Exchange of Realities

Back in the old days, when the world was new and before angst had been introduced to our everlasting fight, things were simple. We were evil, probably insane or twisted, and that was all there was to it. They were Good, purity of heart was pretty much a job requirement, and while no amount of blandishments could turn them from their duty, they were so Good that most of them didn’t have the heart to kill us. But the conflicts were too great for that flat, two-color world to hold, and it began to swell, and to grow, and to push itself into three dimensions. And when it did, motivations of each side leaked onto the other. Conversion from Evil to Good had always been possible, but now, with flawed heroes who weren’t Doomed, and honorable motives within our ranks, we had a shot at converting them. And the first thing we learned to use was weaponized psychology.

The principle behind weaponized psychology is simple. It’s an offshoot of ‘know thine enemy’: to be exact, “Know thine enemy better than thine enemy doth know himself.” And, of course, exploit it (but that goes without saying, right?). In most cases, the goal is to cause the target to shut down, or possibly to cause him to join us, though most of us go into a weaponized psychology session fully aware that various constraints both narrative and non-narrative make that one something of a pipe dream. But it’s worth trying, and let’s face it, a good bout of weaponized psychology is fun. So how do we do it?

First step: Know. Thine. Enemy. I don’t care how good your speech on a hero’s suppressed daddy issues are, it’s not going to work if the hero doesn’t have daddy issues. He’ll just laugh at you. So pay attention. Do research. If you don’t have spies, or scrying magic, or whatever, get some. Learn whatever you can about him, then learn to apply it to reach other conclusions, and make sure you stay current. The one thing more embarrassing than picking on a common flaw that he happens not to have is picking on what was a significant weakness when you first met but that he’s already arced through. This also means knowing the kind of conversational style to take. Inexperienced heroes still drunk on their own goodness may respond better to a direct reaming out, but the worldly wise who know your tricks are going to need a subtler, more allusive touch, and if you’re confident enough to challenge a deceptive protagonist, you will need to make sure that you’ve got the same mastery of allusion and metaphor and giving him just enough information to let him come to the rest of it as he does. The ones I’ve met have all been far likelier to play the game for the game’s own sake, so they might stick around for the discussion just because it’ll be a challenge. See below for why this is useful.

Second, make sure you’re dealing with the right kind of hero. He needs to be at least a bit introspective, or else he just plain won’t care about what you have to say to him. On the other hand, he can’t be so introspective that he’s already independently reached your conclusions and found a coping mechanism. Weaponized psychology, particularly when used to paralyze, requires a certain amount of shock/revelation to be truly effective. Perception also bears a relation, but it’s iffy: people who are perceptive about themselves are very hard to surprise, but the ones who understand other people quite well are often vulnerable, particularly if you lead off with a few observations about their teammates that mirror theirs. That establishes you as knowing what you’re talking about, making it likelier that they’ll realize there’s some truth to what you say when you start in on them. Truth is an important element to weaponized psychology; to make it work, we have to counter our reputation for lying.

Of course, weaponized psychology isn’t going to do you a jot of good unless you can get the hero to listen, now, is it? Some people deal with that the obvious way, by giving literal meaning to the captive audience. And yes, that works, but being restrained and stuck listening to what they see as a classic monologue makes some heroes a bit oppositional, which gives extra barriers. I find that it works better if the hero is coming to you in the first place. Maybe you know something he doesn’t and needs to. Or you’ve managed to project the image of someone who despite the whole evil thing could be admirable, interesting, worth working with, and they just can’t get enough of talking to you. Either way, set up a situation in which it’s the hero’s choice to leave or not, and it just happens that it’s more in his interest to stay.

Weaponized psychology is a difficult, individualized science. But when it works, giving heroes logic errors at critical moments is the least of the things it can do for you. Consider it, and if you choose to do it, learn it well. Whether Good is dumb or not, be smarter!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS