Things that are more difficult redside, and hence more fun.

So you're a Recluse man, not a Praetorian. Why didn't you say so?

Now I doubt that in response to this you'll be thinking much different to "WTF" because the way you argue seems much more related to the "Statesman" side of things, but allow me to explain.

If you care a great deal about things being "counterproductive to human progress", then that suggests to me that you are a social darwinist, you believe in survival of the fittest (Recluse's prime directive) and you are a fascist. If you care so much about stagnating the gene pool, then you should sterilise/execute all disabled people and those of inferior genetic strength. All benefits and protection should be stripped from those who are not among the genetic elite to the extent that one among the elite is entitled to murder those of the inferior race in the street - if they have not been executed already - as they are merely demonstrating their dominance. Partnerships between the elite and the inferior are not allowed.

If you do not believe in all this, then you can't talk about the genetic progression of the human race, as it does not happen in our society. All are allowed to live and breed with one another. Genetic defects exist as they always have. Social Darwinism is the evil you persist on talking about, and your way of thinking exemplifies a key factor of it.

I would so like to take issue with this statment, but I really dont have time right now (or enough space in this post).

You're going to argue that mates are generally found between people of similar "attractiveness" and the ability to provide for each other. I would argue that this is not universal and that attractiveness does not equal physicality, not to mention the fact that intelligence usually has little to do with selecting your mate. Of course, that's just a guess.

Gah!, You're gona make me do this now aren't you

Though mate selection is an interesting dimension to the issue, it was not what I was going to argue. What I was going to argue is that evolution does not just stop because we have things like 'medicine' and 'welfare' or because we are highly sucessful. We may have reassigned certain elevolutionary pressures away from the individual and on to socicity, but in so doing all we have really done is change the context of the evolutionary pressures from 'those-traits-fitest-to-survive-in-the-natural-world' to 'those-traits-fitest-to-survive-in-our-society'.

In addition to this: a sucessful, prolific species, has weakened pressures on their survival, however, the rate of mutation does not change, and with the larger population, there will be more mutation, more diversification.

Right now we are a sucessful species, we are going through a phase of genetic diversification, simply by virtue of how bloody many of us there are. (did i just say the same thing twice?)


(It should be noted however that I am no Evolutanary Biologist, just a layman who 'thinks' he understands the process, so take the above with a grain of salt)

I wonder if any of those "deals" are related to the Hamidon in any way?

Well I can see we agree on this on.

To Extrapolate:

To me it does seem was to easy for one guy no matter how badass he can be to take down such a massive threat with ease. So if Hami was intelligent he could of sparked a deal that let this section of humans live worry free, while DE roam the rest of the Earth. In that small section Cole has control keeping the humans away from the outside areas. Giving himself dominance with ease by putting fear of a massive threat to the Utopia.

You have to remember something, though...

Our Hamidon got the way it did by tricking the Woodsman, tearing him apart and using his power to augment itself.

In Praetorian Earth, Shadowhunter wasn't nearly so naive.

Their Hamidon might be an entirely different "animal," and their "Big Raid" threat could be something entirely different from the normal tack.

...

*shudder*

That makes a sick amount of sense...

So, do you feel the same way about, say, people with astigmatism? It's similarly a genetic defect. What about blue eyes?

I'm not saying I approve of incest, but claiming "it's bad and you should feel bad!" for the reasons you give, while you approve other similar acts, is simply a double standard.

Hey, I have astigmatism, and a lazy eye. What am I to base my rejection of this ludicrous juxtaposition? Are you going to assume I'm biased because of this?

So, I'm to be faced with more absolutism? I can't be inconsistent if I'm absolute, but I'm being told that there are no absolutes.

I abhor a behavior has led to offspring who are insane or are so deformed they can't even chew food. What is so difficult about this?

Must I apply an exacting standard across the board? Why would you try to paint me as a tyrant because I would exact punishing retribution on a man who abuses his offspring?

Frankly, I'm starting to think this "debate" has run its course.

All you've really gleaned out of it is that I abhor incest, and I've had to defend myself from people I am surprised take issue with that.

EDIT: And NO! They are NOT similar acts. They have similar risks, but are not similar acts. One of them has a crucial detail missing, in that they're not relatives! You have seen my reactions thus far, and I have given my answers.

I do know that, I am going on assumption since no one knows anything about Hamidon in Utopia...we are all just pulling strings and guessing what happens.

Biologically, this is only relevant with regard to how likely the recessive genes are to surface. Over several generations, the incestuous line is more likely to produce such offspring, with the probability approaching 1 as the length of the line extends incestuously. With a single generation, however, whether the incestuous couple or the non-incestuous couple is more likely to produce the recessive gene in the offspring entirely depends on the genetic predisposition of the parents in both couples.

