Over The Line?

[CrosshairCollie]

This is something that's come up a couple of times in games I've been in, and I'm curious what other people do. Moreso than in other games, Champions games have 'lines' ... standards of moral/ethical behavior that characters are expected to not cross. The most obvious one is the 'No Killing, CVK or not' line.

I'm wondering what you guys do when someone crosses that line. Do you simply stop them, saying as I did once, 'No, that's not kosher' and deny them the action, or do you let them go through with it and get in In-Character (IC) trouble? I'm torn between letting the PCs have free will with their characters, and knowing that someone could take my NPCs reactions to their line-crossing action as being 'vindictive' or 'singling them out'.

The people I play with know my tendencies. If one were to apply an era tag to my Champions games, it would be Silver Age. They should all know this by now, and yet, there are still ... issues. How do you think I should handle it? Refuse to let the action occur, or let them deal with the consequences of being 'in-character', even though they may take it as being 'out-of-character'?

[Mightybec]

Personally, I'd let the event happen, then make the PC suffer the consequences. I was DMing D&D game many moons ago, and a PC played by a guy that was a little crazy, and decided to kill a priest in the town. He had an evil amulet that caused a crack to open up and swallow whomever is over it. To make a long story short, the priest was swallowed by the broken earth, and his temple crumbled in after him. After he recovered from rolling on the floor laughing, his PC was then slaughtered by his companions, and then the body urinated upon. Needless to say, he never did that again.

Mightybec

[death tribble]

Sometimes we tried to stop the person going through with the action. Other times they went through with it and got hammered in game as a result.

The Avenger murdered the Cobra in our campaign and was expelled from the team with some of them hunting him. It should be noted he was on his own when he killed the Cobra.

[schir1964]

I'd make sure the Player understood that they were about to break thier Psych Lim and that there would be consequences for the Character.

If they are a good roleplayer, then they will usually have thier Character show the proper mental problems for breaking thier own code.

If they are good enough then they may keep thier Psych Lim without much consequence imposed from me.

If they aren't good roleplayers or want to get rid of the Psych Lim, then they suffer the consequences.

Consequences:
Player - Psych Lim eliminated. All experience points are used to pay off the Pysch Lim. No other expenditure may occur until the Pysch Lim is paid off and no points can be set aside for later.

Character - Villians that know about the action will now change tactics concerning character. General populace opinion might change towards the character. How much reaction depends on the attitude of the Character when the Psych Lim was broken.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Monolith]

If the character is intentionally trying to kill someone in a "no kill" game, then I make the player aware of the consequences before he does the actual act. Then if he kills the character I take appropriate actions within the game to make sure the character suffers for his act. This can lead to expelling the character from the game and having him hunted. If the killing was an accident, then I just have the character suffer through some minor consequences ("You killed my mommy! You're not a good man," while being said in front of a live news camera, ect).

I generally don't want to come down on players too hard though. Many players enjoy playing the Wolverine types; and Wolverine did plenty of killing in the early days of the X-Men when no one was looking. I think a lot of Champions gamers draw their comic book influences from the late 70's and early to mid 80's. :)

[Blue]

Experience points are the best means of showing your displeasure. Same way you might give extra XP for good RP performance, you might penalize someone for taking their character in a way inconsistent with his supposed design.

As the book sayeth: A disadvantage that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any points!

Therefore, I've warned players that if they do not reasonably adhere to the disadvantages they take then they will see an experience embargo. Until that disad is bought off. Means the rest of the team is improving and getting better while you're only paying off something you shouldn't have taken in the first place if you weren't going to play it.

If it's only a minor infraction I can overlook it. If it's notable, then they might get one less XP than the rest. That scale climbs as they do things outside the bounds of their character.

So technically, they have the free will to do what they want, but there is a price.

[Ben Seeman]

We had a guy run his sword through a villain who was already down and out. Those of us on the team with Code vs. killing all gasped in horror. Of course, as players we thought (for the most part) that it was a riot.

