How much tech does it take...?

[Techwright]

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

 

Iron-Man is pretty obvious.  He's got the brilliant mind, and may have learned a few natural moves along the way, but he's almost entirely reliant on the power suit or components of it.

 

What of Batman or Green Hornet, though?  Both use tricked-out cars, and Batman has other tricked out rides as well.  Batman heavily uses his utility belt and costume elements incorporating technology (which varies in the re-tellings).  Green Hornet, though the number of his gizmos is fewer, uses both a special gas pellet gun and a custom "Sting", basically a heavy duty taser in either gun or rod form.   Yet both are skilled hand-to-hand fighters with no modifications to their bodies (like cybernetics).  Where do these considerations land them?

[Maelwys]

4 hours ago, Techwright said:

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

 

Iron-Man is pretty obvious.  He's got the brilliant mind, and may have learned a few natural moves along the way, but he's almost entirely reliant on the power suit or components of it.

 

What of Batman or Green Hornet, though?  

"Being the Batman is not about gadgets! It is not about body armor! It is about three things; speed, skill and sense!"

(If you've never heard this particular one... looky here; it's at approx 1:07 in!) 😉

[TheMoneyMaker]

If you have a futuristic sci-fi ray gun and nothing else but martial arts training, you could call that high tech. If all your force field powers come from a teeny-tiny belt buckle that is the source of your power and you also blast with ordinary pistols, that's all you need to call you high tech if you want. If you have a tech sword and super reflexes, that's all you need to be a high tech hero if you want.

 

Of course, the ray gun example could be natural origin because the person wielding it has no special powers and is just using a single device while also relying on natural skills. The force field example with dual pistols could be a mutant origin in which your power is enhanced physical abilities that let you survive and use your modern and advanced tech. And that tech sword could just look tech and you could be the source of magic origin power which can be channeled through the tech sword and grants you magical reflexes.

 

How much is enough? You decide.

[Doc_Scorpion]

18 hours ago, Techwright said:

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

Flip a coin.  Heads, you have enough, call it Technology Origin.  Tails, you don't, and you're Natural.  If you flip the coin so hard it exceeds escape velocity and heads for the distant stars...  Get a bigger coin.

Edited Wednesday at 12:33 AM by Doc_Scorpion

[Snarky]

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

 

Iron-Man is pretty obvious.  He's got the brilliant mind, and may have learned a few natural moves along the way, but he's almost entirely reliant on the power suit or components of it.

 

What of Batman or Green Hornet, though?  Both use tricked-out cars, and Batman has other tricked out rides as well.  Batman heavily uses his utility belt and costume elements incorporating technology (which varies in the re-tellings).  Green Hornet, though the number of his gizmos is fewer, uses both a special gas pellet gun and a custom "Sting", basically a heavy duty taser in either gun or rod form.   Yet both are skilled hand-to-hand fighters with no modifications to their bodies (like cybernetics).  Where do these considerations land them?

Arent all Soldiers of Arachnos “natural” even the armored crab spiders?

[BasiliskXVIII]

My personal cutoff is "if the high-tech gadgets were taken away, would they be forced to retire?". If you take away Iron Man's suit and make sure he can't replace it with other technological gadgetry, he doesn't have a lot to offer on the battlefield. Batman, on the other hand, is fully capable. Punisher's fine using low-tech gadgets, too, (with low-tech in this case meaning guns that you could buy at any gun shop) so he's also natural. But Green Lantern, even as a capable combatant probably wouldn't keep going, as seen when Guy Gardner loses his ring and goes on to fail at being a vigilante until he steals a yellow ring.

 

I don't think it's a perfect system - the default state of Arachnos Soldiers as natural kind of breaks it -  but for me, that's my guideline.

