scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/6pp7a2.md

Interesting X-post - You have 20 credits worth of obscure superpowers to become a superhero/villain. Spend wisely my friends

• Author: u/neshalchanderman *

• URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/hypotheticalsituation/comments/zgmab/you_have_20_credits_worth_of_obscure_superpowers/

• Score: 22

• Created: 2017-07-26T16:28:16

Post:

Link to content

Comments:

u/DCarrier [+21] (an hour later)

Telekinesis is insanely OP. Although it's not clear how far or fast I can move objects.

u/LifeIsBizarre [+23] (6 hours later)

Supervillian
Day 1 - "Ahem, attention world, I am a supervillian. I am going to move the moon and when you give me 100 billion dollars, I shall put it back" Mental Shove
Day 2 - "Thank you for my money, I'm going to put it back now, If you try and harm me in any way the Earth is going into the Sun. Ta-Ta for now." Mental Shove Back

u/Kishoto [+5] (23 hours later)

Huh. I'm surprised no one delved into the obvious consequences of moving a celestial body out of orbit. I'm no astro physicist but the ramifications would be worldwide.

u/zarraha [+3] (4 days later)

Telekinesis + Teleportation:

Immediately throw Earth at the sun. Teleport just as temperatures rise to unsafe levels. Teleport must take you somewhere safe, nowhere safe exists on the Earth, therefore it searches elsewhere in the galaxy and deposits you on a random inhabitable planet.

More of an evil/insane supervillain choice than a rational one, as your new life is likely going to be more of a struggle than one where you have 100 billion dollars, but it optimizes your kill-count.

On the other hand, a rational supervillain might be forced to take teleportation and explain this back-up plan in order to make the extinction threat actually credible.

u/None [+1] (12 hours later)

Just hundred billion? I'd milk the planet till the udders screamed.

u/Flashbunny [+8] (54 minutes later)

Invincible: Illness

Eternal Youth

I'll live until the day I'm fatally injured in some way.

I guess I'll take Hold Your Breath to round out the last two points - I should probably take Hunger, to avoid poisoning or starvation (I choose to eat "nothing") but I like personal hygiene.

u/DCarrier [+4] (an hour later)

I was thinking invincible: lack of oxygen to the brain. Or invincible: brain damage.

u/sephlington [+7] (an hour later)

Invincible: death. Invincible: suffering.

u/Flashbunny [+3] (an hour later)

Wording of the power doesn't work like that - no-one is killed by death. I suppose you couldn't literally die of pain, though?

u/Menolith [+9] Unworthy Opponent (2 hours later)

Extreme pain can contribute to death, but ultimately only by inducing brain damage by proxy.

Regarding dying of death, well, "THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A REASON, said Death, I CAN JUST KILL YOU. "

u/Flashbunny [+1] (3 hours later)

Haha, I thought of Death but I had one hand covered in chocolate so I went for the shorter post. Though if we live in a world where Death does in fact reap people à la Terry Pratchett, I might have to rethink my choices anyway - as soon as a God notices I've weaselled my way into an extended lifespan, they might just smite me for the hell of it.

u/DCarrier [+1] (6 hours later)

But if that ever comes up, I think I'd prefer to die.

u/ArgentStonecutter [+1] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (16 hours later)

no-one is killed by death

Neil Simon Lied????

u/kaukamieli [+1] (19 hours later)

invincible: "malfunction of body"? :D

u/MonstrousBird [+1] (20 hours later)

Yeah, but that would mean you body could still malfunction? Even if you didn't die of it that would suck.

u/None [-9] (2 hours later)

[deleted]

u/Flashbunny [+9] (3 hours later)

If you want to commit suicide, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. I've always dislike the whole concept of immortal angst - just make new friends, most people don't just kill themselves when loved ones die - but this isn't even total immortality.

Unless you literally mean you want to undergo the aches and pains of ageing, which is one of those things which sounds super romantic until you think about it for more than 10 seconds, and then you realise it's really dumb. What kind of a monster would you be marrying that would want to see you suffer when you don't have to?

EDIT: A word.

u/CeruleanTresses [+3] (3 hours later)

I think the immortal angst thing comes from this cultural ideal we have of the One True Monogamous Romantic Partnership that is supposed to be the pinnacle of your existence, and once you lose that you may as well be dead. But of course--as you alluded to--people already do lose their partners, grieve, and move on, all the time. And not everyone even wants the OTMRP in the first place. It's like--if mortals can live happy lives in spite of experiencing grief and loss, why not an immortal?

Well said about the inappropriate romanticizing of "growing old together." The idea of people loving each other for a very long time is what's nice; the part where their bodies gradually fall to pieces is the downside.

u/None [+3] (12 hours later)

I think the immortal angst thing comes from this cultural ideal we have of the One True Monogamous Romantic Partnership that is supposed to be the pinnacle of your existence, and once you lose that you may as well be dead.

There's an element of fox with sour grapes too.

