Super Heroes and Killing

[ShinDangaioh]

Since the Punisher thrread seems to be drifting that way, I figured it better be a topic on its own.

Punisher's kill first mentality is wrong. But by the same token, leaving the Joker alive is also a problem.


I had no problem when the GLC executed Sinestro. The GLC had tried everything to contain the nut and it failed. They put it to a vote and the entire GLC voted for Death.

I agreed with Kyle Rayner about Alexander Nero. He's a nut that need to be put down quick.

[death tribble]

In the first long running campaign we did, one of the DMs had a very powerful character (capable of a casual 20D6 Eb but eventually upto 40D6 I kid you not) and so part of the charter was that killing was a no-no. If you killed you faced a jury of your peers even if the normal authorities let you off.

It also did not help that several of the characters including a Wolverine rip off had a very casual attitude to life.

[dbsousa]

Leaving the Joker alive is a decision for the courts, not the cops. If Batman lived in Gotham, Texas, he would have less of an insane villian problem. Of course, the villains would also hear his Bat-Pickup miles away...

[Storn]

Originally posted by dbsousa
Leaving the Joker alive is a decision for the courts, not the cops. If Batman lived in Gotham, Texas, he would have less of an insane villian problem. Of course, the villains would also hear his Bat-Pickup miles away...

In RDU, as players, we have faced this conudrum many, many times. The conclusion that I have come to; is that it "depends"... which is a crappy system... cause who made my character judge, jury and executioner? But no prison was going to hold Dr Destroyer... taking him out with "natural causes" was a decision that I have never regreted. A decision who's ramifications scares the hell outta me as player and that particular PC. Because 3 paranormals were able to kill another in plain sight of thousands of witnesses and no one knew that it was an execution. {Destroyer was peeled out of his armor, was an ancient withered crone of a man, unconcious, I telekinetically stopped his heart while the mentalist, Locke, drained Destroyer's Mental Defenses to allow my ALVD killing attack to work. to the world, Destroyer dies of a heart attack.}.

The power that decison represented is enormous.... what is stopping us from doing that to Prez Bush who is ramming a Paranormal Regsitration Act that is frightening in its fascist tromping over the Constitution? Where is the line that seperates us from villains?

I also must state, that Neil has run RDU with this strong caveat; if a villain is captured and makes it to jail... he/she is there for a long, long time. Only Dr. Destroyer was able to spring Firewing from Stronghold... very few other cases have escaped. Now both Dr. Destroyer and Firewing are dead. Firewing died because his "son" {a PC} had to inherit the Firewing mantle. But most villain teams are eviscerated by incarceration in RDU. We as the PCs might not win every battle, but picking off two or three of the bad guys and putting them in jail is a winning strategy in this game. So most of the time; we as PCs do not kill at the "superhero" level. The Campaign "rewards" us for using non lethal force.

At the Black Ops level, where razor titanium blades and Uranium depletedd rounds are the tools of the trade... death comes quickly and often. There, the game resembles more of a war than a comic book slugfest. The carnage last game I ran in RDU was pretty high. But the PCs survival is at stake, they do not have the defences to bounce Razor Titanium Blades and Uranium Depleted Rounds. That is the nature of the genre.

Lastly, as my main PC, who is very concerned with the welfare of normal people... I will not hesitate in using all lethal force at my command to take down a villain in combat IF teammates or innocents are at stake. I think to do otherwise is morally wrong. Using kid gloves on the villains during a hostage situation might get the hostages killed... you dont' give the other side the chance to recover if possible. But, there have been times when there are no hostages, and I will allow my PC to take some shots to try and do "the right thing" to bring someone in alive.

So. It comes back to "it depends". And I have been chosen as Judge, Jury and Executioner because I'm the Jonny on the Spot. That is the life of a Player Character.

[Yamo]

Rule #1: Supervillians always escape to kill again.

That being said, if you live in a world where you can observe that and therefore know it to be the case, the blood of the inevitable future kills is on your hands if you don't take the villian out when you have the chance.

How many innocent lives could Batman have saved by killing the Joker after their first confrontation?

And this whole "killing = bad" nonsense is a direct result of that damnable Comics Code that hamstrung so many good writers for so many years. I think it's a real shame if that prudish nonsense shaped anyone's opinion of what a hero is or isn't.

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books. Pulp men of mystery weren't usually casual killers, but they didn't hesitate when it was the the best choice. Heracles killed. The Knights of the Round Table killed. Robin Hood killed. And so on and so on and so on.

It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

[Hermit]

It is one of those things a GM should discuss with the players before the campaign starts. What 'age' (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, etc) is this play going to try to emulate? That should tell you right there. If it's Silver with a "Super Heroes walk a higher road" attitude, then no killing. If it's Iron, with the "I'm just a person with powers" then no doubt killing will be more common on both sides.

Too many times, GMs put their PCs into a feeling of "What's the point? He'll just get out again..." and I agree that keeping criminals in stronghold for a long time is a good idea. The PCs have to feel like they are accomplishing something. Even better is the reward when a villain goes to jail, and honestly reforms! Admitedly, it's rarely the mad killer types that this works for, but it's a way of showing rehabilitation might actually NOT be a joke.

Another thing that works well in comics, but I don't see that much in games... and it's a shame because it's VERY Silver Age. Villains kill themselves off. When the hero is ready to kill the villain, then stops himself to hold onto his ideas... that's when the villain makes a last treacherous lunge or attempt, and it backfires killing him instead. He falls into the volcano, he's killed by his own slaves, his own glider hits him in the chest :) and so on. It should not be over used, but there are times the GM should play "The universal force of Karma".

I, personally, am in favor of super heroes who do NOT Kill. I prefer they take the higher road, and the nice thing about super powers is that it means they often can. A knight of old used a sword. Hard to merely 'subdue' despite D&D alternate rules. A cowboy SHOT people...with hard lead things. Super Heroes, as a rule, have more versitlity, more control, and, let's be honest, more OPTIONS than these heroes of old.

[Jeff T.]

Remember the other thread asked if the Punisher was a 'hero'. Some arguments against that were essentially 'So what if he killed, he kills the bad guys'. This really has little to do with heroism.

The Punisher is a psychotic sociopath for one. He is also a casual killer. He does not display heroic qualities. Heroism is a choice, Castle's extreme mental instability prevents choice.

"Yeah, but he doesn't kill innocents!"

So. He is still one man deciding another's permanent fate. No judge, no jury. HE decides who is innocent. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. That goes along with the topic of this thread. Generally, superheroes abide by normal justice. They do not decide a criminal's fate. If a criminal deserves to die and doesn't, that is the fault of the justice system.

Remember also, that many supers are vigilantes. Is it legal for them to constantly respond to lethal force with lethal force? I think severe questions would begin to arise. However, a government-sponsored team such as the Avengers shouldn't have a problem with responding with lethal force, similar to police.

[misterdeath]

If you don't want to see the hero finally killing off the villian to keep him from escaping yet again, don't let the villian escape.

If you don't want to see the hero using lethal force because nobody stays dead, so Red Skull is coming right back, then let the villian stay dead.

Eventually, Batclone's going to snap, and put EvilClown in the ground permanently, because OldArkham's a sieve and can't keep anyone inside and, hey hell, EvilClown's coming back anyways.

The choice you as GM make forces the choice that the players make.

Discuss things with your players, and, stick with it. Let the villain go to jail, or die, and stay there. Come up with a new villian, and move on.

Like Hermit says, it's about the genre you run (except I'd put self destructive villains in more Golden Age, but that's a quibble).
____

A hero might or might not kill, depending on the circumstances. He might have to kill to save a life, he might kill accidentally, but he doesn't kill for no reason, or with no forethough.

A knight would kill, a policeman would kill, but they aren't casual killers.