[biostem]

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

I would say that, beyond the general "player fiat" type of declaration, that it depends upon how much "skill" is required to use that tech.  For instance, Iron Man is tech not just because it's a suit of powered armor, but also because Stark can't really do much (combat-wise) without said technology, whereas someone like the Winter Soldier was a capable fighter before his augmentations, and it doesn't really matter what weapons he uses.  Similarly, Batman, while indeed utilizing a dizzying array of gadgets, still requires a lot of skill and training (natural ability) to do so.  I mean, in Iron Man 3, Pepper had the Extremis implant applied to her and suddenly became a good fighter, and in End Game, she had her Rescue suit, and I'm pretty sure she neither developed nor had extensive training.  Heck, Rhoadie in Iron Man 2, had, AFAIK, zero practice with the suit but was able to pick things up rather quickly.  I suppose, in short, it's a very flexible definition.  Heck, I've used natural origin for "digital beings" because their abilities are inherent to what sort of entity they are.  Even a robot could conceivably be "natural", since, from their perspective, their training and abilities are the result of the form they exist in.  Now, if that very same robot built all sorts of augmentations for themselves, or were otherwise provided with such accessories, then I'd say they were "technology" in origin... 

[Frozen Burn]

It's all subjective and there can be arguments for either way, and I think it's all a matter of perspective.  Yes, there are some obvious ones, like Iron Man stated in the OP as being Tech.  Or Dr. Strange being Magic - clearly he learned to do spell work.  But....

 

A demon might be considered "magic" origin, but it is what it is - it was born/spawned/created as a demon and it has inherent and natural abilities, it doesn't do spell work as it's magic is "natural" to it and therefore could be considered as a "natural" origin.  Same could be said for a Mutant that was born that way - it's abilities being natural and inherent.  

 

Or, a science experiment could cause someone to mutate - so, which origin are they - Science or Mutant?  

 

What's the line between Science and Tech?  They kind of go hand-in-hand.  And yet, Natural abilities of smarts, braininess, and/or martial skills my be needed to utilize that Science or Tech and in which case... you can pick your origin.

 

In the case of Batman, I think it's both Natural and Tech - he has, and uses, both.  Unfortunately, our game only allows us to pick 1 origin.  This where I think Dual Origin Enhancements should actually be better than Single Origin enhancements - you're tapping into more aspects of yourself as opposed to a narrow single side.  ...but whatevs.  😄  

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:46 PM by Frozen Burn
Filthy typos!

[biostem]

5 minutes ago, Frozen Burn said:

Or, a science experiment could cause someone to mutate - so, which origin are they - Science or Mutant?  

I think it sparks an interesting thought experiment as well - is a character's "origin" even worth mentioning if how they function in the now is based upon something else?  When Stark lost access to his armor and operated as "The Mechanic", where he had to use his wits and intellect instead of relying on his armor?  Heck, you could argue that Dr. Strange had to rely more on his own intelligence and perseverance in order to even get into the mindset where he could accept that magic was real and start to learn, (or maybe he would have taken to it faster if he weren't so smart/set in his ways)...

[TheMoneyMaker]

8 minutes ago, Frozen Burn said:

 

A demon might be considered "magic" origin, but it is what it is - it was born/spawned/created as a demon and it has inherent and natural abilities, it doesn't do spell work as it's magic is "natural" to it and therefore could be considered as a "natural" origin.  Same could be said for a Mutant that was born that way - it's abilities being natural and inherent.  

 

A demon might be magic or natural, but it could also be a mutant demon. What if it's a techno-demon because it possessed a cybernetic enhanced being or was summoned and imprisoned in a completely mechanical body? Science demon, though.....that's where I draw the line.  😜

[TheMoneyMaker]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

I think it sparks an interesting thought experiment as well - is a character's "origin" even worth mentioning if how they function in the now is based upon something else?

 

Like old D&D alignment arguments, I think it should be more of a tool to establish story flavor and not a straitjacket that confines your creative input.

[OEM61]

It's all a matter of personal opinion.

There are a lot of mixtures that are possible, and "plus tech" is a very common crossover.

Each player just has to decide if they think that the "natural" aspects of the character are more central than the "technology" aspects of the character, or whatever mixture they think is there.
Consider that the game defines the Science origin as "You earned your powers through the benefits of modern science, either through experimentation or by accident".
Meanwhile, Mutation is defined as "Your powers are derived through genetic manipulation or evolutionary alteration".