It's easy to argue that death gives life meaning or eternal life sucks when you don't have a chance to reup your lifespan every fifty or so years.

u/None [-5] (4 hours later)

[deleted]

u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (4 hours later)

"Outgrow" in what sense? You get that the hypothetical eternally young person is still continuing to learn and have experiences, right? They're not literally frozen in the mentality of a 25-year-old, they just aren't undergoing the slow ruination of their bodies as they get older.

u/ArgentStonecutter [+2] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (17 hours later)

The point is that humans are social creatures, but you wouldn't be able to have long relationships if you don't grow older, because all your friends will outgrow you.

Again with the "suffering/loss/death/etc... gives meaning to life" meme.

It's like a neolithic tribesman scoffing at modern life because we don't have to spend our whole lives scrabbling for mere survival.

u/None [-2] (4 hours later)

[deleted]

u/nicholaslaux [+6] (5 hours later)

Are you asserting here that the mental process of maturing necessarily involves a destructive element, such that you wouldn't be able to mature mentally without your body aging as well?

Unless there is some extra process beyond accumulation of memories and experiences you're saying is involved in "maturing", then it sounds like a larger issue with this would be an inability to form memories (or gain muscles, lose weight, or otherwise effect any meaningful change upon my mind or body).

Obviously, this level of definition of why natural language superpowers often are so confusing, since language isn't well defined.

u/Flashbunny [+4] (6 hours later)

Relationships mature because you get to know them over time, and build upon shared experiences. Why would not physically getting older stop that?

As for a "young mindset", it depends - if you mean a level of maturity, I'd have to disagree, because that comes with experience which you'd gain just as much of over time. If you mean "more willing to undertake high-energy activities as part of remaining in their physical prime" then I suppose you could argue that your interests would diverge somewhat, but it would be a very specific type of person that wouldn't get bored of their activities over time, or at least be unwilling to try new ones with their older friends.

u/adad64 [+3] Chaos Legion (4 hours later)

Er... "Young Mindset"? I'm pretty sure your brain keeps working and you keep learning and changing. You just don't have your body start degrading until it stops altogether. Why would eternal youth stop you from learning or growing as a person? Besides stopping the literal growth of your person, anyway.

u/None [+0] (5 hours later)

[deleted]

u/nicholaslaux [+2] (6 hours later)

I think we can agree that old people tend to be less active than young people, maybe even more content with "doing nothing".

I think this is a core point of contention with your scenario to me, and possibly with others as well. I don't have statistics to back this up, but this description doesn't mesh with my experiences. It might help to elaborate what ages and experience levels we're actually discussing.

One comparison I keep seeing is "80 year old in a 20 year old's body". However, that seems to ignore the potentially inconvenient ages between the two. For example, I think it would be somewhat difficult to say that, for example, a 30 year old first time parent is "obviously" or "clearly" less active than that same person was at 20. Is the activity the same? Probably not, they're not going out drinking and clubbing (or whatever "activity" we're positing that 20 year olds do currently; when I was 20, I sat around and watched TV a lot, so I suspect that I'm not a member of the reference group), but chasing a 2 year old around their house and yard all night long every night is certainly a lot of activity.

Additionally, I know the long distance running community is filled with people well into their fifties and sixties, many of whom were not exactly athletic in their earlier lives (though clearly, some also were).

These are two narrow anecdotal examples that would begin to hint towards any sort of generalized lowered activity level, if it does exist, being caused by deterioration in physical capabilities, rather than a more generalized process of aging altering your interests on its own.

I do agree with your statement about recycling social circles, but have observed as I get older that the age range of my circle simply has grown wider, rather than just older. My current group of friends that I spend a decent amount of time with ranges from people around 26 to 35 or 36, rather than the 22-23 when I was that age. So, with eternal physical youth and an ability to meal learn and grow, I expect my social circle would likely stabilize at around mid 40s to late 60s.

u/ArgentStonecutter [+2] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (17 hours later)

it suggests that you'd also keep a young mindset.

I hope so! Neural plasticity is awesome!

u/ADHD_Broductions [+2] (21 hours later)

Argumentum ad hominem: I count eight. Any other counts?

u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (2 hours later)

Is it necessary to have your body fall apart along with your partner's in order to be happy? Is it necessary to do anything at all involving a "love of your life" to be happy? Not everyone wants the same things. Saying it's unlikely for eternal youth to give someone a happy life requires making a lot of assumptions about what happiness is supposed to be.

u/None [+0] (2 hours later)

[deleted]

u/CeruleanTresses [+5] (3 hours later)

I am an adult, and I'm also an aromantic asexual. I am not able to experience those feelings whether I want to or not. So thanks for implying that I'm both childish and doomed to a life of misery for something I can't help, offense absolutely taken.

Fortunately, because I'm an adult, I've had the time and experience to learn that just because a lot of people find fulfillment in romantic partnerships doesn't mean that's the only path to a happy life. Don't assume that what you need to be happy is what everyone needs.

Also not sure why you assume that an asymmetrically-aging couple can't be happy, given that that has never happened in all of human history. If eternally young people actually existed and their relationships all fell apart as their partners aged, then you'd have something to base that assertion on.