Killing is an option, but not the preferred method of dealing with any and all situations.
____

D

[Deathwatch]

I think you must consider the players and how they will react in various situations as well. in a game long ago a group i ran would not have thought to "kill" any of the villians but, when the villian killed one of thier number the playing field at least for this one villian shifted to a hunt for vengence. This villian was then killed later in that adventure.

this event came up repeatedly within the game as a question " were we right to do that? " when issues such as leadership and tactics were developed people looked at each other with a do i really want to be seen with that hero? (the one who did the killing) this attitude added to the role-play options of the game.

The member who did kill the villian saw himself as above normal men thus this was not a crime to him, but to some of the others this would taint the way he was viewed for the remaining years of the game.

Deathwatch

[BishopofB&W]

Originally posted by Yamo
Rule #1: Supervillians always escape to kill again.

That being said, if you live in a world where you can observe that and therefore know it to be the case, the blood of the inevitable future kills is on your hands if you don't take the villian out when you have the chance.

How many innocent lives could Batman have saved by killing the Joker after their first confrontation?

And this whole "killing = bad" nonsense is a direct result of that damnable Comics Code that hamstrung so many good writers for so many years. I think it's a real shame if that prudish nonsense shaped anyone's opinion of what a hero is or isn't.

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books. Pulp men of mystery weren't usually casual killers, but they didn't hesitate when it was the the best choice. Heracles killed. The Knights of the Round Table killed. Robin Hood killed. And so on and so on and so on.

It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

The Spider never worried if it was "wrong" to gun down a Tommy-gun-carrying mobster.

[BishopofB&W]

Originally posted by Hermit

Another thing that works well in comics, but I don't see that much in games... and it's a shame because it's VERY Silver Age. Villains kill themselves off. When the hero is ready to kill the villain, then stops himself to hold onto his ideas... that's when the villain makes a last treacherous lunge or attempt, and it backfires killing him instead. He falls into the volcano, he's killed by his own slaves, his own glider hits him in the chest :) and so on. It should not be over used, but there are times the GM should play "The universal force of Karma".


I've seen this happen in so often in movies, TV, and books that I think its actually deliberate. Perhaps something they teach in the last week of Superhero School(tm).
:)

[mrswing]

Part of the problem is the way villainy has shifted over the years as well. Joker was a buffoon for many, many years, and seemed to be only out to kill his arch-nemesis (and occasionally some law-enforcment people or fellow rival criminals). Over the years and especially since The Killing Joke he has turned into a horrifying sadist, who seems to enjoy inflicting pain for the fun of it. And since the Batwriters keep bumping him off (didn't Nightwing kill him a year or two ago during the Last Laugh crossover?) only to bring him back three issues later in another shocking development no one could ever see coming:rolleyes: , the stakes keep getting upped and Batman's refusal to deal with the problem permanently (whether killing or physically disabling forever) becomes less and less believable. (I always thought Joker should have been killed at the end of Killing Joke, myself, because of the sheer horror of what he inflicted on Barbara and Jim Gordon in that merry little tale).
I guess it comes down to how nasty your villains are - if they are mostly glorified bank robbers or personal rivals of the PCs, killing them will seem very out of place. If they are sadistic psychopaths who strike again and again, sooner or later a player will probably want to eliminate them permanently. And let's face it, that is the way movie heroes have been dealing with their opponents since the Bond movies and Dirty Harry series - in pop culture, being assigned a jail sentence seems to be no longer considered a real punishment (OZ notwithstanding).
Punisher was once not just considered a villain, but went totally nuts, trying to kill jaywalkers and litterers (lawbreakers) in some Peter Parker The Spectacular Spiderman issues. Since getting his own series, he has become a murderous hero, with the absolute low (or high) point being reached in the Garth Ennis run where the main interest is what innovative, graphic, sadistic and 'funny' way Frank Castle will think up this month to slaughter his (equally sadistic and 'funny) opponents or humiliate Wolverine...

[death tribble]

The other thing to remember when killing takes place is what will the Legal authorities do ?
And if some of the police don't think that the Hero is wrong, some ambitious DA or Senator or journalist (to use American examples) might think there is a case to answer and haul the heroes in front of grand or ordinary juries.
So there is something else to think about. Regardless if it was justified or not the Public may villify the character for his actions. To die to save you is noble; to kill to save you may mean you could kill them......

[JmOz]

I found one comment interesting: It depends on the type of villain...

As was said above a bank/jewrey robber does not deserve to take the ride to there eternal rewards...


On not killing, you can blame the whole CCA for it if you want (and there is some reason for doing so) but it goes beyond that, a true hero, is to represent an ideal, to be better than we actualy are, from a common morality it is wrong to kill under normal circumstances, so a hero won't kill even when by common morality it would be acceptable, thus the Joker lives. By the way did anyone read the recent issue where Bats was going to kill him, well written.

Personaly I uee the Bronze standard of Hero's don't kill normally, but may in extrordinary situations

[zen_hydra]

In the old serial, Captain Marvel would kill people all the time. I remember one scene where he was on a high-rise rooftop being attacked by a group of thugs. His solution was to toss them one at a time over the edge to there deaths. Are you telling me that Captain Marvel is not a hero? The problem, as I see it, is how sensitve people are about death nowdays. You would probably find people wanting to try and rehabilitate Adolph Hitler if he were alive today. In a world of subjective morals, who are you to define what a hero is?

[Klytus]

Originally posted by Yamo

And this whole "killing = bad" nonsense is a direct result of that damnable Comics Code that hamstrung so many good writers for so many years. I think it's a real shame if that prudish nonsense shaped anyone's opinion of what a hero is or isn't.

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books. Pulp men of mystery weren't usually casual killers, but they didn't hesitate when it was the the best choice. Heracles killed. The Knights of the Round Table killed. Robin Hood killed. And so on and so on and so on.

It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

While the COmics Code may have started the whole "Heroes Don't Kill" schtick, it has evolved since then. Clearly, so many modern titles of blood, guts and gore show that modern artists are no longer bound by those rules.

Remember, in the day and age when bat's had a gun, there were - technologically speaking - not very many ways one could subdue a recalcitrant bad-guy without shooting him dead. But in the modern day, cops and law enforcement always go for the capture option first. Rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, tazers, and other such methods are constantly being developed to give law enforcement ways to bring down the bad-guys - even the violent ones - without killing them.

Superheores, with all of their powers, have more options than even a well-armed cop does. Superman has no need kill anybody to take them down. For him to do so would seem cowardly and inately un-heroic, even if her were apprehending a mass-murdering madman who "deserved" to die. Batman, thanks to his training, also has no need to kill to bring a perp to justice. But for Bats, there is another reaosn why he doesn't kill: a killing is what caused his pain in the first place, and he does not want to become what he fights. Superman and Batman also believe that life is the most sacred thing of all - even more sacred than justice.

If anything, what makes them Heroes is not their powers, or even how they use them, but their dedication - in spite of adversity - to an ideal. Even when they see the same criminals escape time and time again, the heroes keep it clean and play by the book. Why? Because as flawed as the System is, it is better than the alternative. If you don't give the System a chance to work, how will it ever get the chance to become what it is meant to be?

There is a great quote from one of the Dirty Harry movies (I forget which one) where vigilante cops are executing perps. One would think that Harry would approve - but he doesn't. "I hate the System!" he admits, "But until someone comes up with something better, I'll stick with it."

Being a hero is not easy. Those who make their own rules and "get results" may be practical, courageous, and even noble. But that doesn't make them a Hero.

[SuperPheemy]

Remember that in Comics, even Death can be overcome, and characters who kill run the risk of making the slain villian "more powerful than they could possibly imagine", to misquote Ben Kenobi.

A short list of tried-and-true comic fiats that have given villains near-immortality in the past.