Darren tends to follow some of the "rules" from the Munchkin Master's Guide and before any of us do something REALLY stupid he asks, "Really?" :)

[Blue]

My current group of players gearing up for the new campaign, are notorious for playing characters at odds with one another in other games (Vampire, D&D... poker, backgammon...). Should make for an interesting game.

---------
OT, I like the Jack Handy quote. I used to use "I wish I had a Kryptonite cross, because then you could keep both Dracula AND Superman away.".

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Monolith
I generally don't want to come down on players too hard though. Many players enjoy playing the Wolverine types; and Wolverine did plenty of killing in the early days of the X-Men when no one was looking.
How many Wolverines can be on a team? If it's the majority then you're not really playing a mainstream superhero game any more.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
How many Wolverines can be on a team? If it's the majority then you're not really playing a mainstream superhero game any more.

Well... maybe. The Authority is a mainstream comic.
As is the Ultimates, Planetary, WildC.A.T.s. My point is this; comics have changed considerably since the 80s. Sure, Nightwing and Batman still cling to their Code vs. Killing... but there are others in their universe who do not (there was Hitman, after all).

In RDU Neil's game, there are groups that really try not to kill. Then there are some Black Ops groups who are born killers. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are fighting for "Hearts and Minds" of the populace, like the NYC Mavericks, in the face of a Paranormal Registration Act.... a reluctance to kill is a very good thing. It garners the good will of New Yorkers and they have really shielded the Mavericks from the worst of the Federal PRA machinations.

If you are trying to stop Eurostar from denotating 11 nuclear devices under 11 European cities... that's balls to wall time. (we killed Bora, Le Sone and almost killed Durak in that campaign, Estar killed Tower, a PC). You don't have time for niceties. No body in Europe was hunting down the PCs after it either. They came to understand the stakes all too well. Millions of lives vs. 2 or 3 villains.... the math is just too stark to do otherwise.

Now, I don't usually build character with a Code vs. Killing. As a player, I'm reluctant to kill as a general rule. But if the stakes are high enough, I will go for the jugular. Also, death happens in combat. I've criticaled against a minor villain and *poof*, dey dead! But there are consequences for killing, even accidental. Although I do have an ex-assassin who has a code vs. killing because his entire reason for being a Hero is one of redemption.

Neils world is gritty, even with some real superpowerhouses in it. It looks more like Planetary and Authority than the Teen Titans of the Wolfman-Perez era. But I also notice a direct correlation between the more desperate the PC is, the more likely he is to kill. My 500 pt character has lots of combat options now, he is tougher now. He can take a few hits in order to manuever the bad guy in taking the bad guy down as safe and surgical as possible.

[Arthur]

This reminds me of the story "The Death of Jean DeWolff" in PP, Spider-man. It's available in graphic novel format. Spider-man starts pounding on the villain of the piece (a psychotic killer who almost killed Betty Brant), and Daredevil has to intervene before Spidey kills the guy.

Now, Spidey is about as "good-guy" as they come. However, the writer noted that he wanted to show how once you are in a fight, the adrenaline starts pumping, and you can't just "turn it off". That's one reason I stay out of fights so assiduously - I've taken a lot of martial arts, and even in my current sad physical state, I'm afraid I might kill someone. Not because I am a bad-ass (far from it!), but because I am NOT. I think I would panic and go for the throat.

I remember going to what I think is the last Steven Seagal movie ("Exit Wounds"). There's two hours of my life I'll never have back. It was pathetic. When he meets his guest star (DMX?), they start out beating the shit out of each other, then just stop for no discernible reason and start hanging out. Even by Hollyweed action movie standards, that was pretty pathetic (see my sig).

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Storn
Well... maybe. The Authority is a mainstream comic.

And that is a truly uncomfortable thought.


