Superheroes, Power and Responsbility

[nexus]

Pulled from a thread on rpg.net. I thought it was pretty thought provoking even if I don't emtirely agree with the assement. Thoughts?


Well, this depends. Say that your niece is severely developmentally disabled. Say that she lives in a universe in which she is fundamentally intellectually able to cope, which simply cannot be made safe for her. Now, say that, as far as everything and everyone can tell, not locking her up in a carefully regulated environment will result in her death, and very likely the deaths of others (if she wanders into traffic, say). Now, take the possibility that, with patient care and treatment, she might well manage to be cured, and become a fully-functioning adult. Do you lock her up for her own good, or let her roam, and hope?

It's all a matter of perspective. If the gap between human and superhuman is similar to the gap between infant and adult, then yes, superhumans are damn well justified in doing what is best for the collective humanity, no matter whose desires or rights are trampled in the process. If superhumans are simply bulletproof flying people with magic, then the above does not apply, obviously, but why shouldn't an entity capable of hearing and counting every air molecule in Earth's atmosphere also have the cognitive and sensory capacity to know everything about everyone, and decide accordingly?

From the perspective of the people who get killed for the good of the rest, it sucks. From the perspective of the people who don't have to get killed for the good of the rest, but do anyway because our putative super-overlord isn't perfect and does make mistakes, it really sucks. But it sucks just as much for those people who die of starvation, of muggings, of war and murder. Heck, if a superhuman could prevent every single automobile accident, but murdered a thousand people a year, we would be much better off, from a strictly utilitarian perspective.

Finally, as mentioned, we need to consider the possibility of our god-king getting bored and toying with humanity for his own amusement. This is a problem, yes, but it's not a problem we can deal with. If god-king-level superhumans exist, then the choice as to be a benevolent dictator, a moral beacon, a disaster recovery event, or a one-man genocide is entirely theirs. A god-king might grow bored and petty with power, yes, but so might a hero. If we posit that superheros can be superheros without going mad with their power, why can't they rule?

Ultimately, superhero universes throw out levels of power and ability without considering their implications. A universe in which there are some people who are inherently better, and the rest of the human race simply cannot compete with them, make for fairly depressing stories, but this is what is generally implied by comic-book-style superheros.

Thoughts?

Here's a link to the original thread as well

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=354856

[Doctor Agenda]

We have people who are effectively as powerful as superheroes: world leaders, for instance. Given the spottiness of their track record, can we expect any better from superhumans? Our main defence is that the ones who like being protectors and the ones who want to be rulers and the ones who don't want anyone ELSE to be rulers would keep each other busy, so most of us can live our lives in relative peace.

[Clonus]

Superhumans aren't that smart. None of em are except for the ones who wander off into the cosmos and stop thinking about anything as insignificant as humanity. 'nuff said.

[Tigereye]

Superheroes draw upon a human need for someone higher than themselves, yet still just accessible. Demi-gods used to be an outlet for this, whence we hear about the power of Hercules or of Beowulf.

Kings were also a common outlet for this. Yet Kings could be capricious- they could be good or really, really awful. More often the latter.

America has no state faith, no pantheon to call our own, so we make our own pantheon of fiction and call them superheroes. In this day and age, there is little justice for people of modest means, so the superheroes, with rare exception, seek justice in its various forms. (It's notable how many heroes in the genre- and villains- are multimillionaires.)

Most Americans try to create "heroes" or "role models" out of celebrities or athletes, but I'm amazed when people say they're "let down" when their pet athlete turns out to have feet of clay after all, or their favorite celeb gets busted for the umpteenth time for DWI. They make poor substitutes for demi-gods, and seem to be a replacement for kings.

