Story Issue: Is 20% of the population high enough to kill?

[Bryan1108]

So I am story-boarding my new M&M campaign and the first multi-part adventure deals with how superpowers come into the setting.

The three heroes are led by a series of events to where the main villain is working big deal combining incredibly advanced science with a hugely powerful magic ritual. The world is facing a huge global threat that people don't know about yet and it will be here in a month.

I wanted the villain to be believable and three dimensional so rather than being a megalomaniac, the villain actually wants to save the world by going through with this ritual and turning half the people in the world into Kryptonian level superhumans. The problem is that it will kill twenty percent of the people in the world.

In theory, this is too high a price and the heroes disrupt the ritual causing superhumans of various power levels to show up all over the world with a few hundred casualties.

My fear is that the players say something like, "That's horrible but if twenty percent have to die to save everyone then I guess that is what has to happen."

So what do you guys think?

Is twenty percent high enough to horrify the average players into action?

To my mind, saving people shouldn't be a numbers game and that is what I was thinking would separate the heroes from the well intentioned villain but I haven't tested that theory on other people until now.

[Morph Bark]

It's not so much "if twenty percent have to die to save everyone", but rather "if twenty percent have to die to turn more than half the remaining population into superhumans". If the superhuman thing wasn't involved, then of course they'd go against it, unless there were some special benefit for them. If the heroes are superhumans themselves, they now have the added benefit of gaining more people like them, thus more understanding from other people and understanding of themselves and interaction with their kind. If they aren't superhuman, but could become superhuman due to this process, some of them might want to go along with it, power hungry as they may be.

I mean, real heroes tend to try to save everyone from everything, so both the villain and the other threat causing the villain to do this.

[Bryan1108]

They're not superhuman yet.

Nobody gets powers until after the ritual. They are pretty good at rping good guys.

The threat is imminent alien invasion that will arrive about a month after the ritual. With the ritual intact, humanity could easily fend off the invasion with nary a casualty. Without it, victory is doubtful and if we do manage to win, it will be at a high cost.

[Mewtarthio]

Which 20%? If it's possible to tell in advance, you could introduce a sympathetic NPC that's in the 20% (or, better yet, introduce several NPCs, pick the one they like best, then redefine the 20% criteria so that said NPC will end up sacrificed).

Or you could threaten the players directly. Perhaps the ritual will drain the life force from the surrounding area to power itself, potentially killing the PCs along with the BBEG (let it never be said that he makes others sacrifice what he will not).

Or you could make the players hate the BBEG regardless of his motives. Maybe he's extremely callous about the 20% he's sacrificing, or even believes they deserve their fates. Or perhaps he's directly harmed the PCs in his quest, making the final confrontation as much about vengeance as it is about saving the 20%.

The short answer: You have to make it personal. If it comes down to a distant philosophical debate, there's no telling what they'll choose. If the PCs have a personal stake in the affair, though, then suddenly the debate becomes much more real (and, if they do side with the bad guy anyway, the cost is tangible).

[Water_Bear]

The problem here is that it's a question of a certainty of 20% casualties versus a high risk of 100% casualties. If the odds are more than 4:1 against humanity in the war, the ritual is a smarter option. Not to mention that your more actuarial PCs might notice that said Kryptonian superpowers will "pay off" the loss of life pretty quickly; just providing immunity to infectious diseases and accidents means lowering the death rate by more than 25%.

Of course, this is more of a moral or ethical question than a logical one so you'll have to know how your Players think in terms of right and wrong.

[Mando Knight]

Vastly decrease the population that directly benefits ("A force of just three thousand supermen can stop the alien invasion!"), and make it clear that the villain gets to choose who dies (probably including anyone he thinks is "evil," such as government officials stuck hemming and hawing instead of dealing with the threat, or those who he thinks are a "burden on society," or possibly even entire countries... the US, Canada, Australia, and the European Union could be wiped off the map and he'd still not have enough) and who becomes superhuman (he has a cult following that believes in his not-the-same-as-yours ideals, waiting to become the saviors of the world).

Anyone with a head for numbers and even a basic grasp of economics would realize that killing 20% of the world population would destroy the economy. He might condemn the world by trying to save it.

[Jerthanis]

I think that 20% of the population is plenty high, you're talking about a crime greater than two hundred holocausts at that point. If anything, it's TOO high. We might not even be able to grasp the true weight at that point. If you want it horrific, be sure to emphasize that it means, statistically speaking, more than two members of each individual character's family will die in such a way.

But also, 50% of the world becoming Super might be too much as well... with that many superpowered people, you kind of establish supercrime as the new normal. If you have each individual being strong enough to punch the planet apart, and dependant upon other superpowered individuals to stop them from doing so, it seems inevitable that they'd fail eventually...

