Taking the whole word as dependents

[fictionfan]

I was wondering if hypothetically if we ignored the rules for multiple dependents could it be possible for a character who took every person in the world as a dependent would get enough points to be able to take care of them.

Sense you can only take someone as a dependent if they have you your point total or less so the character would have to have a point total that is highest or tied with the highest in the whole world. I'm guess that 250 would do that. (just a guess if someone wants to calculate it I'm fine with that).

So the question and challenge is could you starting with 250 and taking every person in the world as a dependent be able to take care of them? Of course there is no disadvantage limit.


world pop 6.92 billion
I think that most of the people in the world are less that 0 points

[lexington]

You'd have to start with more than 250 if you're really counting everybody, extremely rich people can easily break that level.

With tens of billions of points the only question would be what you mean by taking care of everyone. Pretty much any practical task is possible. More abstract things like ensuring justice can't be addressed with just game stats (although you could take IQ50, a few skills, and take rolls in the -30s to rapidly devise a utopia).

[fictionfan]

realy how. Time jumper with unageing?

[benz72]

1) no

2) 250 is a bad assumption... There are probably people with enough wealth, status and contacts to pass 250

3) "If your Dependent ends up kidnapped or otherwise in danger during play, you must go to the rescue as soon as possible." This will require high levels of duplication / masive amounts of observatoin & communcation / high levels of compartmentalized mind simply to know what is going on, much less do anything about it.

4) "Furthermore, you never earn any character points for a game session in which your Dependent is killed or badly hurt." stopping all human death on the planet is a pretty tall order, and probably not a good idea in general.

Why would you want to do this?

[fictionfan]

It's a thought experiment on how you would make a loving god.

Would 500 points start cover the rich people?

4) "Furthermore, you never earn any character points for a game session in which your Dependent is killed or badly hurt." stopping all human death on the planet is a pretty tall order, and probably not a good idea in general.

I would go which death by old age being all right.

Edit: I guess I'm going for "with great responsibility comes great power"

[downer]

For a loving god, wouldn't Sense of Duty (all humanity or every living being) competely cover it? After all:

You will never betray them, abandon them when they’re in trouble, or let them suffer or go hungry if you can help.

Given that a god would probably have a power level measured in 1000s of points, he could help and thus would be fulfilling his duty, without having to constantly check up on every single individual. Basically, he loves them all, but he helps them in bulk, rather than individually.

[Anders]

Yep. This is SoD (Humanity).

[fictionfan]

This is SoD (Humanity) is not worth near enough to be able to take care of Humanity. Whatever. I can see now that there is a good reason for the multiple dependents rule.

[Mateus]

If I get you right, you want a single disadvantage that gives you hundreds (thousants?) of points, so you can build a character that can do anytinhg? IMO a God should have A LOT OF POINTS (1000, 5000, 10000, even more?). I cant see why you want a cap limit like 250 (the pontuation of a seal or secret agent) to the build. The Sense of Duty gives you the effect that you want, but I cant see how you will implement your idea in terms of character. Can you give more details?

[downer]

I don't quite get it. Did you want to start with normal human point values and then buy all the advantages you would need with the points you get for your dependents? Why on earth would you want to do that?