But I am very much a heroes should be heroic, bright and better than us approach. I don't want dark realism in my games, or my comics. Once the spandex goes on the killing goes off. I generally tell new players (as a way to describe the tone of my games) "If Superman or Captain America wouldn't tolerate your character as a teammate, better get ready to rebuild"


That being said, in my 10 year running champs game, I introduced PSI for the express purpose of the darker characters of the hero group having someone to kill off- It was the only time the PCs killed. I build up a rivalry and a hatred between them for 2 or 3 years (in small bits and pieces) then had PSI do something really vile that pushed all of their pychlim buttons and let em loose. Omen did his thing, Mind Slayer and Psimon were killed and Inquisitor was a vegatable.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
And that is a truly uncomfortable thought.


But I am very much a heroes should be heroic, bright and better than us approach. I don't want dark realism in my games, or my comics. Once the spandex goes on the killing goes off.

I guess I like to challenge this about super-heroes. Sure, I understand the better and brighter statement.... and certainly you should run/play games that you want to. Something about superheroes hearkens to a nostaliga of the Silver and Golden ages.

But Heroes are Heroes. So many great Heroes have killed... and I'm not talking about comic book superheroes anymore... but anyone who can be defined as a hero. What allows James Bond, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, to kill, or the Shadow (or even Batman in his early beginnings)... and still be heroes, but if you put spandex on... you can't be a hero anymore if you kill?

Is it never heroic to kill? Then you've just excluded 80% of the RPG games out there. Fantasy, sci-fi, horror, death comes often and easily.

My Super Hero characters have killed by accident, on purpose and once, not even under my control... in a super hero game. In fact, last time I played, I think Geist was responsible for 20,000 deaths. All unknown to him. And for very good, in-character reasons for doing this ("he's doing it wrong!" <g>)
Rising above that, trying to come to grips with death and killing and being a demigod on earth... that has been the most heroic role-playing I've ever done.

So, yes, I challenge the idea of that spandex, this visual uniform, differentiates this Hero from all other Heroes. A challenge that is being tackled in comics today. I agree, the Authority is an enormous extreme. But on some level I ask myself, if Batman would just snap Joker's neck, then all that death... all that destruction could be avoided. Joker has the superhuman ability to waltz out of jail. Proven over and over again. Makes for great drama, I admit. But when I think about all the innocent lives that the Joker has taken over the years... I'm sorry, my PC has got the bastard down... I'm taking his ass out with extreme predjudice.

Now, one of the things Neil has done in his game is: a criminal goes to jail, he's gone. No one gets out of Stronghold (or Until's Deep). It has only happened a couple of times. But the majority of criminals busted... stay busted. Now, in this environment, yes... it makes sense to pull the punches, get the bastards thru legal system and put them away instead of capping them.

Not easy questions, nor are there any "real" answers that will satisfy all of us. But I still think good questions to ask.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Storn


But Heroes are Heroes. So many great Heroes have killed... and I'm not talking about comic book superheroes anymore... but anyone who can be defined as a hero. What allows James Bond, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, to kill, or the Shadow (or even Batman in his early beginnings)... and still be heroes, but if you put spandex on... you can't be a hero anymore if you kill?

Not easy questions, nor are there any "real" answers that will satisfy all of us. But I still think good questions to ask.

And I can see that, and to a certain extent I agree with that. I think that books & games that address that issue are important. I just don't want them to be "mainstream".

As to the comment about being a hero- this is my take on it. The spandex doesn't mean hero- it means super-hero; ie over and above a hero. A superhero should be holding himself to a higher standard than a hero. Bond can kill, he has too. Thats his job, but superhero is supposed to be super(ior) to that, have the power to defeat without killing, to not cross that line.

I guess what irks me about that whole approach (the heroes are just like us with powers) is that I don't want the superhero to be just like us, with powers. In addition have powers at a higher level than normal, thier morality, thier ethics, the essence of who they are should also be higher than normal. When you get the powers without the rest, it just seems wrong to me. Doing it otherwise makes for a great thought experiment, or moral issues that are dealt with in a few comics, but again I don't want to see it "mainstream".