Edit for clarity: I am not offended that this person assumed I'm not an aromantic asexual. I understand that it's an uncommon orientation. What I took issue with was the "you must be a child if you think you can be happy without romantic love" thing, which I felt was a needlessly condescending generalization. I brought up my (lack of) orientation to give some perspective on why "romantic love is necessary for happiness" is not a universal axiom--being aromantic is one example of a reason that someone might not desire a romantic partnership and be perfectly happy without one.

u/None [-2] (4 hours later)

[deleted]

u/CeruleanTresses [+3] (4 hours later)

The chances are actually 100% that I'm an adult, because I'm sitting here, being an adult.

Seeing as we're in /r/rational, I'm surprised that you're this cool with making unfounded assumptions about people you've never met. And that you think yelling "Statistics!" makes for a good argument.

Seriously--if you're going to make an argument like "you must be a child if you think you can have a happy life without a romantic partnership," you're going to have to do better than vaguely alluding to the concept of statistics. How about you try to actually back up your claim that "99.9% of people outgrow" the idea that a romantic partnership is absolutely necessary for happiness? Cause I was going to let that slide as hyperbole, but apparently now it's statistics, so--you got a source for that? And do you actually think that aromantic asexuals are the only people in all the world who can be happily single?

And as for the "age gap" thing, I'm really not sure why you think situations like "a 50-year-old marries a 20-year-old" extrapolate to situations like "two 20-year-olds get married, but only one of them looks 80 when they're both 80." You want to argue that a 500-year-old immortal will have trouble successfully dating the mortals, you might have a leg to stand on, but the argument you actually made was about a partnership where one partner undergoes senescence and the other does not--something that, again, has never happened in human history.

u/None [+0] (4 hours later)

[deleted]

u/CeruleanTresses [+5] (4 hours later)

Sorry that you couldn't have this conversation without being an ass about it and attacking me as a person (while also failing to back up your assertions in any meaningful way). I think you know where you can put your insincere, condescending smiley face and "good evening."

u/None [-2] (4 hours later)

[deleted]

u/nicholaslaux [+6] (5 hours later)

Not the person you're responding to, but to an outside observer, your posts came across as extremely condescending, and repeatedly made baseless claims without defending them, while just claiming "statistics!"

I'm not going to assume anyone's age in this discussion, but your comments definitely read as more immature to me, regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with them.

u/None [+0] (5 hours later)

[deleted]

u/CeruleanTresses [+7] (5 hours later)

I have no desire to get into it again, but I have to giggle at how you actually did just incorrectly assume my gender.

You also seem to have misunderstood what I was offended about and why, but you've made it clear that you don't want to hear it, so I'll let it drop. I'll just throw an edit into the original post so that others don't also misunderstand.

u/nicholaslaux [+5] (5 hours later)

For reference, I was actually curious after reading this exchange so I did look up statistics. the only actual study I could find was from England in 2004, but found a rate of approximately 1% asexuality among adults.

Numerous obvious caveats abound, including lack of replication as well as it being old and potentially having lower reported rates. However, by comparison, only about 3.5 to 4% of the adult population currently self identified as homosexual, which puts asexuality as less common, but definitely not an order of magnitude less common.

So, if you think the response you received would have been unmerited had it been instead a gay person responding to someone claiming that everyone grows out of being attracted to someone of the same sex, then that's one thing. But the statistics don't really seem quite as strong as you're implying, and might be worth updating your beliefs.

u/CeruleanTresses [+7] (5 hours later)

Thank you for checking the stats, I appreciate that. And I like your comparison to someone saying "everyone grows out of being gay"--I don't think I could have explained in such clear terms why their earlier comment upset me. I don't think I expressed myself very well at all, but you nailed it.

u/None [-1] (6 hours later)

[deleted]

u/Flashbunny [+5] (7 hours later)

I don't think he actually cared you didn't guess his sexuality, which you couldn't reasonably have guessed - rather, he was upset you claimed he probably "wasn't exactly an adult". Whether you intended it or not, the way it read did come across as being pretty rude.

u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (7 hours later)

You're exactly right. (Also, "she," not that it matters much!)

u/Flashbunny [+2] (16 hours later)

Ah, sorry. I tend to assume male as a demographics thing, but I"ll tag you. (I also used to assume that on the internet men are men, women are men and little kids are FBI agents, and old habits die hard!)

u/NightmareofTruth [+1] (a day later)

Asking for the sake of understanding - how do you experience asexuality or aromanticism?

Sexual and romantic attraction can be remarkably specific; there are some, for instance, that never find romance until very late into their lives. And in a similar vein, I'm... not really attracted to most people, though not so much that I would consider myself asexual. The individual that actually does spark an interest is few and far between; if not for the existence of the internet, I would likely have gone through my life without ever encountering anyone I found attractive.

I'm not saying you're the same way or attempting to invalidate your identity; it's more just intellectual curiosity - what is the driving point that makes you certain you will never experience romantic or sexual attraction?

u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (a day later)

Well, I'd say the answer is that I'm not certain. I never have experienced those things, and I don't expect to; for me there's not really even a frame of reference for those feelings. But if I ever do start to experience sexual and romantic attraction, I'll swap out my label accordingly. Aro/ace is just what most accurately describes me as I am now and as I've been up to this point.