Dead Villain not really the villain, just a dupe or robot crafted to LOOK like the villain (the Dr. Doom deluxe special, with fries).

Villain when killed actually evolves into a different form of consciousness (like the Living Laser)

Villain has a clone ready for brain-engram transplant "just in case" (Lex Luthor's contingency)

Now, personally I'm not against killing in Champs, or the comics, I am against killing without consequence. When the FEARSOME GUNBUNNY puts a 9mm slug in the head of EVIL NEMESIS, there should be some consequence to that action. Maybe the GUNBUNNY starts getting heat from the Press, or Politicians, maybe his girlfriend breaks up with him because she can't stand being close to a killer. Maybe the juvenile president of the EVIL NEMESIS fanclub goes unhinged and swears vengeance on the GUNBUNNY. You can even have the EVIL NEMESIS come back as a ghost who haunts the alley where GUNBUNNY put him down. But something should happen as a result of the act of killing folks in a super-powered universe.

[tiger]

Originally posted by Storn

So. It comes back to "it depends". And I have been chosen as Judge, Jury and Executioner because I'm the Jonny on the Spot. That is the life of a Player Character.


Well said. Oh by the way the body in the armor was Dr. D. just someone he put in a animated version of his suit.....OOPS!! Did I spill the bean? :)

[Raven]

We play a Dark Champions campaign, albiet w/super powered chars. in Hudson City. Our group, the Sentinels, is officially sanctioned but this being Hudson City violence is a way of life. Almost all of our chars. have diasadvs. like enraged & vengefull. They also have prior tragedies in there lives which can act as triggers to enrage them. We also all have killing attacks & tend to use them frewuently, often to excess. This often leads in interesting sometimes hilarious results.
Our Punisher type char. got a mean on for the Cardshark villian Blackjack who had embarresed him. We broke up a Carshark hostage situation and this char., named the Judgement, took adv. of Blackjack going down to take several called headshots at him, killing Blackjack. Unfortunately we all forgot we were in a room full of people & Judgement was arrested for murder, it took some doing to get out of that.
Another more amusing problem was our old brick. he was constantly forgetting to pull his punches when smacking low level Viper & Carshark agents. He would hit one with like 19 body & 100 stun and send the , now dead agent, flying hundreds of yards into the ocean.
Of course there were consequences to this as Cardshark got really pissed at us and satarted hiring super-villans to assasinate us. The judgement actaully had to be rescued by the Harbinger of Justice so that prob. tells you that we are way out there on the edge.

[keithcurtis]

Even if one accepts the moral and ethical arguments for the killing hero, what safeguards are there against his mistakes?

What if the Punisher misses and hits an innocent? What if he kills a perp and then later discovers the "true" guilty party?

Does send himeself to jail? Commit suicide?

What if the Punisher's girlfriend/wife/whatever* kills someone or is framed for killing someone and is later killed by Batman? Does he kill Batman? What if Punisher was mistaken and his significant other IS guilty? Does he pursue a vendetta against Bats? There ain't no end to it.


Keith "Who watches the Watchmen?" Curtis



*Yes, I know the origin. I'm just sayin'.

[megaplayboy]

The strongest case for "de-villainization", IMHO, is in the case of a sociopath who will kill whenever he escapes(even if a long time passes, no jail is escape-proof). The hero knows in his heart that the villain will always choose evil, and murder innocents. To let him live is to enable future murder. There is no guarantee the villain won't escape, and no guarantee the hero will be able to prevent the killing the next time. The first two or three times this dilemma pops up, the hero can stand on moral high ground(somehow), but after the fifth or sixth occasion, someone's just gonna call a spade a spade, and the hero will be labelled a "naive self-righteous idiot" or some such...

Which is why letting the Joker live makes no sense from a CVK standpoint. If obeying your CVK means allowing for the likelihood that many more will die in the future, isn't it logical to at least try to find a way to "neutralize" your nemesis(via a permanent spinal injury, lobotomy, dimensional imprisonment, et al) in a way that will lessen the chances of future mayhem?

All I'm saying is, If I'm Batman, and another sidekick or friend turns up dead, the Joker shows up at Gotham, sans arms and legs, and paralyzed from the neck down;)

[RDU Neil]

Posted by Klytus
>>>If you don't give the System a chance to work, how will it ever get the chance to become what it is meant to be?<<<

That's my problem with the comics (the Bat universe, in particular.) Bats HAS given the system a chance to work, time and time again... only to have it fail, time and time again. In this, I agree, he is responsible for every death the Joker commits because he doesn't end it when he has the chance. It's not on a whim... or casually killing... it is justified by the world Bats lives in, as demonstrated again and again.

Couple of other arguments. In my world (which Storn has already commented on) we take violence quite seriously. Property destruction, injured/dead civilians, the concept of assault... all play into the game. My main reaction to this comes from my own, limited, martial arts and gun training. The basic fact is, that if you are hitting (bullet, fist, whatever) a person with enough force to "take them out with one shot" then you are using potentially lethal force.

This is never represented in classic comics. Capt. America... in one panel... sends dozens of men carreening into unconsciousness with a single fling of his shield. This is never shown to have the consequences it should. If Cap is good enough to hurl an object so dense it can't be damaged and use it to smash dozens of men with one blow... then he is dealing a helluva lot more force than a bullet. That type of shot IS as lethal... or should be... as any killing attack... but the fictitious "genre conventions" I despise about many comics... make this out to be "no big deal."

What happens to those thugs. How many internally bleed to death, or are crippled, or suffer brain damage. All of these permanently disabling effects are ignored... so that we can feel that Cap "takes the high road."

That is utter crap. That is why I hate the false distinction between "normal damage" and "killing damage" in the game. They work well as far as building "blunt/broad attacks vs. piercing/focused" attacks... but the fact of the matter is... force is force. If you want to be less lethal, you use less force.

Therefore, if you want to take someone out without killing them, the realistic way to do that is with multiple smaller attacks that wear them down until they can't fight anymore. This means a series of 6-8d6 punches, rather than one 15d6.

Taking them down with "non lethal force" takes time. It is holding back. Some times... in fact most of the time... it's the preferred way... but in a hostage situation... or with the Joker on the loose in a crowded mall... every punch Batman throws that isn't a lethal shot, gives the Joker one more chance to harm someone. Because Bats doesn't go for the "one shot" take out (whether he kills him or not in the end isn't important, but it should be a risk) Batman is putting himself and others at undue risk. He is culpable for that... especially when he knows exactly how much force he will need to take down someone he has fought a thousand times.

CVK is a great concept. It should be role played as what it is... a DISADVANTAGE. Just like "casual killer" is a disad for different reasons. What I despise is the soft minded concept that refusing to kill is always the "Best choice" and is the high road.

Sometimes, the high road is taking personal responsibility for ending a life that is threatening many many others. Maybe you go to jail. Maybe your own life is ended (repercussions are very important to me, as other have posted), but it may still have been the right thing to do at the time. It was still the high road.

[Evil Toki]

All good points Neil, I think that is the difference we can make bewteen Superheroic roleplaying, and Superheroic games... :) The choice to deal with those harsh realities and explore them.

[wcw43921]

Originally posted by Yamo

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books.

According to no less an authority than Bob Kane, in his book Batman And Me, Batman's early use of firearms was not well received:


In several early issues of Detective he even carried a gun. We had our first brush with censorship over Batman's use of a gun in Batman #1. In one story in this issue he had a machine gun mounted on his plane and used it to fight gigantic monsters. . .We didn't think anything was wrong with Batman carrying a gun because the Shadow used one. Readers found the use of a gun deplorable, however. "I goofed," Bill Finger recalled. "I had Batman use a gun to shoot a villain, and I was called on the carpet by Whit Ellsworth. He said, 'Never let us have Batman carry a gun again.' He was right." (Pg. 45)

He goes on to say that after that story DC imposed its own 'comics code' which forbade, among other things, killing villains.