The "we don't have to kill" attitude is part of what seperates superheroes from the rest. If they use the approach and methods of "lesser" heros, why bother reading comics. Just watch a die hard movie or a bond movie (both of which I love) instead. Otherwise it is just a modern action setting with the bells and whistles of superpowers.

It is also about setting and I mention the spandex as a clue to this. I love the Crossgen stuff. Sigil - Sam Rey has superpowers, however he is in a SF setting, and at war. He kills. This doesn't bother me. Why - It's not superheroes- It's SF with superpowers. And I think that is what I am looking at - A superhero setting is vastly different that a setting with superpowers, a much more black and white one, much more mythic.

Needless to say, I have always prefered DC to Marvel, Cyclops to Wolverine, Modern Batman to the Punisher.

BTW Storn, it is great to be discussing this and not arguing it. :-)

[Checkmate]

While you are correct in early Batman comics people died, it wasn't as a direct result of what Batman did. I mean Batman didn't stick knives in any vital organs. It was usually the criminal was running away and fell off a building, got hit by a car, told his buddies he was responsible for creating Batman and said buddies beat him to death. Batman wasn't a killer, people just happened to die when he was after them.

Typically when I run a Champions game, I have the same philosphy: If Captain America wouldn't like you, re-write. I am just so sick of the "It's cool to be a rebel" character personalities out there, but that's me.

[Stephen_H-G]

This is a bit tangential, but the anime series "Trigun" springs to mind. The character of Vash the Stampede

(very minor spoilers)






Refuses to kill; at all. He lives in a violent world, but somehow clings to the hope that if he just thinks quickly enough he can save everyone with no killing. Sometimes he fails, but he holds himself to the highest standard he can.

(end minor spoilers)

I don't think a comic superhero should kill when it is the best or quickest option. They should do it when it is the only option.

I do think there are definite places in superhero comics for death; some heroes don't refrain from killing and sometimes people die. Just because your heroes don't kill doesn't mean your little campaign world has to be light, or somehow non-edgy.

I think that players in games tend to be willing to resort to killing because they see failing as the ultimate in loss; no one likes to see the bad guy get away in a game. No one likes to get captured. However, to roleplay characters as they existed in the Silver Age one must do so. It has to be okay to be captured or to fail; they must trust that the GM will give them opportunity to make things aright.

As for the player in question, I believe you need to have a long talk about how you want the feel of the game to happen. If this player does not want to play your way you either have to kick him out or let the game change to allow it. Which choice is right is probably not something any of us can help you with, though.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Checkmate
While you are correct in early Batman comics people died, it wasn't as a direct result of what Batman did. I mean Batman didn't stick knives in any vital organs. It was usually the criminal was running away and fell off a building, got hit by a car, told his buddies he was responsible for creating Batman and said buddies beat him to death. Batman wasn't a killer, people just happened to die when he was after them.

Typically when I run a Champions game, I have the same philosphy: If Captain America wouldn't like you, re-write. I am just so sick of the "It's cool to be a rebel" character personalities out there, but that's me.

uh... nope, wrong. I have read Batman, early batmans, were Bats pulls .45 M1911 and shoots and kills. Not often, but it did happen. Early Batman often showed him with a pistol, specifically an automatic. It wasn't for show folks.

But Batman was coming out of a pulp tradition and is closer to that tradition that Superman. With Superman's success, Batman gets toned down quite quickly.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
I guess what irks me about that whole approach (the heroes are just like us with powers) is that I don't want the superhero to be just like us, with powers. In addition have powers at a higher level than normal, thier morality, thier ethics, the essence of who they are should also be higher than normal. When you get the powers without the rest, it just seems wrong to me. Doing it otherwise makes for a great thought experiment, or moral issues that are dealt with in a few comics, but again I don't want to see it "mainstream".