For the sake of my mental wellbeing I pretty much have to expect that I'll never feel those things, though. I spent too many years thinking I was just a late bloomer, holding out for that one miraculous person who'd make me feel butterflies in my stomach and stars in my eyes, and it just left me feeling broken and disappointed. I had to stop thinking of myself as this incomplete person waiting to be made whole. I'd rather accept that this is who I am and move forward to build a happy life on that foundation, even if my idea of a happy life is a little unconventional.

In answer to how I experience it--it's kind of like not being into a hobby that other people are super passionate about. I respect the happiness it brings them, but I don't feel any interest for myself. Like, I meet people who I think are aesthetically beautiful, but the idea that I might want to have sex with them is totally alien.

u/NightmareofTruth [+2] (2 days later)

I think society, as a whole, places far too much importance on romance - you should never have been made to feel like you needed someone else to make you whole. Any relationship that's so deeply dependent, I think, is unhealthy; one should never have the perception that they are merely a half of a human being, completed by another. Supplemented and complemented by, yes.

So for what it's worth: I don't think your idea of a happy life is unconventional. If anything, it's the way things should be. There's far better goals in life than romance, heh.

That being said, thanks for answering. I was primarily wondering because the labels, I feel, have been greatly diluted (and perhaps are not entirely necessary, but that's a different debate altogether; I recognize that there is solidarity to be found in others that share the label). I have friends who identify as ace, but have - ahem - proclivities that are quite clearly sexual in nature, even if they only experience it in art; there's no real example of what they enjoy. Is that then asexuality, or simply that what they find attractive - unfortunately - does not exist?

u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (2 days later)

Oh, what I meant about feeling incomplete was the belief that I needed to "grow into" the ability to feel romantic attraction in order to become a fully realized human being, rather than specifically needing a partner--but I agree with everything you said about how our culture places too much emphasis on romance. One thing I really don't like is how we treat romantic relationships as a "step above" platonic ones--our fiction in particular often seems to glorify the newest romances above the longest-running, deepest friendships.

I think in your last paragraph you're referring to asexuals who have sexual fetishes? As someone who also falls into that category, I can offer my perspective.

The broad umbrella of asexuality is generally considered to include anyone who doesn't experience sexual attraction toward other people. That covers not only people who have little or no libido at all, but also people who do have a sex drive (and perhaps a fetish) but have no inclination to satisfy it through sexual activity with another person.

For me, the term "asexual" is appropriate and useful even though I have a sex drive, because the implications re: my relationships with other people are the same either way. Many of my personal struggles related to my asexuality are the same ones that asexuals without libido also experience. The question of whether I'd be more accurately defined as "my fetish"-sexual is mildly interesting on a semantic level, but it isn't a distinction I feel I need to make in my daily life.

I don't see the "umbrella" of asexuality as a dilution of the label; I see it as the label doing its job, which is to signal to others that I'm not a viable sexual prospect, anchor me in an identity, and connect me with the broader asexual community. It doesn't need to specify whether I have a libido or not in order to do that. Some aces like to use more expanded, precise labels, adding a variety of modifiers to "asexual" in order to pin down exactly how they experience sexuality. In the rare cases where it's necessary to get that specific, I think that's a fine way to distinguish different kinds of asexual.

u/NightmareofTruth [+1] (2 days later)

Yeah, and my own experience of my sexuality is... well... I'm primarily a teratophile, not in the "likes-disfigured-humans" sense, but in the "monsters-that-have-teeth" sense. Honestly, anything bipedal and inhuman generally registers high on my scale - I blame Power Rangers. The vast majority of people aren't particularly attractive to me, at least not in the same way. I'm not incapable of sexual attraction to people as such, but it takes a degree more effort, so I have a certain (if incomplete) understanding of where you're coming from.

I think part of my concern regarding the so-called "dilution" of the label lies in the younger generation, and the current tendency to pick and choose labels whilst trying to discover themselves. Unfortunately, identities can be just as restrictive as they are freeing - just as you can find communities and solidarity through your identity, those very same communities often inflict a kind of unintentional peer pressure. Being involved in a community is great, but leaving a community isn't; by necessity, a change in sexual identity would mean no longer being involved in that community.

So I suppose there's a balance to be had there. I'm just sort of thinking out loud; do you have an opinion?

u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (2 days later)

Oh, I don't know. I think it is important not to let your label turn into some kind of restrictive standard of behavior, but my experience is that these communities are generally very good about emphasizing that. I've never encountered any pressure to conform to a "gold standard" of asexuality, whereas I've often seen people reassuring each other that they don't have to feel beholden to the label.