I'd say a more relatable and still dastardly plan might be to kill 1% of the world population (still about 1.2 holocausts worth of murder, BTW) to make 1 or 2 thousand handpicked people get superpowers. These handpicked people could be picked due to their virtue, humility, and responsibility. In fact, perhaps the last hurdle they face in the selection process could be that they refuse when told how many people would die for their portion of the superpowers. This would interrupt the "What if the Joker got Superman's powers as a result of this" kind of objection. Just spitballing here, sorry.

[Bryan1108]

Oh geeze. I posted the wrong number anyway. I'm sitting here looking at the number an thinking that it wasn't right so I just double checked my notes.

It was supposed to be twenty percent that was unaffected. Thirty percent is killed or roughly one out of every three or four people in the world.

It is supposed to be a more or less random thing though, assuming that the players know more than three people, it should still be pretty personal.

[Ashtagon]

Honestly, even without the benefit of creating superheroes, my first question would be about how they would die. If it is simply an end with no personal suffering, I'd be cool with it. The planet is overpopulated, and this is as good a way as any to provide a reprieve, albeit probably temporary.

[Mando Knight]

Also, make it clear that some of the players' characters are part of those killed and none of them are part of the 50%, as intended by the villain.

In the spirit of OotS #489, my estimates would put the villain's act at about 340 meganazis (using the total casualties of WWII divided by the membership of the ruling parties of the Axis Powers as a rough guide). The hypothetical offspring of Cruella de Vil and Sauron has nothing on this.

[Noedig]

I'd like to echo the 'make it personal' statement. Give the PCs a vested interest. Their family, their spouses, their children, etc will probably die. Also, ~1.4 billion people will die. Can the heroes really live with themselves, even the most callous amongst them, if they allow that to come to pass? Maybe have the villain do a test-run, and illustrate that the deaths will not be gentle. The more terrible, agonizing and vicious you can make the results of the ritual, the more likely the PCs will try to stop it.

I'd also like to echo the suggestion of dropping the number of supers created by this event. Perhaps an oddly specific number, like 14,825 supers are created.

[Bryan1108]

Alright then. I appreciate all of the feedback and I think we're good. The game starts this afternoon so I need to get going on it.

Thank you very much :)

[LibraryOgre]

I would make the function random and, if they decide to allow it, have everyone roll 1d10. A 1 or a 2 and they're part of the "necessary sacrifice." 6-10 and they're now Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!).

The bad guy should also be part of that roll. And anyone important to them.

If Aaron survives, but Betty does not? Betty's husband is probably going to be mad at Aaron. And he's got superpowers.

[Water_Bear]

Honestly, even without the benefit of creating superheroes, my first question would be about how they would die. If it is simply an end with no personal suffering, I'd be cool with it. The planet is overpopulated, and this is as good a way as any to provide a reprieve, albeit probably temporary.

You should really put sarcasm in blue text so that people don't think you're seriously advocating mass murder.

[Ashtagon]

You should really put sarcasm in blue text so that people don't think you're seriously advocating mass murder.

I don't use blue text for sarcasm. I use purple text.

[Talya]

Dude, it depends what they are high on. It'd be a real downer, man, if they were just potheads, but it wouldn't be, like, that hard, yeah? But if they were high on LSD, they're already superpowered, man! Good luck killing them.

[Mr Beer]

I like the idea but would run it a bit differently.

The heroes are protecting an official government program to create superbeings and spend time and adventures thwarting evil terrorists, traitors, well-meaning journalists and so on.

They gradually discover that:

1. The guy in charge of the program is something of a megalomaniac and tends to avoid oversight like the plague.

2. The people being recruited for the program are in fact psychologically unreliable, to the extent that some are criminally insane. But very loyal to the leader.

3. Leader has bypassed normal procedures after some encouraging experimental results and is going for one single, highly dangerous ritual.

4. Said ritual is going to suck the life out of many millions, maybe even billions of people and insert it into the sociopaths, making them superpowered.

However bad the upcoming invasion is going to be, it's unlikely the players will think this is a good idea.

[Barsoom]

My fear is that the players say something like, "That's horrible but if twenty percent have to die to save everyone then I guess that is what has to happen."

So what do you guys think?

Is twenty percent high enough to horrify the average players into action?

You of course know your players better, but it's very likely the PCs will adopt a 'pragmatic' stance on this, and let 20% of the population die.

My suggestion: hit them where it hurts. What if their loved ones are in the 20%? Heck, what if they are in the 20%?

[Emmerask]

The op corrected to 30% ^^

The thing is that the alternative is 90 to 100% casualties due to the invasion
which I presume your players know about? Else stopping the ritual is not much of a question.

So with knowing this invasion will come this is not much of a choice.

The main problem I see is that it won´t stay at 30%, with only have the population becoming superhuman of the 35% normals a good chunk will die, become slaves etc.