It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

Actually--it isn't. Because if you can justify killing one person for their crimes--or whatever other "valid" reason you can conceive--why not ten persons? Or a hundred? Or a thousand? Or a millon? Or maybe even six million.

The Germans did not justify the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of the Jews, by saying "Because We Can!" although that was ultimately their reason for it. They presented an entire laundry list of crimes and conspiriacies that the Jews were supposedly responsible for, and that it was absolutely necessary to kill them in order to preserve the German way of life as interpreted and practiced by the Nazi leadership. Those who planned and carried out the Holocaust were as convinced of the rightness of their actions as the prosecutor who seeks the death penalty for a murder suspect--as the jury who votes to convict--as the same jury who votes to execute--as the governor who fails to act to preserve the convict's life--as the prison staff who straps the convict into the execution apparatus--as the politicians and pundits who argue that the convict's death was necessary to preserve our way of life.

But what if the suspect in question was falsely convicted? How right would our action to kill him be then? And even if he was guilty of murder, would we still be justified in taking his life, no matter how careful or just our deliberations? Because in the end we, our society, for our own carefully considered reasons, are making the same decision the murderer made, for his own carefully considered reasons--to end the life of another.

And if the murderer's decision to end another's life was wrong, no matter what his reasons or justifications, then how can our society's decision to end his life be right?

Legal or otherwise, the justification to end another's life comes down to one ultimate rationale--that the murderer, or our society (as interpreted by the law), for whatever reason, grants himself--or we grant ourselves--the power to do so. In other words, we kill Because We Can.

The reason we have laws, the reason we organize ourselves into a civilized society, is to make better lives for ourselves. How can we do that if we make the same decisions, if we lower ourselves to the level of those who seek to do us harm? Aren't we supposed to be better than that? Aren't Superheroes supposed to be better than that? After all, they represent the high ideal that tremendous physical power and prowess can be used to benefit the greater good for all, not just the selfish ends of one person or one group. Superheroes do not exert their powers for themselves and say, "Because I Can!" They exert their powers in the service of others and say, "Because It's The Right Thing To Do!" How can they serve this better ideal if they act the same as those who serve only their own ends--those who seek to do worse?

Finally, consider this--throughout our history, humanity has always operated under the premise that society would be better if we were to remove, by whatever means serve, the so-called "undesirables." Purges, pogroms, witch hunts, massacres, ethnic cleansings, lynchings, vigilante violence, holocausts, wars, crusades, jihads, and much much more are among the examples of ths mindset in horrendous effect.

Tell me something--has it ever worked?

Then maybe we need to try something different--something better.

[Yamo]

The Germans did not justify the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of the Jews, by saying "Because We Can!" although that was ultimately their reason for it....

BZZT

You lose.

Don't you know that the first person to bring up Hitler and the Nazis always loses? Especially when the subject is comic books.

:rolleyes:

[Prometheus]

Heroes don't kill because killing off sociopathic villians and choosing to ignore the justice system and/or societal morality makes them, by today's standards... sociopaths. But you only did it once, and he was a very bad man, and deserved it?

Better hope that other vigilante can make that distinction before he comes for you.

Besides, it's bad business.

[Yamo]

Heroes don't kill because killing off sociopathic villians and choosing to ignore the justice system and/or societal morality makes them, by today's standards... sociopaths.

But if they don't kill the villian and the villian kills again, the blood is on the so-called "heroes'" hands. Their weak-willed refusal to finish the job and smug rationaliztion for a lack of definitive action routinely spells doom for future innocent victims in the comics.

As one not even particularly extreme example, look at the second X-Men movie. Magneto kills a grand total of (I believe) three of the jailors during his prison break scene. That's three innocent human beings that wouldn't have died violent, unjust early deaths if only the X-Men had just had the guts to finish Magneto when they had the chance.

Maybe the families of the slain prison staff would have a different view of their supposed "superheroism?"

It's not logical or moral to assume that a superpowered murderer can be safely contained indefinitely by the authorities when common sense and years of accumulated comic storylines both dictate otherwise. "Heroes" that passively cling to that assumption anyway are more true murderers than ones that finish off their downed foes could ever be.

[Evil Toki]

Of course wolverine kills god knows how many people in the Mansion scene... so is that justified as well?

[Yamo]

Of course wolverine kills god knows how many people in the Mansion scene... so is that justified as well?

Of course. They were armed soldiers with deadly weapons that were attacking the home of his friends and the innocent children he felt obligated to protect.

What should he have done? Made them all tea?

[megaplayboy]

A few "sub-issues":
a. if Batman apprehends the Joker in Texas, knowing that he will not be found insane, and in fact face certain execution there, does his heroic code require him to 1) take the Joker back to Arkham, or 2) allow him to face justice and be executed in Texas(thus assisting in killing him)?
b. if a hero is in fact a law enforcement officer, authorized and trained in the use of lethal force, is it then "unheroic" for said hero to use lethal force as a last resort to protect the public?
c. at what point does simple practicality take precedence over morality--if shooting the bad guy stops him from nuking Gotham, how is it more moral to look for an alternative which may not guarantee the safety of citizens?
d. If a death penalty exists for supervillains, and the anti-killing heroes are the main way to apprehend supervillains, isn't it hypocritical for them to say "no one has the right to take a life" while handing the villains over for eventual execution?

[dbsousa]

Actually, Wolverine acted within state and federal law. When armed men enter your home without announcing themselves, you are not required to retreat, and are allowed to use deadly force.

This doesn't mean he is a hero for doing it, though...

[Karma]

Lets step back and take a long lok at some of the arguments.
1. The Joker keep escaping and since Bats don't kill him he's partaily responable for his crimes: The Joker keeps escaping and is kept alive for one actual reason: It allows repeat performances of Bats most famous Nemesis without having to stoop to some of the insane improbablilties that comics are famous for (If Bats was a killer every 'Joker' story would have required some way for the Joker to have survived the last 'killing' and would have had to have turned in DCs answer to Jason Voorhees in order to justify all his 'repeat performances'). Since Bats has a line that he won't cross however, the Joker and other villians are able to face their nemesis again without pulling out the improbabilities. If anything the Comics Code at least saved us from endless 'clones', doubles, resurrection machines, undead villians, (continue with list of 'back from the dead' reasons here).

2. Can people really be viewed as heroes if they act like serial murderers? What makes 'comic code' heroes so much more heroic is they don't take the 'easy option'. Lets not kid ourselves, putting a bullet in the head of every villian saves the heroes from a whole mess of headaches.
Still how do you think its going to make the public view them? I don't know about you guys but every time I hear about a police 'execution' of a perp or even a 'shootout with a knife wielding nutjob' I loose some more respect for the boys in blue. They're trained to use non-lethal force when possible, so when they resort to lethal force in situations where it seems unwarrented they seem somehow less heroic.
Also lets not mix words about what 'killer heroes' are. Self-rightous executioners. Do we cheer police who put a gun to the back of a perps head and kill him? No. Why? Because we all fear where that sort of power could take society. If superheroes start doing this should they be cheered or rightly feared. To me it smacks of what someone wrote above the 'I am above humanity and thus above human rules and laws' syndrome that Supervillians are famous for. I mean what makes a hero more capable of judging guilt (unless they have 'detect guilt, discriminatory' (Discrimnitory is important, most people feel guilty about something when faced with the 'authorities' and you want to make sure your not executing a jaywalker)) than 12 peers of the defendant. Yet 'killer heroes' seem to think that their powers give them this right, classic 'meta-human superiority complex'.