In fact, there are plenty of people in ace communities who are more "less sexual" than "asexual"--like, you'll usually see a few demisexuals, people who require an emotional connection as a precursor to sexual attraction. So if there's been a dilution of the label, I'd argue that the result is greater inclusivity, rather than people being shut out as their identities shift.

u/NightmareofTruth [+2] (2 days later)

Well, I'm glad to hear that! It alleviates some of my concerns about the labels that are starting to pop up. I'm not a big fan of labels for myself in general, but I can see how it would help others. Thanks for the conversation.

u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (3 days later)

Yeah, you too!

u/None [+0] (7 hours later)

[deleted]

u/None [+7] (15 hours later)

[deleted]

u/CeruleanTresses [+3] (21 hours later)

Thank you for this, truly--it's everything I would have said had they not put me on ignore. It amazes me how they literally called my sexuality "underdeveloped" just to be hurtful, but still put on this act like all they did was innocently fail to guess that I'm ace.

u/nicholaslaux [+2] (a day later)

I gave up on responding further after the replies to two of my posts addressing at least a few of the side criticisms I had (which ignored the obvious tone bullshit) basically responded with "You make sense but people are being mean to me and this other person is super irrational because they said the word offended, so I'm going to ignore everything you were saying."

So, thanks for further illuminating what I was similarly thinking rather than letting it go unchecked.

u/callmebrotherg [+2] now posting as /u/callmesalticidae (3 hours later)

I'm an adult in a romantic relationship, and I'd 100% prefer to outlive my SO rather than die with or before her, all else being equal and provided that my good health was assured (as it is in this scenario). "Would you like to die with your spouse at the age of 80, despite good health being assured for lifetimes beyond that" doesn't seem too different from "If your spouse died in a car accident in five years, would you prefer to have died in that same car accident or to continue to live?"

u/narfanator [+15] (7 hours later)

Ehhh I feel like this is waiting for a Color Pill story from it. To much vagueness in power descriptions; example: must things be tangible? Could you do invincibility to kinetic energy? (Would it be worth it, since you can still be harmed?) If you're hit by a car, is it the impact or the blood loss that kills you?

Knowledge Thief seems reasonable; find dying people. But, do you also get their life's memories?

u/GaBeRockKing [+3] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (13 hours later)

Yogurt alone lets you create arbitrary amounts of negentropy (mass-energy creation), so everything past that is just gravy

u/tokol [+4] The Greater Good (23 hours later)

Maybe that's the curse? Entropy is maintained because the froyo was actually transmuted and transported from reserves of rare earth elements!

u/vakusdrake [+13] (an hour later)

Invulnerability: to physical damage, this protects me from damn near everything except incapacitation by toxins, electricity or a few other means. Basically since the body is a physical thing nothing could actually kill me, though quite a few things could put me out of commision if maintained.

Telekinetic: There's no size limits which means no force limit, so I can use this to move myself at relativistic speed and have the destructive power of a nuke. In fact I really have no other choice but to use this to fly around as a nude bald man since my invulnerability will protect me but not anything else.

Hold Breath x2: I would use this to be able to use this to remain safe from poisons or nearly anything else for an hour at a time by moving my body back and forth to protect myself with a sheath of plasma that will destroy any poisons. Effectively by always staying moving I can ensure invulnerability, and rarely have to make myself vulnerable by going somewhere and slowing down so I can actually take a breath. Also because of my long breath time I can get places by just flying directly through the planet quickly, but not so fast as to cause massive seismic activity.

With these powers I could achieve world domination flying around the world and threatening to destroy governments cities by accelerating to near lightspeed. I would use this power to force demilitarization and make global laws actually conform to basic western idealized liberal values, as well as forcing massive government transparency and cooperation. Basically with a lot of these sorts of superpower scenarios you can make yourself effectively invulnerable then force world powers to do what you want creating a world government by force.

u/None [+3] (9 hours later)

Why specify physical damage? Why not just "damage"? Nothing in the rules says you've got to get specific.

u/vakusdrake [+2] (10 hours later)

Sure I could just say damage but it wouldn't actually change anything. Once you get sufficiently broad (same thing if you say "everything"), you can't be killed. However the fact you can't die from anything still doesn't change the fact that you can still be incapacitated via poisons, oxygen deprivation, electric stunning, etc.

u/None [+2] (10 hours later)

Well it says "1 thing" by definition I don't think you can say "anything/everything"

u/vakusdrake [+2] (11 hours later)

Right you can't literally just say "everything" you should instead say "this universe", which is nice singular thing which includes everything likely to matter in this scenario.

u/None [+1] (21 hours later)

I might go with "forces/objects within this universe" instead

u/vakusdrake [+3] (a day later)

I might go with "forces/objects within this universe" instead

I think you are missing the point you were just making. Saying just "this universe" or "the set of all things that I don't want to cause harm to me" refers to a singular object, which just so happens to include as components everything you want protection from.
However "forces/objects within this universe" isn't a singular thing. The point is sort of to find a way of framing everything you want included as a singular noun.

u/None [+1] (7 days later)

[deleted]

u/vakusdrake [+1] (7 days later)

The interpretation where you still receive damage is by far the less sensible option. For one it would be literally useless, you could claim immunity to anything like say bullets and it would only ensure you stay indefinitely in a vegetative coma after getting shot. So yeah it guarantees you aren't getting any good stories out of this since you are getting no real protection from anything and will be put out of commision the first time you encounter any danger whatsoever.
I find it rather hard to imagine the author had the same interpretation unless they wanted to deliberately try to trick the people doing this CYOA. Even then it wouldn't make sense since most people wouldn't end up going with that interpretation because it seems obviously wrong for all the reasons I went over.

u/None [+1] (7 days later)

[deleted]

u/vakusdrake [+1] (7 days later)

I think your dichotomy doesn't necessarily work since you could easily go with a third option where you can still be incapacitated but you just aren't dealt any actual damage.