I may be wrong here, but purposeful genetic manipulation certainly seems like scientific experimentation to me, and evolutionary alteration could come from scientific experimentation or an accident.

So just make the call using whatever criteria you think matters most.

I am sure that some people pick an origin because the inherent attack is their favorite, they just picked at random, they think that one origin is "cooler" than the others, or that they wanted to fight or avoid a specific group of enemies that one starting contact will steer you to.

[Techwright]

1 hour ago, Frozen Burn said:

What's the line between Science and Tech?  They kind of go hand-in-hand. 

 

 

Game-wise, I've always thought that if it involves a test tube, medical fluid pack, needle & bottle, etc., it's science.

If it involves gears & steam, vacuum tubes, transistors, microprocessors, batteries, etc.  it's likely tech.

 

50 minutes ago, OEM61 said:

I am sure that some people pick an origin because the inherent attack is their favorite,...

Yeah, that'd be me.  I find the stun effects of the tech taser and the mutation powder to be more effective (to my style of play, at least) than the other origin items.  And each of those is a non-lethal tool, should you be in a Batman-like mood, whereas poor Natural Origin players wanting to "bring 'em back alive" are given a knife.  🙄

[Sovera]

How much tech does it take to Wright a Tech?

[TheMoneyMaker]

How much of any origin does it take to qualify?

 

What if I'm even split 50/50 between Natural (martial arts training) and Science (invulnerability)? I feel like my memory of DOs means the two origins are normally mutually exclusive. What if I have that split and then plan to add the Sorcery pool for a dab of Magic? Which origin should I take? What about a cyborg vampire? Is that Magic for the undead side (with dark melee) and Tech for my cybernetics (that grant electric armor)? Does Science muddy that up with my plans to take the Experimentation pool?

 

There are no clear answers. The system is broken. Just use what you can that feels most right to your character concept.

[ZemX]

3 hours ago, TheMoneyMaker said:

I feel like my memory of DOs means the two origins are normally mutually exclusive.

 

ALL origins are mutually exclusive since the game only lets you pick one.  The deal with DOs was simply that two different origins could both buy the same DOs.  It mattered back when you had to hump it over to a store specific to your origin to buy your enhancements but those days are long gone.

 

As I've said, the only use for origins these days is arguing about origins on the forums.  Otherwise, just ignore them in game.

[PoptartsNinja]

On 1/6/2025 at 10:51 PM, Techwright said:

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

 

The line is wherever you choose to draw it. Statesman and Lord Recluse's powers came from the same source, but Statesman is magic origin and Lord Recluse is science origin because that's what each decided the Well was.

[GastlyGibus]

On 1/7/2025 at 5:23 PM, BasiliskXVIII said:

My personal cutoff is "if the high-tech gadgets were taken away, would they be forced to retire?". If you take away Iron Man's suit and make sure he can't replace it with other technological gadgetry, he doesn't have a lot to offer on the battlefield. Batman, on the other hand, is fully capable. Punisher's fine using low-tech gadgets, too, (with low-tech in this case meaning guns that you could buy at any gun shop) so he's also natural. But Green Lantern, even as a capable combatant probably wouldn't keep going, as seen when Guy Gardner loses his ring and goes on to fail at being a vigilante until he steals a yellow ring.

 

I don't think it's a perfect system - the default state of Arachnos Soldiers as natural kind of breaks it -  but for me, that's my guideline.

This is pretty much my opinion as well. The question for me is "if you take away the tech, can this person still do hero stuff?"

 

Batman uses a ton of gadgets, but even without the gadgets, he's an exceptional melee combatant, is insanely smart (the world's greatest detective, even), and can generally kick your ass and outwit anybody even without any of his tools. It's like the opening of Batman: Arkham City. Bruce Wayne is captured, handcuffed, and thrown in jail, and even then he still beats up like 6 guys at once with the handcuffs still on and finds a way to get out and get his suit.

Compared to Iron Man, if you took away Tony Stark's suit, what's left? Yeah, he's academically smart, he's scientific, that let him build the suit in the first place, but without the suit he's just a really smart guy. He has no martial arts training and would probably get the snot kicked out of him by most villains if he didn't have the suit.