Speaking of 12 peers. Do you think Supervillians get Superjuries? Boy talk about grounds for mistrial. the only people that would be allowed on the jury would be known superheroes who are, by their very profession, publically known to have a bias against supercriminals. Heck think of trying to get an unbiased jury for Dr. Destroyer?
"Sir, are you from another planet with no knowledge of this ones super entities"
"Yes"
"No objection"

[zornwil]

As someone mentioned, a key ingredient in whether super-protagonists kill is the effectiveness of the penal system and how likely they are to come back anyway.

** WARNING TO X-CHAMPIONS PLAYERS (not sure if Lemming is the only one here?) - A COUPLE SPOILERS THOUGH NOT SERIOUS ONES BELOW, NOTHING PLOT-SHATTERING **

Speaking for my current game, the penal system is not particularly effective for the higher-level villains: Kingpin beats the system because he partially owns it (well he did, more on that in a moment); Bogeyman is nearly if not immortal so he can kill himself and come back; Bud Girl has powers the penal system couldn't quite counter even though it is highly developed against mutants; and others may have very powerful friends (like Magneto) who can orchestrate a jailbreak from outside. But most of my villains do stay in the pen and some reform. Bud Girl couldn't really be held but it was in part because she did work towards reform and is reformed, though it was unnaturally fast. Pterodactyl is reformed although she's still in prison. On the other hand Octal Fist gotten broken out (although now he's back in although at some point someone who is "interested" will get him out, probably for the last time) and has become prison-hardened and a mutant cause terrorist. Several got broken out during an orchestrated strike once.

As far as I can remember, only one of the heroes, Troll, deliberately killed a villain out of combat, and in that case it was a regular mortal guy who killed the character's mother just as they were reaching reapproachment after estrangement that essentially prevailed from birth. (The player wanted some tragedy so...). This same character however did plan to kill Kingpin (who had orchestrated the killing of his mother and had been imprisoned by the character's team but had wormed his way out of it) once he was forced (via a foolhardy teammate getting imprisoned) to deal with Kingpin again. Troll was spared the killing only because another, more veangeful (but with a much more compelling reason even) NPC killed Kingpin.

However, the team has been responsible for 2 in-combat deaths, one a mistake (combo of too much force and on top of that a high die roll) against a very fragile villain and the other a similar strike by the aforementioned character against a somewhat (but not that) fragile villain.

One character is distrustful of Troll as she's very upset about the killings (in character only of course). The other characters range are uncertain except for the calculating one who is essentially supporting Troll but with his "plausible deniability".

The death of Kingpin is recent and there's been no fallout, in large part since the team was not directly responsible. But one of the aforementioned villains died and another in a battle a while before. And nothing serious has come up - yet. There will be some repercussions (and I won't give that away) but the other issue, which the PCs don't know really although they might have figured out, is that the government LIKES when "heroic" mutants kill the "bad" mutants. It allows at least an influential segment of the public enough fear to keep the government in control, and it keeps some chips in the government's hand if they decide they need to trump something up and "control" the hero mutants. It also spares the legal and penal system some work. So an accidental death in combat (at least if that combat is for an obvious good cause) is pretty much ignored.

But careless or calculated killings by the heroes would definitely be out of bounds. It would cause the government to outlaw and hunt - and any mutant deemed a threat can be put away for life without a trial.

Hope this wasn't too long-winded.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Karma
Speaking of 12 peers. Do you think Supervillians get Superjuries? Boy talk about grounds for mistrial. the only people that would be allowed on the jury would be known superheroes who are, by their very profession, publically known to have a bias against supercriminals. Heck think of trying to get an unbiased jury for Dr. Destroyer?"Jury of peers" doesn't mean only people who can do the same kind of things as a defendant, or murderous plumbers could only be tried by other plumbers. "Supervillain" is an occupation; not a social class. The term peer refers to fellow citizens; it has nothing to do with abilities or social standing. Do you think Leona Helmley was only tried by a jury of other hotel tycoons? Was OJ Simpson tried by a jury of retired professional quarterbacks?

Whether killing is valid is largely a factor of the type of campaign. In four-color campaigns such as I run, killing is extremely rare (although it does happen). I have entire villain teams with Code vs Killing. In a grittier game or in some circumstances I just can't see why superheroes (and villains) wouldn't kill. Even in the Justice League cartoon, when transported to 1943 and forced to fight Nazis, Superman killed German soldiers. Time of War = Different Rules Apply.

[wcw43921]

Originally posted by Yamo
BZZT

You lose.

Don't you know that the first person to bring up Hitler and the Nazis always loses? Especially when the subject is comic books.

:rolleyes:


Even when that person is making a valid point? I must have missed that one in the FAQ section.

My argument stands.

[Vanguard]

One of the reasons that the Joker is still around is storyline (as someone mentioned). If the hero's in the comics killed every villian they came across, there would be a severe lack of comics on the shelf. It's the same reason why, when you're watching a movie, the main character's don't do what they SHOULD in order to end things quick. If they just launched a LAW into the building the movie would be over in ten-minutes.

Now ... do I think hero's shouldn't kill? I think that's up to the individual hero. I know in our group the majority think killing is wrong and will avoid it as much as possible. While there is one that while he won't kill outright ... he doesn't have any qualms about it nor remorse.

Vanguard, is a Wolvering clone (and I'm proud of it) and it took one of the other characters in the game to convince him that killing the bad-guys the team ran across was bad. He wasn't a casual killer, but his school of thought was like some of the others on here. "If I let this person go, they're going to get out and kill or hurt other people and I can't let that happen." Did he think he was above the law? No .. in fact, he thought he was sacrificing his soul and would be forever damned because of what he was doing. But he thought it was best that he suffer and pay the consequences then others. Make him a bit self-righteous? Maybe. But after several conversations with one of his teammates, he agreed (albiet reluctantly) to go the "Three-Strikes" route.

As it was mentioned. "Hero's" killing is mainly based on Campaign setting and tone. If only a few of the villians out there are going to have the lethality that we see in the Joker and Punisher and such, then yeah, the players are actually going to go "Ya know .. we gotta stop this guy" and do what's neccessary.

My biggest concern (and in the current campaign I'm in, it's not much of a concern) is the GM that allows his players to be, for all intents and purposes, casual killers. If it comes to that, then you're not playing hero's. You're playing villians.

[ZootSoot]

Consequences are everything. A while back my team began investigating a series of brutal, sacrificial murders that turned out to be being committed by Talisman on behalf of Black Paladin (who ws trying to ressurect his sorceress lover).

My character has a big killing attack and a moderate code vs killing. Other members of the team have different backgrounds, but one had no code versus killing and another (my character's best friend) had made her earlier career murdering gang members (not that we knew that, it really wasn't why we made her team leader :eek: ). I missed the game where they made contact (team leader managed to get herself marked for sacrifice). Several NPC hroes were involved, two villains were banished to Hell. Talisman was captured by the PCs and transported to our base. Fear of Talisman is high, one character smashes her hands so they are useless. When she comes to she isn't frightened, but is looking for vengeance. Leader gives character with no code permission to kill her. Team brick (reformed gangbanger) pulls a Pilate and walks out of the room. Leader's sidekick PC (sorry, but sometimes . . .) tries to distract former Silver Avenger with Total CVK and Talisman is executed before he can intervene. Outrage (???) is so high that executioner is (sorta) drummed off team, leader's complicity is hidden from rest of team.

I'm back for next session, am given edited version about teammate turning killer. My best friend admits she has been having nightmares about Talisman. My character wonders if this is merely guilt, after all Talisman is a sorceress and "death may not be 'another country' for her as it is for us." During the course of a team meeting two other members of the team mention nightmares and my character (she's a little naive and open sometimes) accidentally spills beans that team leader is having them too and that she thinks this isn't normal nightmares and Talisman communicates suddenly to all those having the nightmares that they don't have to be sleeping . . .