Socially, as you've pointed out, is an entirely different matter. Even putting aside the taboo most cultures have for incest, there is the issue of abuse of power. When incest occurs between parent and child (or grandparent and grandchild, or whatever), the opportunity for abuse of power is extremely high. The "consensual" part of the "consensual relationship" may only be so because the inferior party is forced into consent. Considering the characters in question, however, with Tyrant and Dominatrix, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Dominatrix is being pressured into the relationship by her grandfather.

As I said, I'm not really in favor of incest. However, assuming it's a relationship between two truly consenting adults, the relationship is really none of my business. It's not something I'd do, but it's not my place to interfere. Without evidence to the contrary, I think Tyrant/Dominatrix is entirely consensual, so the relationship doesn't bother me.

Funny. My assumption is that Tyrant abused or manipulated her into her current demented and depraved state.

Of course, it's not like we really do have a lot of story to work with on that one. I'm going by the fact that, up until now, he was an evil *******, the opposite of his fine, upstanding alternate in Prime Earth, and that his relationship with Dominatrix was supposed to be the final nail in the coffin to show how far gone he was. I'm assuming that Dominatrix is downright warped and insane, leaping into a situation like this because, frankly, her moral compass is smashed to crap.

But then, they're supposed to be "rebooted..." So maybe this won't even be an issue later...

Of course, if that's the case, I still demand the current Praetorian missions and arcs be changed to reflect the change... But I'm pretty certain that's not going to happen.

This is not aimed at you in particular, but I have to ask for some clarification here. Isn't: "[Dominatrix] caught Tyrant's attention and has been serving him loyally, in all capacities, ever since." the only reference we have to go on here? I guess I just have to wonder where any of this other stuff is coming from.

I am confident that the current arcs will be scrapped and updated in a similar fashion to how the cape mission was updated after the time capsule opened.

At the very least, we can assume the new character models will be used... presumably with new bios.

And this is a moral argument against it... based on the idea that abuse is wrong, and therefore incest is wrong because it is a form of abuse. This gets at the root of the issue for me with this whole incest discussion: what if it isn't abuse? How does one define, abuse? Is the abuse aspect the only thing that makes incest wrong, or is it wrong inherently?

Consider the following:

(Let's make sure that we divorce our discussion of superheroes...) What if two gay twin brothers have intimate relations? Technically that is incest, but it doesn't produce any of the ill effects in offspring that we have discussed, nor does it necessarily involve any sort of power dynamic (though it could, I suppose). Of course, one would have to put any bias against homosexuality aside in order to consider this example properly.


P.S. Just so we are clear, I can't say that I am personally for incestuous relationships, but I am having a great deal of fun discussing it. Playing devil's advocate is wildly entertaining for me. Also, with some of your last comments Mr. Grey, it appears as though you may be at least somewhat annoyed. I think it is best to not take these posts as trying to impugn your position or your character... but rather simply to explore what things boil down to, and the basis for these various claims. I know I said it before, but to me, this is purely academic.

Well, we know they're going to be using the new character models. They've said as much. Hopefully, that means they'll be looking at the arcs, too.

They said at Hero Con that they'd change bits of the current Praetorian arc storylines to fit in with GR.

I thought that was the case... but didn't want to state it as such since I wasn't positive.

Marcian Tobay mentioned this as well, and it is a VERY good point.

We don't really know what "...in all capacities..." means. It is generally assumed, however, given the name "Dominatrix" and the peculiar appearance of her minions (for now, anyway), that the relationship is much more than professional. It is generally assumed that it's a perverse sexual relationship.

Other players have brought up the "Do we really know if she's Tyrant's granddaughter?" argument. Considering the fact that pretty much every other Praetorian is a direct analogue, I don't see it as too far-fetched that Dominatrix is a direct analogue to Ms. Liberty, complete with all the familial associations.

I'm thinking it was started as a bit of a joke... As I said before, it was supposed to be a vaguely worded example of how depraved they are, and a final testament to how much of a lost cause Tyrant is...

However... It seems that with City of Villains, a lot of the roles the Praetorians played have been reappropriated. Sure, Dominatrix has the fetish minions, leather outfit and her bull whip, but Silver Mantis is the one people think of when it comes to fetish behavior. Compared to how over-the-top Silver Mantis is, Dominatrix is a kitten.

And the worst thing Tyrant directly does is capture Statesman in Hero's Hero. He fights you a little, shouts about how you "stand before a king" or some other clap-trap, then runs from the fight before you can really beat him. This is not the behavior of a brutal man... At least Lord Recluse stands and fights to the bitter end, even if he calls in his own brainwashed horde to cut you down when he feels threatened. And Recluse has actually constructed and/or implemented his schemes to conquer the world. Tyrant... Tyrant captured Statesman, went "Who the Devil are you?" when you showed up, then seems to have sequestered himself in his world so he could repair it from whatever cataclysm happened in his world.

This issue we've been discussing, the question of whether or not he sleeps with his own granddaughter, is the only sticking point for me. It would be the sticking point for a lot of people. If we have to work for these two maniacs, there are probably going to be a lot of people who look at the relationship and go "Oh... Hell no!"