The first years will be absolute chaos, you can´t maintain order when someone can just casually explode a city.
Then of course there will be fights by the governments to stay in control aided by some of the superhumans.
In the end I would guess everything would break down into a ton of smaller states.
The number of deaths will be very much above the initial 30%.

But overall if the alternative is an almost assured extinction of the human race there is not much of a choice I would guess.

How likely is it that we could come to terms with the aliens?

[Need_A_Life]

20% of the population?
T-that's a lot of people. Depending on which areas are most heavily affected by this thing, it may mean the collapse of the existing infrastructure, which (combined with a lot of new superhumans*) could quickly turn the setting post-apocalyptic.

* Because between selfish people, irresponsible people and those who can't control their powers (at first, anyway), the body count will rise.

[Friv]

Oh geeze. I posted the wrong number anyway. I'm sitting here looking at the number an thinking that it wasn't right so I just double checked my notes.

It was supposed to be twenty percent that was unaffected. Thirty percent is killed or roughly one out of every three or four people in the world.

It is supposed to be a more or less random thing though, assuming that the players know more than three people, it should still be pretty personal.

So... his plan is to wipe out almost a third of the world, resulting in a society where literally every person ever has lost at least one family member and probably several, and where every organization, safety system, legal structure and industry in our societal chain has been gutted...

Give billions of grieving, terrified people incredible super-powers...

And hope that everyone gets organized in under a month to fend off an alien invasion?



This has to be the most optimistic mass-murder plan I've ever heard.


To clarify, I think that this is good! This plan is utterly insane, but it's the sort of utterly insane that a crazy person with no good ideas might try to put into effect.

My suggestion is, make it clear that the guy putting this plan together is wildly unstable, and while his science is good his sociology is terrible. Have him brush aside any concerns about organizing or directing this resultant superhuman apocalypse with the breezy assurance that once people are "upgraded", they will recognize what needs to be done.

[SowZ]

I don't think you're coming at this from the right angle. If the players decide to go along with the villain, change the direction of the campaign. Now the BBEG boss is a group of heroes trying to stop them. Make it just as winnable as it was before, but the PCs should be primary agents of choice. If they want to help enact this plan, so what?

[Andrewmoreton]

Anybody willing to kill 1.4 billion people is EVIL. Any superhero should stop them. If any PC chooses not to he is a bad guy. I would have no problem with that in a plot but would point out to the player his character is now worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined by several orders of magnitude, and the devil has a job offer for him. I would also expect most of the superhero team to turn on him.
Also if they go along make sure at least some of their friends, relatives ,children etc die. So their characters know the price, I would have each player roll a dice for each significant npc (and probably their own character) to see if they were one of the 'necessary' sacrifices


Superhero's should expect they can come up with a better plan, unless it is a fairly dark superhero game.

[GolemsVoice]

Have them discover it only at the end. Maybe before theyknow nothing, just that the villain has a terrible plan, or they might know the ritual, but might think it will leave ONLY the superpowered individuals alive.

Then, at the end, when they discover the true plan, they can still shout their heroic "This is monstrous!" and try to defeat him, or, yes, they can agree and join him.

[Emmerask]

The thing is that the heroes have to choose between two scenarios:

1)allow the ritual and lose 30% of the population initially + maybe another 30% in the aftermath?

2)stop the ritual and lose 80 to 100% of the population due to the aliens invading 1 month later.

Granted they should explore if there is anything that can be done against the aliens without the ritual and if there is even a slim hope against them they should take that...however i they don´t find any possibility then scenario 1 is the preferable solution as bad as it is.

This of course is only valid if they know about the invasion from a really reliable source and that the power of said aliens is also perfectly known (ie that earth military has zero chance).

Give billions of grieving, terrified people incredible super-powers...

And hope that everyone gets organized in under a month to fend off an alien invasion?



This has to be the most optimistic mass-murder plan I've ever heard.

Actually tragedy in general makes people work together far more then anything else at least for a short period of time (ie a few months) especially if you add in a threat for all humanity...

So from that perspective that isn´t that bad of an evil super-villain plan to safe the world... after this brief unity time though chaos will reign ^^

[Ashtagon]

Anybody willing to kill 1.4 billion people is EVIL. Any superhero should stop them. If any PC chooses not to he is a bad guy. I would have no problem with that in a plot but would point out to the player his character is now worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined by several orders of magnitude, and the devil has a job offer for him. I would also expect most of the superhero team to turn on him.
Also if they go along make sure at least some of their friends, relatives ,children etc die. So their characters know the price, I would have each player roll a dice for each significant npc (and probably their own character) to see if they were one of the 'necessary' sacrifices


Superhero's should expect they can come up with a better plan, unless it is a fairly dark superhero game.

I guess I'm evil then.

