can ignore Disadvantages if s/he also happens to be Callous/Low Empathy? I mean, most people behave decently because they have P:Reluctant Killer, Quirk-level Honesty and 0-point level of empathy (i.e. not Low, not Callous). But what's wrong about refraining from antisocial behaviour due to other traits, such as a CoH or a SoD?

Any realistic person is inconsistent. They might occasionally fall short of their Code, or say one thing and do another. With manipulative types, such as sociopaths, this is true times a magnitude.

In the case of the psychopath, I think it's basically hopeless. They aren't going to have a SoD or CoH that doesn't relate to their most primal desires, probably a close family member. Even that's iffy.

In the case of the sociopath, I'm not sure if I can be as confident in predicting how they would perform. However, in general, I would expect a sociopath indoctrinated to a Code of Honor to utterly faily to apply it (in GURPS terms) with any inconsistency. They might believe it, they might believe they are following it, but when push comse to shove, they lie, react to emotional impulses, bend the rules, and so forth. I'd probably put a sociopath's maximum ceiling for loyalty at about -5 points of CoH or SoD. It is far more likely they are actually Chauvinistic or Intolerant or Careful or whatever. Sociopaths do have a conscience to appeal to, but not a morally sophisticated sense. Essentially, they are going to react to the desire for love and the fear of punishment. Those are two forces which have historically caused more failures of duty than successful performances of it. At the end of the day, sociopaths tend to be, if I had to use a word, sketchy. If they are patriots, they are sketchy patriots. Sociopathic drug dealers are sketchy drug dealers. Sociopathic politicians are sketchy politicians. Sociopathic soldiers are sketchy soldiers.

Brainwashing is not going to fix that. If you want to term a sociopath into a model soldier, the first thing you need is enough psychotherapy to build up their ego strength, assuming they even have the neurological capability to deal with the stresses of rational, moral life.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Any realistic person is inconsistent. They might occasionally fall short of their Code, or say one thing and do another. With manipulative types, such as sociopaths, this is true times a magnitude.

In the case of the psychopath, I think it's basically hopeless. They aren't going to have a SoD or CoH that doesn't relate to their most primal desires, probably a close family member. Even that's iffy.[snip]

Dunno, sounds to me as a cheap cop out of a disadvantage/compulsion.

[bcd]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

In the case of the psychopath, I think it's basically hopeless. They aren't going to have a SoD or CoH that doesn't relate to their most primal desires, probably a close family member. Even that's iffy.

The way I understand the proposed TL9 education programme isn't that they are taking someone who is already a fully developed psychopath, and trying to reform him. Rather they are taking a child who is very likely to turn into a psychopath if left to continue on his current path, and instead molding him into a useful tool. The net effect being that instead of developing normal psychopathic traits (whatever they may be), he develops a little bit of that (whichever bits are deemed useful) and also a bunch of other more controllable traits.

[bcd]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Dunno, sounds to me as a cheap cop out of a disadvantage/compulsion.

The psychopath who has been unsuccessfully implanted with, say, a Sense of Duty doesn't actually have Sense of Duty on his character sheet and doesn't get to claim points for it. Rather he may have "Quirk: pays lip service to SoD X" or maybe "Secret: doesn't actually have SoD X although he pretends to".

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by bcd

The way I understand the proposed TL9 education programme isn't that they are taking someone who is already a fully developed psychopath, and trying to reform him. Rather they are taking a child who is very likely to turn into a psychopath if left to continue on his current path, and instead molding him into a useful tool. The net effect being that instead of developing normal psychopathic traits (whatever they may be), he develops a little bit of that (whichever bits are deemed useful) and also a bunch of other more controllable traits.

It would be a lot easier to take a more normal person and teach them to be Callous. Psychopathic traits are not merely temperamental; they don't process emotions in the same way as other people, do not have strong self-concepts, and have difficulty with impulse control. Psychopaths are not useful tools for anything but mayhem.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by bcd

The psychopath who has been unsuccessfully implanted with, say, a Sense of Duty doesn't actually have Sense of Duty on his character sheet and doesn't get to claim points for it. Rather he may have "Quirk: pays lip service to SoD X" or maybe "Secret: doesn't actually have SoD X although he pretends to".

And that's why I estimated spending 30 rolls per subject, even though a top-level CoH (or SoD) would only be 15 points (i.e. 15 successes), even though with all the bonuses (base Will likely 7-9*, -2 Will from equipment, +1 skill from complementary skill or equivalent). Failures are bound to be . . . spectacular.

* == You seem mentioning a weak self-concept; that sounds like a further reduction of Will.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

It would be a lot easier to take a more normal person and teach them to be Callous. Psychopathic traits are not merely temperamental; they don't process emotions in the same way as other people, do not have strong self-concepts, and have difficulty with impulse control. Psychopaths are not useful tools for anything but mayhem.

Oh, I certainly considered the idea for a historical detail of the pre-SA2.0 Justicariate (the dystopian era). There are reasons both in favour and against your proposition in the 'modern' era, though:

• It takes 15 points of work to instil a rather elaborate Code of Honour, plus more if there is need to negate a destructive trait like Sadism. OTOH, things like Bloodlust or Callous can be left alone, if the subject is then assigned to an activity where they are acceptable (Bloodlust is okay for an assassin or a S&D specop, not okay for a SWAT; Callous will generally be okay for many technical or combat fields).
• It takes roughly 10-15 points of work to turn a normal person into a mental super-soldier (burn out Pacifism:Reluctant Killer, possibly Combat Paralysis, Quirk levels of Charitable etc., plus instil a rather mild CoH or SoD to improve loyalty).
• If you brainwash a normal person, you reduce the pool of normal workers by one to increase the pool of highly focused workers by one. If you brainwash a potentially dangerous or highly selfish person, you reduce the pool of potentially dangerous or highly selfish people by one to increase the pool of highly focused workers by one. If you leave the abnormals alone, you're risking having to suffer expenses anyway (in terms of resources spent keeping them in check, and/or in terms of resources they will not produce for the benefit of the community for various reasons).
• Taking a potentially dangerous person for brainwashing can be seen as reasonable by the community (it is for the benefit of both the person and the community); taking a normal kid away from a family without a parental license and pushed into the programme is not as easily justified; doing it with a normal kid in a normal family is not, period. I guess there's a borderline case of something along the lines of Schola Progenium.

[pawsplay]

If you're designing shock troopers rather than supersoldiers, the idea is mildly workable. Just keep in mind you're arming a squad of amoral liars, killers, and thieves with a bunny-boiling, cultic obsession with your cause, and hoping they follow mission protocol in some fashion. If you ever wanted to do the sci-fi equivalent of burning Atlanta, these are the last guys you would put on the ground, unless you wanted to create a historically memorable incident of atrocities.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

If you're designing shock troopers rather than supersoldiers, the idea is mildly workable. Just keep in mind you're arming a squad of amoral liars, killers, and thieves with a bunny-boiling, cultic obsession with your cause, and hoping they follow mission protocol in some fashion. If you ever wanted to do the sci-fi equivalent of burning Atlanta, these are the last guys you would put on the ground, unless you wanted to create a historically memorable incident of atrocities.

I'm aiming at the idea of characters with a mentality closer to Dexter Morgan (after he finally becomes fully in control of his life) or the reprogrammed T-101 from Terminator 2 (slightly less appropriate example, but he shares the combination of ruthlessness and obsessive adherence to a code), but focused towards more socially-approved (yet often nasty) goals.