My character is the most recent incarnation of a superhero with a lineage stretching back some 1800 years, it's mystically based (Korean) and involved each new incarnation to absorb a portion of the predecessor's soul (thus each incarnation has fragments of souls stretching back all those centuries); she doesn't know much about mystical matters, but has made the mystic contacts and so she consults those, getting confirmation that Talisman is not "dead."

Talisman now exists entirely on the Astral plane, unless she can find a host to reincarnate as, but on the Astral planes she is many times as powerful as before. Plus, she can possess those who, in my character's words "owe her a karmic debt" temporarily.

While I am getting this information Talisman's executioner, under her control, has captured all but the team leader (who has heroically gone into complete hiding;) ). I get captured trying to bring that information o the others. Team brick's mental powers are the wildcard that let us escape while Talisman through her puppet hunt for team leader. Eventually we all rendezvous, including her puppet who has , temporarily at least, won his freedom, at the headquarters of the Champions where, in addition to getting her advice people essentially confess to Witchcraft the degree of their involvement in murdering her sister. Witchcraft is upset, but confesses that she has tried to kill her sister in the past but was always thwarted, of course she had the advantage/disadvantage of knowing the consequences. She explains that to stop Talisman now, we have to kill her. This is difficult for a couple of reasons. First, we might be able to kill her when she possesses someone (which she has done with two of our characters and can probably do with two others, the ones without Mental Defenses), but we would have to do it before she got a second phase, because she can abandon a living puppet pretty much at will. Witchcraft can (and will) send us to the astral plane to confront Talisman, but since we are anchored in the material plane we will only have the equivalent of our normal powers while hers will be increased around ten-fold because she is fully resident on the astral plane.

Which is the information my naive, 19 year old heroine needs to come up with a desperate plan. She has no karmic debt towards Talisman, more importantly she carries the souls of around sixty previous incarnations of her character and she has no successor to absorb them if she dies. She explains her idea, and to her dismay Witchcraft tells her she is right, if she dies she will have vast power to confront Talisman on the astral plane.

Whole team freaks out about this plan, and eventually set up a situation where my character has a chance of being resurrected by an NPC hero who has (once) brought another character back from the dead. My character kills herself as Witchcraft sends the rest of the team to the Astral plane in a more conventional way.

When we confront Talisman we are cotinuously thrown off by her tactics, but my character stands firm against and Talisman decides that she is worrisome enough that she needs the others gone as distractions. She dismisses all (except one who managed to deflect the spell) back to the material plane, denmying them even knowledge of what transpires. Team leader freaks out and tries to kill herself to rejoin the fight, but is restrained. Eventually my character gets the upper hand and slays Talisman on the astral plane and uses her vast powers to assure she is truly destroyed. Witchcraft communicates my victory. The healer brings me back, but succumbs herself in doing so.

The team transforms itself. the leader decides she will not kill anymore and even turns herself in for the killings she has done (the cop in question refuses to arrest her). The executioner of Talisman decides that while killing in combat is forgivable , there is no way he will ever execute somene again. We dedicate ourselves to honoring the memory of the healer who died so that my character could live.

Lots of death, lots of consequences, none of it cut and dried. A rule is the worst way to deal with this question, instead make a continual source for role-playing, regardless of how each decision is reached.

[Trebuchet]

That's a cool story, Zoot. You and your gaming group are to be commended for some excellent role-playing.

[BlackSword]

Originally posted by Yamo
But if they don't kill the villian and the villian kills again, the blood is on the so-called "heroes'" hands. Their weak-willed refusal to finish the job and smug rationaliztion for a lack of definitive action routinely spells doom for future innocent victims in the comics.



I am a bit frightened by the idea that heroes are weak-willed because they choose not to kill. Any of the superheroes could kill anyone anytime they wanted. That is granted, but does that give them the right? What is the now tired phrase from spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." What is heroic about killing someone when you are more powerful then them?

There was another thread discussing using of lethal force in protecting ones private property in the NGD forums. Someone posted the WA law for use of lethal force by police officers and by citizens. The use of lethal force by police officers is much more limited.

Its been mentioned before, for the most part the escape of supervillains is contrived. Joker has been killed, and now he is back. Joker can break out of prisons and has killed hundreds he has never been put on death row. Do I see blood on Batman's hands because he's been 'weak-willed,' no; does he see blood on his hands, yes. The superheroes are extremely strong willed when it comes to not killing.

[Crimson Arrow]

Yes, really interesting plotline, Zoot.

As I see it there are a number of issues being discussed and that is causing a little confusion. Some of the posts are talking about the LEGALITY of killing in certain circumstances. I think we can leave that one as it's a technical question.

The more interesting (IMHO) issue, is WHETHER a character would kill.

1. The character goes out of his way to kill or even murder his opponents. This is Batman slipping into Arkham and poisoning the Joker's food (of course he won't do that). I don't think anyone can say that is heroic in any way shape or form, even if the Joker might escape and kill again. It might be justified/logical, but is not heroic. This does not necessarily mean that a character who did so could never be considered a hero. Executing someone is pretty much the same, as per Zoot's storyline.

2. The character puts people in situations where he can legitimately use lethal force (in the yes of the law). This covers your classic Punisher routines. "Hey it's the Punisher, let's all draw our illegal concealed weapons and let him mow us down." This might be legal (self-defence), but is morally grey (dark grey IMHO) and depending on the circumstances, you might not be able to rely on that defence. Again, not very heroic.

3. The character is willing to use lethal force against an opponent, but does not seek to provoke the foe to do so. This is very common in the real world. Police are trained to use their guns, but would rather the criminal surrendered. Using lethal force in those circumstances is not un-heroic by ORDINARY standards, but may be for superheroes, especially as they are more likely to have EFFECTIVE non-lethal methods at their disposal.

4. As 3, but the character is NOT willing to use lethal force, except in the direst of circumstances. An example of this is Captain America beheading Baron Blood. Cap would never normally dream of killing someone (in peacetime, at least). OK the Baron wasn't strictly alive, but...

5. The character will not kill. At all. Ever.

Even as I have been typing this, I see other possibilities and shades, eg the character who is in situation 4 and decides to kill, not because it is vital, but to prevent future deaths. Unlike 1, the use of lethal force is legal, BUT the character could have knocked out the villain instead.

At what point does a hero's refusal to kill one maniac and thereby indirectly causing a dozen innocents to die actually become LESS heroic than option 3 or 4? Does it ever? I think that someone can simultaneously be a good person for upholding his beliefs, while also being a bad person for ignoring the consequences of his actions (or inaction).

[Alibear]

Originally posted by RDU Neil
Posted by Klytus


That is utter crap. That is why I hate the false distinction between "normal damage" and "killing damage" in the game. They work well as far as building "blunt/broad attacks vs. piercing/focused" attacks... but the fact of the matter is... force is force. If you want to be less lethal, you use less force.



Me I agree with this up to a point. I always make sure normals are normal. 2-3pd.

When supers start wading into normals with 10d6N attacks they're will be deaths, injuries, disabilities etc.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Alibear
Me I agree with this up to a point. I always make sure normals are normal. 2-3pd.

When supers start wading into normals with 10d6N attacks they're will be deaths, injuries, disabilities etc.

Alibear... EXACTLY.

I always find it hypocritical that players who would never think of using a 3d6+1 KA on a normal... will no flinch from using a 10d6 normal attack. They call it being heroic, because they didn't use a KA.

Well... a 10d6 attack is not as LIKELY to kill a normal... it is a game mechanic justification... not an "in world" concept. That 10d6 blast is still likely to do 7-8 BODY after defenses, which is more than a 9mm bullet will do on average. "But it's not a killing attack" I hear so many people say. (Not my players, thank god.)