Well in some ways I agree with you and I disagree with you. Some people (with or with out powers) are more noble and heroic than others. Intrinsically. Some people are more shadowrunners others are more paladins. I have a hero who accidentally got pushed too far too fast when he was real young (17) and ended up killing over 20 other metahumans. Still has not been brought to trial (though i have a plotline ready to go wherein the players will investigate his "guilt")
He does on occasion break/steal other metahumans tech (the real dangerous stuff) His P. O. V. on that is that it is the equivalent of stealing a druglords guns.
However when he finally came into his true power he stepped back and found out about the human psyche and the brains phsyiology before becoming a mentalist.
(Mental transforms to change psyches/ brain chemistries.... gotta love it, leaving free will but taking away the "evil" psyche lims) and he's definately _not_ a rebel, more of a pragmataist.


Cyke has been pushed Waaaaaaaaaay to far many a time. And when push comes to shove he tries to walk away from the fight, Wolverine seems to go for the throat.

Part of the difference between the two is the "Beastial Hero" VS the "Noble Warrior". And they do these things differently because of character concept and design. Independantly, their solo stories are very much of a flavor, could you see Wolverine really bonding with his father?

Since I play V&V and most V&V GM's require this I end up playing "myself with superpowers" Usually with a new set of powers every single time.


Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
Needless to say, I have always prefered DC to Marvel, Cyclops to Wolverine, Modern Batman to the Punisher.

I'll agree with you on that I rather liked where Cyke beats up Wolvie and hopes he's not gonna kill him.

[Blue]

I imagine most folks ascribe to both philosophies to some degree. In my case I've built it into the campaign basis, so my players have to create their characters around the idea of being righteous. In this case, they are actually employees of the city of Lazarus as a special unit. They would not be employed by the city if they were "unstable". So I told the players, don't make a character that wouldn't survive rigorous psychological testing and background checks because they'd never hire him and he'd never get into the campaign.

But I enjoy a certain amount of rebelliousness. If everyone was on the same page, what would be the point to having distinct characters? I like if a character has a dark secret that he killed someone once. But if he has a homicidal streak he won't fit the campaign. It's that simple. They either need to be righteous already or trying to become so.

My opinion on characters has nearly always been that if there's no darkness then there's not much depth. And I've always been attracted to the really screwed up characters who are desperately trying to hold themselves together. That's 9/10ths of my PCs and a good portion of my NPCs.

[Storn]

>>I guess what irks me about that whole approach (the heroes are just like us with powers) is that I don't want the superhero to be just like us, with powers. In addition have powers at a higher level than normal, thier morality, thier ethics, the essence of who they are should also be higher than normal. When you get the powers without the rest, it just seems wrong to me. Doing it otherwise makes for a great thought experiment, or moral issues that are dealt with in a few comics, but again I don't want to see it "mainstream".
<<

Well said.

I LIKE the flawed hero, the hero just like us, but with powers much, much greater. I like to tackle those issues and what they mean to the world those characters inhabit.

And it is hard, tough stuff. I actually have gotten depressed a couple of times dealing with these issues in Neil's game. My character was looking at an onslaught of SuperFeudalism... and it depressed the hell out of him. And to hold another person or peoples or entire nation in the palm of your PC's hand... what gives him the right to judge? (my character got his gifts from good breeding, both mom and pop were Silver Age heroes).

To me, that is meat for roleplaying. Not easy, but oh, so juicy.

However, I completly understand that I'm a bit weird and that my take of supers is not everyones cup of tea.

>>The "we don't have to kill" attitude is part of what seperates superheroes from the rest. If they use the approach and methods of "lesser" heros, why bother reading comics. Just watch a die hard movie or a bond movie (both of which I love) instead. Otherwise it is just a modern action setting with the bells and whistles of superpowers.
<<<<

I can only answer for myself. For me, comics have a narrative that changes over time, whereas Bond is somewhat timeless. This is the nature of media to be sure (monthly comic book vs. 30 yr old books and 1 movie/ 3years).