So things can only do you any ill temporarily, but not permanently (because if they could do that then it renders the power useless). So oxygen deprivation may not kill you but it would still knock you out because your bodies systems don't know that they can just keep functioning normally, similarly many poisons cause your body to act in ways not in your best interest but this isn't damage (well it would normally cause damage). Notably if the power could just protect you from any ill effects period then you would also be immune to any allergies.

u/Xtraordinaire [+5] Team Glimglam (3 hours later)

What's the curse on the yogurt? And what's 'unlimited'?

Telekinesis is the most broken one. Earth is an object, after all. Solve for global warming, check. Crush (literally) North Korean dictatorship, check. Beating Elon in race to Mars - WIP.

Teleportation is an obvious out-of-jail card, but I don't think it can be used for anything more than that. Unless 'anywhere' includes other planets (there are bound to be some safe ones) in which case you are screwed hard. So no.

Eternal youth seems useful, if morally dubious, provided you can handle being a loner.

Invisibility, flight, telekinesis. Be able to kill almost anyone on the planet. Be in general proximity of your target, wait for invisibility start, fly over them, kill them with something massive, or just shove them from a balcony or something. 2 extra points go in holding breath or hunger + froyo for the lulz.

u/ProudTurtle [+11] (an hour later)

What a fun exercise. I would steal the knowledge of Donald Trump instantly turning him into a vegetable. I would take eternal youth. Then I guess I would like strength as the most useful long term investment. I will use my knowledge to Donald Trump's empire to take some money. I would invest it in low risk funds and then wait. I think I'll take a job as a prison guard on death row or a banker on Wall Street so that I can get some use out of my life suction. I have one point left so I guess I take the fro-yo. I can always sell fro-yo if my Trump plan doesn't work out.

u/CeruleanTresses [+8] (2 hours later)

[obvious joke to the effect that Trump is already a vegetable]

u/ProudTurtle [+1] (2 hours later)

Well, that's a good take. I was picturing the ability to take him out of commission as being valuable even though I would then have to live forever with Trump's knowledge taking up a tiny slice of my brain. I just couldn't imagine a single person whose information I would like to have if it left them disabled except a person I hate.

u/callmebrotherg [+1] now posting as /u/callmesalticidae (3 hours later)

Obviously somebody has already used this power.

u/tokol [+1] The Greater Good (23 hours later)

See... this is how a President Pence happens! :/

u/ArgentStonecutter [+4] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (22 minutes later)

Shapeshifter (flying squirrel), eternal youth, and flying falling with style (hey, 100 feet up, you're over the 9mph threshold well before you hit the ground so you're flying again, and if that doesn't work I can shapeshift into a flying squirrel).

u/DCarrier [+3] (an hour later)

TIL flying squirrels are people. Then again I wouldn't be a vegetarian if I didn't already believe that.

u/ArgentStonecutter [+16] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (an hour later)

The specific flying squirrel that I'm shapeshifted into is obviously a person because I'm a person and I'm shapeshifted into it. QED.

u/kozinc [+3] (16 hours later)

(7) Shape Shifter: Kal El

(10) Invincible: Kryptonite

(3) Strength

Thus, winning.

u/vallar57 [+3] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (a day later)

Kal El is not a person, but a fictional character though. I imagine it requires a separate power to be able to tangibly interact with fiction.

u/kozinc [+3] (a day later)

It might not be wise to presume there are limits where there might be none. If there aren't, you've just closed yourself off from optimal munchkinry.

And the title is about becoming a superhero/supervillain (implying there might already be some existing). Why then not become the best?

u/vallar57 [+1] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (a day later)

Perhaps. The rules are not clear enough.

u/None [+1] (17 days later)

Shape shifter: Saitama

Invincible: reality warping.

I don't even need my last three points.

u/Frommerman [+8] (6 hours later)

• Shape Shifter: Valdimir Putin

• Knowledge Steal: Vladimir Putin

• Intangibility: Bullets

• Frozen Yogurt: Delicious

I now replace Putin. Assassinating me is far harder, as you need a bomb or poison. Over several years, I slowly shift his Empire from its current state to one more in-line with international rules and regulations. I withdraw from Crimea, citing it as a waste of money that could be better spent improving the economy. The Mafia is taken fully under my control, and I work on turning it into something more like the Yakuza: dangerous, but controlled and mostly keeping violence in-house.

Once things are properly under control, I convince my oligarchs that the best way for them to maintain power in perpetuity and avoid the kind of revolution Russia has already had once is to set up efficient social services that will keep them happy. I root out corruption in the police, punishing abusive cops severely and pushing the more stubborn precincts into alliances with our new, far less violent Mafia. The long term plan there is to transform their front businesses into actual profitable endeavors and make them realize that going legit is very lucrative and doesn't carry the risk of assassination by rivals.