The fact, though, that Capt. America needs to do 10d6 or more in one attack, to put a normal "out of the fight" for sure. Therefore, Caps attack is a measure of lethal force... we are just saved by the writers from seeing the disabling, bleeding, broken body effects... therefore Cap is kept with "clean hands."

I've hated that element of comics since I was a child.

I don't role play superheroes. I role play "people with powers."

Sometimes the PCs do act in villainous ways... other times they are quite sacrificial.

There is no b&w... there is only the very, very gray of CHOICE.

Gaming is not comics and movies. It simulates elements of them... but it is it's own medium, a medium defined by character/player CHOICE. Trying to force role playing to conform to some false "genre standard" is limiting, and no kind of game I want to be a part of. Playing off of, or with those genres, fine... but enforcing them by fiat and morality arguments... no way.

[Insaniac99]

w00t Alright morning star, you got to it before i had to type it up! that is exactily what the good captain is doing, he is just knocking them aside and maybe breaking a few bones while doing it, but it is no where near what he could do...

[CBikle]

The whole "code vs. killing" thing doesn't really make sense in the real world , however it's a staple of the comics genre.

If you need to rationalize it to the players , you can always take this route:

The law turns a blind eye to the goings-on of superheroes and even works with them (even though most of them have secret id's) with the (implied or unsaid) understanding that there are certain lines super-heroes won't cross , and if they do , they'll help clean it up.

Politicians allow/encourage this because super-heroes are very popular and being anti-super-hero is not very popular with the voters.

If things get seriously out of hand , then the lauthorities will have to do things differently.

[Blue]

I likely shared this story before. It was a murder as a result of a character's poor choice of disadvantages.

For some unknown reason the player chose "Berserk when struck by falling debris". I wasn't picky back then because it was all about getting the player out there to do battle.

So naturally the character encounters someone on the street who taunts her. When one offers her a few bucks to go in the alley with him she punches him full bore. Now this was the player's fault, absolutely! Didn't pull punch or anything. So this brick kills the guy by virtue of a punch plus knockback! He goes THROUGH the wall.

Then unluck kicks in (I was deciding if cops were nearby). Gets TWO levels of unluck. So I say that debris falls. The player remembers his berserk and rolls... sure enough, the character flips out and begins to beat everyone in sight much the way they had hurt the first person. It was a massacre!

I'm not sure that player ever took a berserk again.

But they were hunted by the police, but never brought to trial. I sort of let that storyline drop, unfortunately. I'd love to do a trial now, if that player was still around.

[Mentor]

Character concept cannot be forgotten.

I have one PC who is a Power Armor/billionair/Air Force type. He had already "killed" 4 enemy fighters and presumably their pilots before his hero creer started. In Power Armor, some times the force is deadly on both sides. His only kill in his super career days was throwing a homicidal Wizard into the Nexus to Hell he had openned, destroying both the Wizard and the spell.

My Psychic character is an 880 year old former founder of the Knights Templar who after three or four Crusades, completely renounced killing under any and all circumstances. He will do things to the minds of villains that might send shivers up Dr D's spine, but he will not use deadly force deliberately.

As other posters have written, it just depends.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Insaniac99
w00t Alright morning star, you got to it before i had to type it up! that is exactily what the good captain is doing, he is just knocking them aside and maybe breaking a few bones while doing it, but it is no where near what he could do...

I'm not saying it's the full force of what Cap "could" do... but I'm saying... a 6d6 attack will not keep a normal down in one punch on average.

5PD for a basically untrained, but been in a few fights, thug. (If a pro-boxer is an 8-10 PD, this makes sense for a street tough.)

21 Stun on average -5, equals 16 stun. Probably a Con Stun... but not unconscious. Unless Cap hits him when he is down... which we never see... the guy gets up in a few seconds... which we also never see. You never see Cap having to punch a thug twice.

So, to take out a 20 stun, 5 pd thug in one punch, so that at a minimum he is out for a full turn (which is still recovered and up again in under 30 seconds) Cap has to do 36 stun, minimum. That puts the thug at -11.

10d6 normal is 35 stun on average. So it has to be an above average roll on 10d6 to put a thug down in one shot. That is, on average 5 body damage done. HALF the thugs body in one shot.

That is the average of a 9mm bullet.

Now, you can put in a rule bending, lets keep Caps hands clean, mook rule... allowing the so called heroes to just take out thugs without even rolling, but that is script writing to maintain the illusion that violence is clean and safe.

Violence is not clean and safe. You punch a person hard enough to take them out in one shot... especially if you do it with a superdense metal object... you are severely injuring them, possibly in a life threatening manner.

A month in the hospital? Same damage as getting shot.

Why is one kind of damage "lethal" and the other "family friendsly?" Stupid writing/genre conventions that have no basis in reality, and in my opinion, severely detract from any kind of dramatic story telling... whether in the comics or an RPG.

[RDU Neil]

>>>And if they're trained, dedicated agents of an organization out to conquer the world and kill lots of people, well, do the math. You only suffer serious consequences at 0 Body (bleeding, severe muscle and bone damage). If they're working for that kind of a cause, a 5 Body injury is getting off cheap.<<<

Ah so now we go from "killing is bad and immoral" to "they deserve to have broken bones and potentially disabling injuries."

Hey... I agree with you. What I disagree with is the people who make a moralist stance against "killing attacks" or "lethal force" but fail to realize that, in the middle of combat, a bullet or a punch that takes someone out in one shot... they both are potentially just as lethal. To say one is "the high ground" and the other "base and villainous" is just wrong headed.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Morningstar70
And if they're trained, dedicated agents of an organization out to conquer the world and kill lots of people, well, do the math. You only suffer serious consequences at 0 Body (bleeding, severe muscle and bone damage). If they're working for that kind of a cause, a 5 Body injury is getting off cheap. I concur. A CvK in no way necessarily indicates your character is unwilling to cause serious injuries as long as those injuries are not life threatening or permanantly maiming. A broken arm or jaw is par for the course for thugs and agents fighting supers, although I think most superheroes would hesitate before permanently blinding someone.

In a short story I'm currently working on, my heroine Zl'f (who has a strong Code vs Killing) deliberately provokes a group of white slavers into attacking her with fists, knivers and automatic weapons, then decimates the entire gang with her bare hands in mere seconds. While no one actually died, one thug's pelvis was shattered, and the gang leader's spine was broken leaving him permanently paralyzed. My character then undergoes a severe crisis of conscience for her actions as judge, jury and executioner.

Eventually she works through it, but I don't think such events should ever be easy for a hero with CvK.

[Champsguy]

Amen, Morningstar. If I were a Hydra agent, and I just saw a red, white, and blue blur come out and whop me into the land of birdies circling my head, even if I'm still conscious (sitting around with single digit Stun), I'm not gonna get up. Cap would have deterred me good from wanting to fight him anymore.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by CBikle
The whole "code vs. killing" thing doesn't really make sense in the real world , however it's a staple of the comics genre.

If you need to rationalize it to the players , you can always take this route:

The law turns a blind eye to the goings-on of superheroes and even works with them (even though most of them have secret id's) with the (implied or unsaid) understanding that there are certain lines super-heroes won't cross , and if they do , they'll help clean it up.

Politicians allow/encourage this because super-heroes are very popular and being anti-super-hero is not very popular with the voters.

If things get seriously out of hand , then the lauthorities will have to do things differently.

Umm, it doesn't make sense in the real world where people don't have superpowers, I'm not sure it's that unrealistic once you add that element . . .

[Rerednaw]

Wouldn't you agree that having powers and abilities beyond that of normal ken doesn't make you a superHERO? It just makes you SUPER.