Also, usperhero comic books have SUPERPOWERS. Bond is superhuman, but he doesn't have Telepathy or Fire Powers... just Luck, Seduction and Combat Levels up the ying yang. It is Powers, to me that is the MAIN ingrediant. A comicbook about a detective who never kills is a comicbook about a detective. A comicbook about a guy who flies is a Superhero comicbook. (Miracleman anyone?)

I also thrive on change and consequences. The campaign needs to go somewhere. One of my frustrations with DC/Marvel comics is that there isn't a sense of change in the world. Nor a sense of consequences of inaction (such as NOT killing the Joker). I love Crossgen, because the world of Scion and Meridian and even Way of the Rat ARE changing as the cast has impact.

By removing death out of the equation.... that Supers are clean because the GM contrives it so as long as they play by the rules... well that doesn't leave much room for consequences.

My main 500 pt character is scared to go into battle. This guy can walk through small arms fire (and barely feel Machine gun fire) if his force field is up. IF. But the fear of failure is even greater than the fear of death. Failure in that game world has drastic consequences. Killing a few means saving millions. Y'know what? I love that fear. It feels real to me. Here I am, a 500+ demigod and I'm still scared each and everytime I go into combat. Which is the way I think it should be.... combat is SCARY. Just think what Paranormal combat would be like?!?!!?!?! Speedsters and Mentalists and super-science and folks who can drop a building on you... that is scary stuff to me.

But you are not wrong by any means. Super RPGs have a vast range. This makes them difficult at times to get all players and GM on the same page. But that vastness is also what makes it so wonderful to run around in those worlds.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Storn

I also thrive on change and consequences. The campaign needs to go somewhere. One of my frustrations with DC/Marvel comics is that there isn't a sense of change in the world. Nor a sense of consequences of inaction (such as NOT killing the Joker). I love Crossgen, because the world of Scion and Meridian and even Way of the Rat ARE changing as the cast has impact.

Good points that I snipped.

I understand completely about what you say in the above. I specifically introduced PSI as a group so hated and evil that the PCs would go over the line and kill them. I always wanted the heroes to have one situation that they could fix completely, and that was it.

When I ran my game, charcater made a difference in the world (and I can understand your frustration with the big 2 for that). One PC became a high ranking government official, and made a huge impact on the world.

The campaign started at 250. When it finished it was around 600-700 (ran 11 years or so). I started with a "Wildcards" like virus, and at the end the world felt like a standard 4 color comic book (or more like Astro City).
The PCs started as the new mutants or early Xmen, and ended up the JLA.

Lots of growth, lots of soul searching, lots of impact on the world. So I do see your point about growth, otherwise its just "plot of the week".

[CrosshairCollie]

A good point made about Bond, etc, is that if Goldfinger has his hand on the switch to activate the chosen-destructive-device from across the room, Bond doesn't have much choice other than to pull out his Walther PPK and cap GF in the head, because he's Heroic Level.

Superheroes, however, almost *always* have options. Batarang-bola, webshooter, super-speed, mind control, telekinesis, illusion. Can't stop the bomb, they can outrace the bomb, absorb the energy, a variety of things. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility and Many Options. This is particularly true in the Hero System, where it's usually faster and easier to knock someone out over killing them (unless they just don't have much resistance). But I'm not talking about 'heat of battle', where the 'kill or be killed' thing can come into play. I'm referring to 'villain is down, let's kill him while he's helpless'. You can't call self-defense, because he's not threatening anybody while he's out cold.