Economy revitalized, Russia becomes a true world power. Sanctions are dropped because a lot of the human rights violations are gone, and we begin exporting our former Mafia made goods around the world. With them, we export a new philosophy of stability: criminal underworlds tamed into something less dangerous, police still corrupt but usually not to the public's detriment, oligarchs living the high life while everyone else gets to live a reasonable, decent life free of reasons to violently revolt.

Oh, also the infinite frozen yogurt solves the negentropy problem.

u/vallar57 [+2] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (a day later)

If only things were as simple as that... But a simple genre savviness predicts your plan to fail catastrophically.

u/Frommerman [+1] (a day later)

I've thought of a few sticking points with the plan. Most notably, I have no idea how I would go about replacing Putin in a way nobody would notice. If I can time when the memory transfer occurs, I might be able to do something like catch him in a bathroom somewhere, drop thermite on the body, then escape with my guards as the building burned down in an obvious assassination attempt. But I'm unsure how I'd even manage that.

Becoming an official body double before replacing him for real probably isn't practical either, as I would look too perfect and arouse suspicion, and I don't know whether he even uses body doubles.

There's probably a way to do this, but I don't know what it is.

u/vallar57 [+1] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (a day later)

Let me ask: do you see any problems with the content of your plan that are not connected to replacing itself?

u/Frommerman [+2] (a day later)

I don't know whether memory theft would allow me to play the part of Putin immediately. I don't know whether slowly bending Putin's goals to more closely match mine is possible to do in-character. I don't know whether he regularly carries out some horrific act I would be unable to replicate. I don't have the muscle memory of Russian, even though I would have an encyclopedic knowledge of it. I don't know whether the shapeshifting power also copies DNA. I don't know what paranoid countermeasures against things that are supposed to be impossible a man like him has set up.

u/vallar57 [+1] Unseen University: Faculty of High-Energy Magic (a day later)

That is not what I wanted to hear, but good points regardless XD

u/Kiousu [+2] Chaos Legion (4 days later)

This is infeasible as hell but I laughed so hard at this I just have to cast my vote for best response.

u/Jiro_T [+3] (4 hours later)

I'm not sure that eternal youth is the problem some people make it out to be. Many actions one can perform will do a small amount of harm to a lot of people (every time you go out driving, you statistically increase other people's chance of death by a tiny amount).

Knowledge thief fails to say whether it's one time only.

u/Predictablicious [+3] Only Mark Annuncio Saves (5 hours later)

Stacking 3x telekinesis for a cheap, thrice a day, space elevator. Hunger and Frozen Yogurt as the remaining points, we could possibly munchkin some good use out of the yogurt.

Having a way out of Earth for Humanity trumps any other choices for me.

u/Jakkubus [+2] (5 hours later)

Invincible (hypoxia), Shape Shifter (into myself at pristine health condition) and Strength (because I have 3 points left).

u/RMcD94 [+1] (3 hours later)

Intangibility the universe.

u/ArgentStonecutter [+3] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (17 hours later)

21 minutes and 6 seconds later your intangible ashes fall through the center of the Earth.

u/RMcD94 [+1] (18 hours later)

Why ashes , presumably gravity is a universal force

u/ArgentStonecutter [+3] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (18 hours later)

Why ashes

Because you have just spent 20+ minutes at a temperature of 500C increasing to 6000C and "intangible" doesn't mean "heat proof".

u/RMcD94 [+0] (18 hours later)

Temperature is also a universal aspect

u/ArgentStonecutter [+1] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (19 hours later)

Even if you're intangible to the hot substance radiative heating is going to cook you.

u/RMcD94 [+0] (20 hours later)

How can it heat me without physically interacting with me?

u/ArgentStonecutter [+5] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (20 hours later)

Ah, an idiosyncratic definition of "intangible".

If you're intangible to electromagnetic radiation then you're blind and invisible, but since you're intangible to air your suffocated corpse is now inexorably cooling to zero Kelvin as you oscillate back and forth through the core of the Earth.

If you're intangible to gravity (whatever that would mean) your suffocating body is instead hurled into space tangent to the rotating Earth.

Anyway, there's no good ending here.

u/RMcD94 [+0] (20 hours later)

Ah, an idiosyncratic definition of "intangible".

http://i.imgur.com/7VarQGT.png

So idiosyncratic it's the first result on google for the word.

If you're intangible to electromagnetic radiation then you're blind and invisible, but since you're intangible to air your suffocated corpse is now inexorably cooling to zero Kelvin as you oscillate back and forth through the core of the Earth.

What information do you have on the realities outside the universe that you know that heat would dissipate?

If you're intangible to gravity (whatever that would mean) your suffocating body is instead hurled into space tangent to the rotating Earth.

My suffocating body isn't hurled anywhere because who says velocity exists outside the universe?

Anyway, there's no good ending here.

What part of intangibility the universe would ever hint at a good ending?

u/ArgentStonecutter [+1] Emergency Mustelid Hologram (21 hours later)

So idiosyncratic it's the first result on google for the word.

