Most would become supervillains if given superpowers, study says.

It's kinda hard to subdue a Kryptonian level person

And I'd be a legal hero, not a vigilante

That's why superpowered women are needed to help solve the bad man problem

I think I'd end up around Catwoman-levels of "evil". Sure, I'd exploit the HELL outta my powers, but I'm not sure I'd go full-on villain.

I could be the dashing rogue.



Well... I could be if one of my powers was "handsome-ifcation".

You never go full villain!

Actually ego-centric self-preservation is the "natural" thing to do. Things like morality and doing the "right thing" like you are talking about are human rationalizations for an orderly society.

In a world where no one has super powers we have to collectively encourage people to act as you suggest so that we all get along. In a world where someone "tips the scales" by getting super powers all bets are basically off. The person with powers no longer has any moral imperative to follow the rules unless, for some "unnatural" reason, they still want to.

Nice rationalization!

The only moral option with superpowers is to use them to help others

I'm sure you're twirling your moustache when you say that

in response to gg. ^this^


as much as we might like to gripe about abuse of power by normal humans in police activities (as a corollary to getting powers and going villain-y), it actually happens a lot less than we might believe in first world countries.

which gets us into a much different conversation on the 'economy of (hero)ism/policing', why batman and superman have day jobs, and why police make easy targets for corruption. this is where the good go bad, simply trying to pay the rent and send their kids to college for a better life that doesn't involve the same moral choices from a very limited list.

So your rationalization that you are not a villain is that I'm the one rationalizing?

This word is wearing thin, so my chain of questioning ends here. Anyway, carry on.

Very few will argue with that. What stops you from eventually becoming judge, jury, and executioner? What happens when the justice system lets out a serial killer you put away, and he kills again? What about if someone targets your family?

Can you keep your temper in check forever? Sometimes the law isn't always right. Are you going to fly over to other countries, and enforce your rules on their culture?

I'm not sure you see the entire picture. Supervillains wouldn't call themselves that, they'd call themselves heroes.

People with superpowers, almost by definition, would redefine what's "moral" to suit their own purposes. Choices that we call 'good' and 'evil' lose any sense of collective certainty when superpowers would basically allow you to do anything you DECIDED was good for you or anyone else.

Helping others, as you put it, would become merely something you'd CHOOSE to do, not something you HAD to do.

Which is just like real life

Ah, but who would you help?

Unless you are Multiple Man, you can't be every where at once. You start to patrol a certain district or city. Or maybe you do patrol the whole world, but certain sectors during certain days. Either way, you can't help everyone at the same time.

Which then leads, consciously or not, NOT helping certain people. You can't stop that mugger in NYC because you are stopping that earthquake in California. Pretty soon, you have rationalized WHY you are helping people. "They don't need my help because crime is so rare in that city, the police will be able to handle it." "Millions are dying, but it is war between two nations, I can't stop that." It is only a short leap from that to ONLY helping certain people. And from that, only helping them in the way YOU see it as best. And so on.

Think about it in your everyday life: you don't, generally speaking, try to solve all your friends' problems. Even if you can see a viable solution, sometimes your own problems, or something else more important, takes precedence. In a small way, you are being a bad guy because you aren't sacrificing yourself for someone else, you are being self-centered, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. First and foremost, you do what you need to do to survive.

Another the superhero analogy, maybe the military feels like you are a threat to national security, despite your good deeds. So they send bombers to take you down. What do you do? You defend yourself and destroy the bombers, trying to save the pilots, but again, you can't be everyone at once, so a few die. Now you are really perceived as a threat because you didn't turn yourself in and you "killed" a few military men. Or maybe after that, you feel like you could still do some good, but you need no military intervention, so you go and destroy a few, deserted bases to keep them off your back. Hey, all you did was destroy property, no one was killed, and you can still do good. But you still DESTROYED something. As someone with powers, you WILL face opposition. And even "good guys" do "evil" things to keep on doing good.

Assuming one can do good forever, without stress, without limitations, is like assuming a frictionless world. Sooner or later, something is going to slip you up and leave yourself open to criticism that you aren't being the "best" you can be, whatever that may be. Honestly, I think most do-gooders with superpowers in the real world will do good until it causes too many hassles, then retire to a "Normal" life where maybe they use their superstrength to lug that couch up the stairs or that X-ray vision to see if that Scratch-Off will win them some money.

Uh... yeah...
You basically just admitted that your sense of "morality" is driven by what you decide is right and wrong. What YOU decide.
I'm not sure the definition of a super villain could have been summed up any better.

But it's the natural choice to help the most number of people at any time - like an earthquake would endanger way more people than a mugging would.

That's why a superhero can never follow the law 100%

Political questions aren't allowed

Recluse seems ok with the whole "I'm a villain" thing

You are confusing what's natural with human morality. You may think acting morally is the "proper" way human beings should act and that's fine. But there's really absolutely nothing NATURAL about it.

It's amusing how well this describes some situations I've been involved in where even a little power turned people who were normally virtuous tyrannical.

But do you see how easy that would be to use to rationalize more "non-heroic" actions over others?

That earthquake in California? Only a 3.2. Some pictures fall of the wall, sinkholes appear on the street, many injuries, but no deaths (or at least, no deaths a superhero could prevent by reacting to the quake. You can't hold up already collapsed building) You would be there for cleanup and to help clear the rubble to search for survivors.

That mugging? One person against another, but the mugger has a gun and the victim is fighting. 90% chance the victim will be shot and the mugger will get away. It is a more clear cut case of you interceding will actually save a life. Let's add in the extra wrinkle that you are already in that city and you can act more instantly.

Or, to put it more evilly (muahahaha), two people are getting mugged at the same time. No one will be killed, but you can't help both. One victim is a multimillionaire, the other is a low-income person. Who do you save? Why?

Actually, it is the natural way to act

Still, I don't think full evil is any more natural than full good. Human beings ARE pack animals, so the well-being of the "pack" IS a natural concern. Extreme selflessness and extreme selfishness both fall outside of instinctual behavior.