Admittedly, my Silver Age sensibilities have seeped into every other game I've played ('My Crinos Garou is going to punch out the Black Spiral Dancer' 'Your claws ...' 'Not claws. Punch.'). My Fantasy characters try to take people alive whenever possible, and I don't let people whack the guys affected by my sleep spells. My last Cyberpunk character used drugged-up flechettes to KO people. You get the idea. :) I think I'm going to go along with the 'If Captain America or Superman wouldn't tolerate having you around' theory, since that's a lot more open than many people think. Hawkeye's really abrasive. Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch were both former criminals. Wonder Man plotted with Baron Zemo to kill the Avengers. Iron Man's insubordinate. Tigra's a colossal flirt. And I just realized how stupid it'd be to try to list all the Avengers, so I'm stopping there. :)

[Mutant for Hire]

Originally posted by Checkmate
While you are correct in early Batman comics people died, it wasn't as a direct result of what Batman did. I mean Batman didn't stick knives in any vital organs. It was usually the criminal was running away and fell off a building, got hit by a car, told his buddies he was responsible for creating Batman and said buddies beat him to death. Batman wasn't a killer, people just happened to die when he was after them.

Which to my mind was always a total cop-out. It reeked of hypocracy that Batman's hands were clean when there were all these people conveniently dying. What if fate hadn't done it, would Batman still be in a clear position?


Typically when I run a Champions game, I have the same philosphy: If Captain America wouldn't like you, re-write. I am just so sick of the "It's cool to be a rebel" character personalities out there, but that's me.
Writers tend to be somewhat divided on the Cap and killing issue. Some cling to the traditional Silver Age code vs. killing and some more realistically recognize that Captain America was originally a soldier, and soldiers are professional killers. You can try to pretty it up but in the end that is what they are.

Now my stance on the whole issue is one of legal sanction. If you're not acting with full legal sanction, you'd better be damn careful not to do anything irreversable. Police officers are given legal sanction, under certain circumstances, to use lethal force. This is because there are rules about when lethal force is considered justifiable and that helps keep them in line. Not perfectly so, there are tragedies of cops shooting innocent victims. But on the whole there are times when the best way to protect innocent lives is to drop the other side fast.

Personally, as I grow older I have growing reservations about the vigilante aspects of superheroing. Sueprheroes who go outside of the law are ultimately undermining the law, even if their intentions are to uphold it. There is a certain degree of inherent hypocracy in going outside of the law to uphold it. Not that there are not times when it is necessary to go outside of the law for the greater good, but the question is whether the average unsanctioned superhero is acting from necessity or expedience.

As a result, I favor a system where superheroes are in fact sanctioned and this includes authorization to use lethal force under certain circumstances, and generally only as a last resort. But when it comes time for the last resort, I want the superheroes to do what has to be done.

The code versus killing pushes one to an impossible standard of conduct, especially when faced with realistic or even semi-realstic issues. And writers get around that by cheating horribly, letting fate kill off those who deserve death, or simply ignoring the fact that a lot of supervillains are repeat mass murderers and that their continued existance leads to the death of countless many innocents.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

Writers tend to be somewhat divided on the Cap and killing issue. Some cling to the traditional Silver Age code vs. killing and some more realistically recognize that Captain America was originally a soldier, and soldiers are professional killers. You can try to pretty it up but in the end that is what they are.

It's funny- I'm a guiy who wants to avoid killing and keep the whole Silver age feel, but in the recent issues of Cap when he snapped the neck of a terrorist, it didn't bug me- and it was because the whole tone of the story was Cap in a War (with all sorts of references to WWII), so when it happened I saw it as a soldier thing, so it didn't bug me.

My mental filters for this stuff are just wierd.

[Hermit]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

As to the comment about being a hero- this is my take on it. The spandex doesn't mean hero- it means super-hero; ie over and above a hero. A superhero should be holding himself to a higher standard than a hero. Bond can kill, he has too. Thats his job, but superhero is supposed to be super(ior) to that, have the power to defeat without killing, to not cross that line.

I guess what irks me about that whole approach (the heroes are just like us with powers) is that I don't want the superhero to be just like us, with powers. In addition have powers at a higher level than normal, thier morality, thier ethics, the essence of who they are should also be higher than normal. When you get the powers without the rest, it just seems wrong to me. Doing it otherwise makes for a great thought experiment, or moral issues that are dealt with in a few comics, but again I don't want to see it "mainstream".