Light is already intangible. Which is implied by the quote they use even.

What information do you have on the realities outside the universe that you know that heat would dissipate?

You're not outside the universe, you're just not interacting with any of the matter (or, if you insist, energy) in the universe.

u/RMcD94 [+1] (21 hours later)

Light is already intangible. Which is implied by the quote they use even.

Not in the slightest. Ghosts are intangible, non real stuff.

You're not outside the universe, you're just not interacting with any of the matter (or, if you insist, energy) in the universe.

If I'm intangible to the universe the point was to be outside the universe. If only I'd known there'd be some furious commenter who would angrily shoot down any post lacking sources and detailed mathematical analysis

u/RMcD94 [+1] (21 hours later)

Light is already intangible. Which is implied by the quote they use even.

Not in the slightest. Ghosts are intangible, non real stuff.

You're not outside the universe, you're just not interacting with any of the matter (or, if you insist, energy) in the universe.

If I'm intangible to the universe the point was to be outside the universe. If only I'd known there'd be some furious commenter who would angrily shoot down any post lacking sources and detailed mathematical analysis

u/RMcD94 [+1] (21 hours later)

Light is already intangible. Which is implied by the quote they use even.

Not in the slightest. Ghosts are intangible, non real stuff.

You're not outside the universe, you're just not interacting with any of the matter (or, if you insist, energy) in the universe.

If I'm intangible to the universe the point was to be outside the universe. If only I'd known there'd be some furious commenter who would angrily shoot down any post lacking sources and detailed mathematical analysis

u/RMcD94 [+1] (21 hours later)

Light is already intangible. Which is implied by the quote they use even.

Not in the slightest. Ghosts are intangible, non real stuff.

You're not outside the universe, you're just not interacting with any of the matter (or, if you insist, energy) in the universe.

If I'm intangible to the universe the point was to be outside the universe. If only I'd known there'd be some furious commenter who would angrily shoot down any post lacking sources and detailed mathematical analysis

u/None [+1] (4 hours later)

Hunger, breath,eternal youth,telekinesis, strength

1+2+8+6+3

u/josephwdye [+1] I love you (6 hours later)

Invincible[yogurt curse] 10 + frozen yogurt 1 + telekinetic 6 + strength 3

Since the curse of the yogurt doesn't affect me I have an unlimited source of energy.

u/michaelkeenan [+1] (8 hours later)

I've long wondered if there's some way we can grab asteroids such as that $10 quintillion one and somehow drop them on Earth safely. So I'd take telekinesis, maybe stacked three times, and collect big useful asteroids on Earth.

Depending on the rules about bundling things into "one object" we might be able to move a lot of sea water to Mars, which combats sea level rising here, and helps with terraforming there. Presumably "the North Pole" is one object, but that's probably too much.

u/GaBeRockKing [+1] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (13 hours later)

Unlimited frozen yogurt + hunger for a low-cost spacetravel package. (Expel yogurt to spin a flywheel to generate arbitrary amounts of energy. Expel yogurt for propulsion. Separate yogurt into water and non-water, eat the non-water using hunger.)

u/serge_cell [+1] (14 hours later)

cursed frozen yogurt. Apollo-13.

u/throwaway11252016 [+1] (a day later)

"Telekinesis" + "intangibility" to the object under telekinetic control was the combination that stood out to me. Also, the "cursed" in "frozen yogurt" seems to be removed by the "without repercussion" in "hunger." As long as you process all the yogurt through yourself, infinite bioenergy fuels humanity's ascent to galactic power?

u/MonstrousBird [+1] (a day later)

Even if you factor in 'without repercussion' becoming a human manure factory for ever sounds unappealing, especially with the personal hygiene problems, plus there is only so much frozen yoghurt that can go through your digestive tract per minute.

u/Cruithne [+1] Light Sith epistemologist (a day later)

Remember to take the frozen yoghurt, guys. Infinite matter means no heat death of the universe.

u/zarraha [+1] (4 days later)

Make sure you get eternal youth as well and keep yourself safe from harm for the rest of eternity, otherwise it'll just happen anyways with a small delay

u/b72b0f8f267f [+0] (2 hours later)

Knowledge Thief + Shapeshifter allows you to impersonate anyone. Choosing Donald Trump would give you power over the US army and significant influence to effect change. Unfortunately, you will have to pretend to be Trump.

u/MonstrousBird [+1] (20 hours later)

But you still have to get to where Trump is expected to be, and dispose of the real Trump... I'd suggest invulnerability to bullets if you had enough points left

u/PurposefulZephyr [+0] (7 hours later)

Invincibility has a potent hack to it: the cause can be very specific.

• Touching a copper plate with specific, 10 digit number on it. (or a set of names, to remember it)
• Chanting a specific song. Or a poem.
• Really, desperately wishing to die for more than a day.
• "Being in a situation which will certainly inflict tremendous and long-lasting pain upon me."
• "Becoming brainwashed or permanently modified in a way my person before said modification would find a fate as bad or worse than death."

u/Jiro_T [+3] (2 days later)

You're invincible to the specified thing, you're not invincible to everything else with the specified thing negating it.

---