Then you must admit that the key here is being a hero. Typically held to a higher standard. They are what we aspire to be. The fact that they fly, shoot beams of whatever or can lift big things, etc...is only relevant as far as the super part of superhero goes.

So, playing a SuperHero, aka a Champion, implies by its very 4 color nature that you will not kill. You don't follow the rules because you have to, you do so because you believe.

Now if you are playing a different type of world/campaign/flawed hero, that's different. Anyone, normal or powered can kill, that doesn't make them a HERO. That just makes them a person who is like everybody else.

But then we were talking about SUPERHEROES here weren't we?

Cheers.

[Karma]

Originally posted by Rerednaw
Wouldn't you agree that having powers and abilities beyond that of normal ken doesn't make you a superHERO? It just makes you SUPER.

Cheers.

Precisely. In RL we judge heroes by the number of lives they 'save' not the number they kill. In fact that's almost a definition of the differences. If someone gains publicity for killing people she is known as a criminal, a villian or a murderer. If someone gains publicity for saving people that person is considered a hero.
The headlines "Villian saves 10 from firey inferno" and "Hero kills 12 in senseless shooting" at first would not ring true and may in fact gain attention simply for thier incongruity (Wouldn't you want to know how someone could save 10 people and still be refered to as a villian?).
Not that this answers the original question (heroic police may need to shoot criminals in order to save people) but it goes to the heart of what should make a SUPER heroic, that being that they judge themselves by how many people they have helped, not how many they've killed (or even for that matter arrested).
"We saved Japan" should always trump "We beat Dr. Destroyer" in the minds of real heroes.

[SKJAM!]

Mild spoilers for the anime series Trigun follow.


The main character, Vash the Stampede, has a Total Code vs. Killing, and he's just so damn good at combat that he's been able to coast on this for years despite the violent world he lives in. Thus, the early episodes are primarily comedic, and rather fluffy.

But there's a change of tone as enemies who can actually challenge him show up, and drive him ever closer to needing to make the "kill or allow killing" decision.

Indeed, it becomes apparent that the main villain's master plan specifically includes punishing Vash for having a "no killing" ethos, for trying to save both the butterfly and the spider.

The ending is somewhat ambiguous, and may not please all viewers. (But the anime was ending so they needed some kind of closure. The manga is ongoing.)

For what it's worth,
SKJAM!
"Love and Peace!"--Vash's favorite saying.

[American Valor]

In my opinion, killing should banned or accepted upon the basis of the game that you're running. If you've advertised a 4color game, then no. If you're running Dark Champions, of course. And if you're running a campaign in that grey area, ask yourself if the game is about heroes or paranormals. It's not the powers or the skills that make a hero. It's what they do with them. The Punisher kills. Fine. Batman doesn't. Fine. Team-ups between 4color characters and dark heroes have always been absurd to me but anything to make a buck. Ask yourself what you want to run and make sure that it jibes with what characters want to play and it makes for a great game.
Personal peeve-If you must kill, at least ROLEPLAY it!

[Cyberknight]

Code vs Killing (total) may make no sense in the 'real world', or even in the campaign world if the villians keep coming back again and again and again.

Then again, super-folk aren't exactly normal. God love 'em, normal folks just don't put on spandex (or Exoticum, or Whateverite) costumes and play in traffic :)

It makes no sense *to us*, the players / GM's / hecklers who have read the books and know that Real Villians Never Die. To the characters we play, however, CVK might make perfect sense. In the current campaign, the man in the Cyberknight armor is a Korean War veteran (yes, he really *is* that old). He spent four wonderful years eyebrow-deep in mud, freezing his (deleted) off, and wiping the blood and body parts of his friends off his equipment when things went wrong...Enough is enough. He's killed in the past, and he knows how it feels on both ends of the bullet. Will he take a life? No way. Been there, done that, the nightmares make me sweat on the t-shirt.

Paradoxically, he does support the death penalty, which might be another interesting discussion: Can you reconcile CVK and a justice system that has a Death Penalty statute ?

Cyberknight
*SIG GENERATOR - OFFLINE*

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Cyberknight
Paradoxically, he does support the death penalty, which might be another interesting discussion: Can you reconcile CVK and a justice system that has a Death Penalty statute ?

Cyberknight
*SIG GENERATOR - OFFLINE*

Sure, in fact among gritty heroes I'd expect that to be common. They won't kill because they believe vigilanteism has a limit, that they are not "entitled" to carry out a sentence - but society via the courts is fully entitled. And they easily often feel the same way about their peers and therefore attempt to stop them from carrying out any revenge or "preventative" killings. Most vigilantes (in the super-context) often operate on the belief that the law tolerates them specifically because they don't cross a line, and their way of life and public service is important enough to them fanatically avoid killing.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by zornwil
Sure, in fact among gritty heroes I'd expect that to be common. They won't kill because they believe vigilanteism has a limit, that they are not "entitled" to carry out a sentence - but society via the courts is fully entitled. And they easily often feel the same way about their peers and therefore attempt to stop them from carrying out any revenge or "preventative" killings. Most vigilantes (in the super-context) often operate on the belief that the law tolerates them specifically because they don't cross a line, and their way of life and public service is important enough to them fanatically avoid killing.

Hmm, is that a total CVK? I think that might work for a moderate or even a strong CVK, not sure it would for a total . . .

[WhammeWhamme]

Essentially, what kind of attitude is appropriate for some mystic hero who can resurrect people at will? Suddenly consequences aren't so consequential...

I mean, the guy rebuilt the house, resurrected the kid, *and* stopped the bad guy. +hostage takers suddenly lose a lot of leverage.

Just a thought.

[J4y]

People frustrated over the continual capture/escape cycle in Batman should be frustrated, however the blood of the people Joker kills when he escapes each time isn't on Batman's hands, it's on a very poorly conceptualized society/background. In Batman's universe him killing The Joker "unnecessarily" is against the law, the millions of people of Gotham want him instead to be imprisoned. Batman, being the hero that he is follows the law and hands him over to society as he's supposed to despite knowing full well he'll have to put his life on the line to protect the idiots of society who won't properly deal with The Joker and let him escape again and again to slaughter them. It's not Batman's fault he's living in a seriously screwed up society, he's doing the best that he can given the situation. Most people can put rediculously bad background, like a screwed up society as a device to keep The Joker in play, out of their mind, letting writers get away with some serious sillyness, to get on with the story as shown by The Matrix's ticket sales and it's utterly ludicrous "human battery" background.

[American Valor]

The whole point of Batman and the Joker is that he would love to kill the Joker! He, as a young boy, watched his parents die right before his eyes! He wants every criminal, every thug that stole his life and the lives of many others to pay! But he's a hero. He won't become the type of monster that he hunts. The moment that he does, he'll never stop. He'll be just another costumed psychopath, except his shtick wouldn't be birds, jokes, hats, cats, or riddles...his would be 'justice'.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by ZootSoot
Hmm, is that a total CVK? I think that might work for a moderate or even a strong CVK, not sure it would for a total . . .

I believe it CAN be so long as it's played as a total, where the character: a) never ever kilsl himself (again, he knows he should not even if he believes there are criminals society should execute); b) stops anyone else from doing so (same thing, he knows they're not the judge and jury); and not necessarily but best-playeed if c) he does everything in his power (investigation, even breaking them out of jail) where he realizes someone in going to be wrongly executed by the state (i.e., they are innocent or the case was purely circumstantial and he knows corruption or prejudice guided the verdict). I say the "c" option because he is total CVK, not total "I follow the law". If he does all 3 things above, he really in my book is being "total" about it. I think he could even do the first 2 if the villains he faces routinely have high defenses and are killers, since he won't use lethal force even against them if he thinks it might penetrate too deeply, AND he stops his teammates from doing so. That's a hard character to play.