 

 

[Techwright]

15 hours ago, GastlyGibus said:

Compared to Iron Man, if you took away Tony Stark's suit, what's left?

 

[Lazarillo]

If I'm trying to draw a line, a lot of times, I'll look at which SO Enhancements the character's more likely to use.  For example, for damage, and let's say I'm using Assault Rifle as my primary.  All else being equal, is this a character who would enhance their damage through cybernetic enhancements that would upgrade the Assault Rifle's munitions?  If so, then Tech.  Or would they focus on applying martial arts or similar principals in ways that would result in a more damaging sniper shot?  Then Natural.

[Greycat]

On 1/6/2025 at 11:51 PM, Techwright said:

How much technology does it take before a Natural Origin should be considered a Technological Origin?

 

Like most of the origins, kind of a personal call. Everyone's got their own "I know it when I see it" point.

 

Your own Batman example's perfect, since he could still do the majority of what he does if he were running around in black PJs and a ski mask. He's got mental and physical training to do what he does.

 

Eh. It's why we have kind of an "origins wheel" (and DOs) instead of hard categories. There's often a lot of overlap. (Just remember, "Natural" does not just mean "Natural Human." A fish can naturally breathe underwater, where a human can't, for instance.)

[Pleonast]

It’s easy, look into their eyes: 

Contacts or glasses -> Technology 

Laser eye surgery -> Science

Perfect vision -> Natural

Near or far sighted -> Mutant

Crystal ball -> Magic

 

[Scarlet Shocker]

There are questions we can get hung up on that actually don't mean a great deal to game play or mechanics.

 

As one man once said "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" but I doubt he'd ever thought of City of Heroes when he said it. But it's applicable in the sense that it would be more damaging to deny a character because "the origin didn't fit the concept."

 

Origin is a tool, a guide, a way to give your character flavour and resonance. Take for example a mercenaries MM: Are those NPC mercenaries followers who love their leader and will serve through thick and thin? Are they somehow enchanted, and compelled to serve via magic bindings. Perhaps they've been hard wired with neural nets that force them to do their master's bidding or injected with explosive nanites that the MM can use to dominate them.

 

It's your story, it's how you want to play it and it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference what anyone else might think of your character. It's on you. Enjoy your own story and the devil take the naysayers.

[Skyhawke]

16 hours ago, Pleonast said:

It’s easy, look into their eyes: 

Contacts or glasses -> Technology 

Laser eye surgery -> Science

Perfect vision -> Natural

Near or far sighted -> Mutant

Crystal ball -> Magic

 

 

Well, time to join the X-Men. 😁

 

 

As for me, I usually go for what's physically allowing them to do what they do. I have a Dual Pistols/Ninjitsu Sentinel that's a Natural origin because while his pistols do some crazy stuff, he's the one aiming them while dodging attacks. That's human skill. Now, if he used Electrical zappy zaps? Kinda hard to say "au naturel" at that point. Carry a shield or have really good reflexes? Natural. Radiation seeps from your pores and protects you from harm? Dude, you're as natural as those super jacked guys at the gym. 

[Techwright]

15 hours ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

There are questions we can get hung up on that actually don't mean a great deal to game play or mechanics.

 

As one man once said "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" but I doubt he'd ever thought of City of Heroes when he said it. But it's applicable in the sense that it would be more damaging to deny a character because "the origin didn't fit the concept."

 

Origin is a tool, a guide, a way to give your character flavour and resonance. Take for example a mercenaries MM: Are those NPC mercenaries followers who love their leader and will serve through thick and thin? Are they somehow enchanted, and compelled to serve via magic bindings. Perhaps they've been hard wired with neural nets that force them to do their master's bidding or injected with explosive nanites that the MM can use to dominate them.

 

It's your story, it's how you want to play it and it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference what anyone else might think of your character. It's on you. Enjoy your own story and the devil take the naysayers.

 

That's fine.  I wasn't really asking in order to decide.  My OP was meant more as a curiosity of what other's interpretation(s) would be.