Explaining the detailed reasons for why I sincerely believe it could be considered a good act is straying deep into politics though, so I'll refrain.

[Friv]

Two quick points!

The thing is that the heroes have to choose between two scenarios:

1)allow the ritual and lose 30% of the population initially + maybe another 30% in the aftermath?

2)stop the ritual and lose 80 to 100% of the population due to the aliens invading 1 month later.

Even if the alien invasion is certain, why would it result in total human annihilation? Presumably the aliens aren't invading for the purpose of genocide, or they'd just rain meteors on the planet and call it a day. What if the aliens will kill only 5% of the population, but conquer the other 95%? How evil are the aliens? How cruel is their rule going to be? Will an uprising eventually be possible?

Actually tragedy in general makes people work together far more then anything else at least for a short period of time (ie a few months) especially if you add in a threat for all humanity...

So from that perspective that isn´t that bad of an evil super-villain plan to safe the world... after this brief unity time though chaos will reign ^^

That... reaaally depends.

As a baseline, external tragedies bring people together, because they provide something to join together for. However, they often do so in the sense of less-suffering people pulling together to help more-suffering people. Tragedies also lead to lynch mobs, riots, and people pulling together against things that are not responsible for their suffering.

What I meant, more directly, is that people who are suffering from extreme grief and fear are prone to uncertain reactions, because they are generally going to behave less rationally. In this situation, that is actually every person, and most of them are going to be simultaneously struggling with
a) The end of civilization as they knew it
b) The deaths of roughly a third of their loved ones, and
c) Incredible new abilities

And those incredible new abilities? Not concentrated in the hands of good people. Half the people in prison get them. Half of the world's gangs get them. Half of the people engaged in intractable racial or cultural wars get them.

These people are going to be looking for someone to blame for the loss of loved ones. They're going to be looking for a way to survive, or get ahead. The people who didn't get powers are going to be freaking out over the people who did, creating prejudice and hatred. You are going to have a period of anarchy that makes anything that has come before look like a freaking tea party.

[Frozen_Feet]

Well, the most important thing to remember (that you might have already gathered from reading this thread) is that either way, civilization as we know it will end.

20% of the population dying will reduce a lot of existing infrastructure into non-funtionality. Within a generation, this will cause massive sociopolitical upheaval. It's really a singularity sort of scenario. There's no telling what, exactly will happen, but a lot of it won't be good.

And that's without accounting for all the super-criminals that will be around.

Meanwhile, just first contact with aliens is a singularity scenario. Hostile first contact even more so. You know what they say about plans and enemies? Whatever the aliens are thinking of doing, it's almost guaranteed things will not pan out just like they thought. Whatever you think humans are going to be doing... yeah.

Both are such major turning points in human history that all decisions will necessarily be based on faith, and faith alone. There are near-zero useful predictions a bunch of ordinary joes could make.

Drive this point home to your players. This is not a win-win scenario. It's not a lose-lose scenario. It's a ??????? scenario. There's absolutely nothing to turn to expect their personal beliefs.

[Emmerask]

Two quick points!
Even if the alien invasion is certain, why would it result in total human annihilation? Presumably the aliens aren't invading for the purpose of genocide, or they'd just rain meteors on the planet and call it a day. What if the aliens will kill only 5% of the population, but conquer the other 95%? How evil are the aliens? How cruel is their rule going to be? Will an uprising eventually be possible?

Well mainly because this was kind of the main point by the op I think, these aliens can´t be reasoned with and will (try) to destroy humanity, with an extremely great chance of success.

Without this assumption there really is no moral conundrum that is worth discussing I think and there is little question that the heroes will stop the ritual

At least all my points where under this assumption, if there is a sliver of hope that will not cost ~90%+++ of the population then of course stopping the ritual would be the option to take ^^

These people are going to be looking for someone to blame for the loss of loved ones. They're going to be looking for a way to survive, or get ahead. The people who didn't get powers are going to be freaking out over the people who did, creating prejudice and hatred. You are going to have a period of anarchy that makes anything that has come before look like a freaking tea party.

I completely agree with this, though I think this would happen after the invasion was stopped

[Mando Knight]

I completely agree with this, though I think this would happen after the invasion was stopped

Only if the invasion began within a few days after the catastrophe.

No matter which 30% you kill (by the way, that 30% is basically an order of magnitude greater than all the deaths caused by every war, ever), civilization as it now is will rapidly collapse, even without the ensuing superpower surge. You can hardly bury that many dead respectably, and normal tragedy response strategies assume that there are people unaffected by the tragedy.

Also, it brings up uncomfortable questions about ethnic superiority (except this time, it's super powers, not skin color, that's the deciding factor).

If the strategy succeeds, human civilization would be lost anyway. A new superhuman civilization may arise from the ashes, but would that really be any different from letting the alien civilization itself take hold?