The "we don't have to kill" attitude is part of what seperates superheroes from the rest. If they use the approach and methods of "lesser" heros, why bother reading comics. Just watch a die hard movie or a bond movie (both of which I love) instead. Otherwise it is just a modern action setting with the bells and whistles of superpowers.


Needless to say, I have always prefered DC to Marvel, Cyclops to Wolverine, Modern Batman to the Punisher.


I have to back you up on this. While I respect that tastes vary, I prefer my super heroes to be more than merely powered... I want them to live up to the highest ideals. This doesn't mean I expect that they will NEVER kill... but it should be a dramatic gut wrenching situation when they finally do. There were days I thought the Punisher's war wagon should just have a little skull added for every criminal he took out... it was so laizefaire'. A superhero who kills every issue (or even every other issue), to my mind, is far more boring than one who does not or less than a handful of times on a twenty plus year run. If I was impressed by kill ratio, I'd put down a comic and go play DOOM II. :)

Then again, I prefer Cyclops over Wolverine as well :)

[DocMan]

I don't think we've every had a death in a champions game. Come close to losing a PC a time or two, but I can't think of any actual deaths.

But it's not due to any CvsK ideals. The group I play with concentrates more on the role-playing aspects. We deal with what is appropriate for the character. A few examples:

One of our Champions campaigns is just three PC's: Psi Lord, Photon Blue, and Anaba.
Psi Lord is (obviously) a Mentalist. He's donned the spandex because he feels a certain sense of social responsibility. He has powers beyond the norm, so he should use them responsibly, and one of those responsibilities is to stop people who use their powers irresponsibly. He's a classic CvsK paragon.
Photon Blue is an energy projector, and a teen. She is a superhero because she gets off on having powers. She really enjoys when she can do things to someone and they can't do anything to her. For most of us, this is very annoying... But, deep down, she doesn't really want to hurt anyone, she just wants to have fun. She's a good kid.
Anaba is a 7 foot tall AmerInd Warrior Shamen. She's a hero because there are dark forces in the world and it's her job to fight them. She's the team brick and a whole lot more. She calls on different totems to give her different powers. But first and foremost, she's a warrior doing her job. People can get killed in battle and she's accepted that. But that's one of the fortunes of battle. She's not going to kill someone who's helpless or murder someone unaware.

And just because you won't kill someone doesn't mean you're a good guy. A character I played in a Vampire game wouldn't kill anyone except in self defense. He believed that his purpose in unlife was to sow corruption and to help others bring out the evil in themselves. He was a very nasty character and I had great fun playing him. }:) But he wouldn't kill people. That would just let them get off easy...

Doc

[RDU Neil]

As the GM of the RDU (though Storn runs a game by-weekly, now) I really developed the world over the last 16 years based on the following concept...

"I love comics! I HATE comics!"

Basically, I loved the CONCEPT of comics universes... essentially these worlds similar to ours, but with metahuman powers, high tech, magic, etc. But I despised the execution of these ideas in the comics... because as Storn said, "Nothing ever changed."

The "to kill or not" issue was only one thing I thought about from the beginning. I realized that I had no preference, except that it should be based on role playing. If a player feels lethal action is justified or necessary, I'm not going to tell them no... they just need to realize that it will effect their character and the world. No decision is without repercussion.

Some call this gritty. Some want "enforced morality." Me... I play and run FOR the morale dichotomies... the ethical questions... the theoretical "what ifs?" As a child, I read comics, and always thought "Oh... this is so cool... but this is so lame! I could do better!" With gaming, I got the chance to tell the stories I wanted to see.

The RDU is about "people with powers." If they turn out to be a "superhero" it is because they earned it through their actions... not because they have tights on.

The PCs are protagonists. Whether they turn out to be heroes, villains, or most likely something in between... that is what the story and role playing is all about.