Well, I don't see why we would have to divorce it from superheroes... I think the only meta humans we've mentioned connected to the situation thus far have been Tyrant and Dominatrix, but otherwise the conversation has been in the abstract for the most part... Still, I digress...

Now THIS is a conundrum!

I can be pretty sure that most people would look askance at a situation like this... Most would think the two young men are sick in the head...

Me, I'd say they're being lazy... They'll probably make local headlines, but they won't get much further than that. If their family doesn't have one or both committed, they're just going to fade into obscurity, anyway.

As for my opinion, I remain against it. I can't abide other forms of incest, I wouldn't feel comfortable if I supported this kind. However... It is a better illustration of "consensual and not hurting anybody..."

Oog... Just imagine that coming out scenario... I figure their mother would be VERY upset.

My annoyance ebbs and flows in this discussion. Sometimes, it feels like my conviction is being prodded. Other times, I'm getting stones thrown at me, like "You disagree with incest!? DICTATOR! TYRANT! MONSTER!" to which I can only arch my eyebrow at the post and say "Where the Hell is all of this coming from?"

Now, I'm having trouble determining the academic importance of the debate, but I'm certain that's because I'm emotionally involved. I'm strongly opposed to incestuous relationships, of all kinds, and for the basic reason of "historically, it has led to extremely damaged families." The idea of somebody defending it strikes me as unsettling and, quite frankly, disgusting.

However... As the debate does further the interest of a person making up their own mind on the situation, I have very little against it (even if there are portions which are clearly attacking my character and not actually engaged in debate). It has been informative, clarifying, and involved.

If I were truly upset by what I thought was an argument that would go round-and-round in circles with a group of mindless blowhards, I would simply wander away and find something more engaging.

Um, nope, no attempt to make you pissed off, merely to try and enlighten you. I don't argue with someone to try prove I'm right - although semantically you could argue what I'm about to say means exactly that - I argue with someone in order to enlighten them. Really, arguing with someone to "prove" you're right is intrinsically pointless.

I'm not saying you are a fascist because you think incest is wrong. I'm saying you are a fascist because you believe that incest is wrong because it "damages the genetic progression of the human race". That is an elitist viewpoint strongly associated with fascism and social darwinism (although the two are closely connected).

I'm not trying to paint you as a monster because clearly unlike you, I don't label people as monster. I am not a sensationalist, I'm a rationalist and I title people as logical things like fascist. However, I don't think you are a fascist necessarily, I know you don't think you are a fascist. My point was to enlighten you that you're views are strongly associated with fascism, and you should reconsider them because of that.

Finally, I am a great proponent of the fact that "History is written by the victors", but although the capitalists painted the communists as evil for obvious reasons, they didn't have to try very hard to paint Stalin as such. While I believe that Lenin was devoted to the rational propsect of communism as a progression of human society to bring the people out of poverty, Stalin effectively snatched that idea for completely opposite reasons. Exemplified by his rule, he did not care about the people, he merely established communism because it gave him the greatest power. You do not bring order through massacres.

Alright... I will accept this explanation... Though I recommend you reevaluate your methods.

Fascism is military control to promote order. It has been most often employed through methods that infringe upon the freedom of the people. However, it was also used in the novel Starship Troopers as the government of the world, a military government that enforced the simple law of "All is legal, so long as nobody is harmed."

Social Darwinism is its own philosophy, free of political constraint. It's about the changes and evolution of a society, not about how that change is controlled. While it can certainly be utilized in the control of social change, it encompasses so much more than that and is utilized by far more than just a number of fascist movements. It's been utilized by Democratic and economic powers just as easily.

Also, I don't feel my opinion is elitist at all. The evidence exists that there is no good associated with incest, and the overwhelming public opinion is that it is wrong, across races and genders. In fact, it's the elite who are typically renowned for practicing the behavior due to ludicrous notions of purity...

Then you failed considerably through the utility of a Strawman argument. My opinion in this matter does not dictate my opinion any further than in this matter. It may have influential repercussions with other notions in my life, and is itself influenced by other notions in my life, but such is true of any matter of philosophy.

Also, just because my opinion was utilized by fascists is no reason for me to reconsider it. If anything, it's proof that I need to be careful with the application of my philosophy.

I can voice my displeasure of behavior as much as I like. I never said I would start shooting people in the streets for doing behavior I feel is questionable.

Actually, there was a post by Manticore years ago that said the whole thing was, in fact, an accident. He says he didn't remember the connection between Statesman and Ms. Liberty when he put the bio together for Dominatrix, and when the player base pointed out the implications his reaction could be summed up as "Oh, crud. Oops?"

At this point, I think the Devs may as well just retcon it and honestly say "We didn't mean this to be here. We're changing it. This is the only time we'll make a change this way."

I'd be happy that way.