I don't know if it's the age we live in, a sign that educational standards have slipped, or a side of human nature that was always there but not apparent until now, but people in this day and age seem to have a reluctance to think for themselves. More to the point, they have a need for others to do it for them. I think it's a ego protection feature- if the other person fails to do a good job, they can blame them rather than go through the often wrenching process of self-examination. (If you think I'm being right-wing or something, I'm not- the high and the mighty as well as the lowly in society have an equal stake in this egotistical activity. Politicians, clergymen and business leaders all seem to have real problems with accepting responsibility when caught doing something stupid. But I've seen hoodies also claim that they aren't to blame, because society failed to think for them. QED, we're to blame for their crimes.)

If superheroes existed, this would only probably exacerbate the problem. If they were a product of modern society, and without any more wisdom than humanity in general, we'd probably just see the same problems, only scaled-up. Unless they could give us some real solutions to our mundane issues (fusion power? clean fresh water? an end to poverty? ) collectively we probably would trust them about as much as we do celebrities today- that is to say, too much.

If they were somehow smarter and wiser, perhaps there would be an improvement, but even if they had all the logic of Vulcans, the world would probably have an entirely new set of problems. Each era brings its own set of challenges.

[Trebuchet]

There's a reason superheroes are fantasy...

I don't think if superheroes were real the world would be a better place. They'd just introduce new and all-too-exciting problems to the world. Sure, they might tackle some things effectively (such as street crime), but other problems (such as supervillains) would arise to fill the void. The net result would probably be a wash.

None the less, it's fun to pretend otherwise. :)

[Comic]

If superheroes prevented all traffic accidents for us, how would we ever learn to wisely develop and use methods of transportation for ourselves?

If they dress us every morning, how would we learn to dress ourselves?

If doing reckless, stupid things always resulted in rescue by superhero instead of pain, injury and possibly death, wouldn't we all become recklessly stupid? Er, more recklessly stupid, I mean?

This problem moral hazard isn't absolute, of course.

There are things we could all learn from superheroic examples, too.

[BobGreenwade]

A lot of this stems from the misconception, implied in the last paragraph of the originally quoted thread, that More Powerful = Better, Stronger = Better, Smarter = Better, etc. It very clearly does not.

Andre "the Giant" Roussimoff wasn't a great man because he was 7'4" tall and could lift a small tractor over his head. He was a great man because he loved everyone around him. Ask anyone who knew him, from Hulk Hogan to Mandy Patinkin, and that's what they'll tell you.

The same principle holds true of Marilyn Vos Savant: having an IQ measured as high as 230 doesn't make her superior to the rest of us. It's in how she lives her life. I don't know what she's like as a person, though the fact that she's married to Robert Jarvik (he of artificial heart fame) should provide a clue. It's not her intelligence that makes her a good person; it's her character.

We can also look at some actual people who, from a purely stastical point of view, might be considered "inferior": Chris Burke, who has Down's Syndrome; Stevie Wonder, who is blind; Marlee Matlin, who is deaf. All three of these individuals have little in the way of attributes that set them apart from their equally-talented colleagues, but each has also been involved with matters that help people other than themselves.

It's an intangible quality: character. It combines compassion, wisdom, justice, mercy, responsibility, and many other things. It can't be summed up in a single bulletin board post, a blog, a magazine article, or even an entire book.

In the context of superheroes, it shows itself not in the "super" part of the word, but in "hero." The hero doesn't do a lot to protect everyone from their own stupidity, since that would be irresponsible; but he does step forward to protect people from things they can't control, or from the stupidity of others. In the real world, these are our police, firefighters, EMTs, and armed forces. Superheroes are supposed to step in where these individuals are overwhelmed, and the superheroes' abilities are what's needed to save the day. They're not supposed to be a catch-all fix any more than real-world government is.

Why do we like superheroes? The spectacle of people throwing around cars and shooting energy beams from their fingertips is only a small part of it. Having unusual abilities like this, in the context of many superhero stories, tends to make the hero "not like other people," more of an outsider than a real part of society, as Andre Roussimoff tended to feel -- and as we all tend to feel to some extent, especially when we're in those middle school and high school years. And yet, despite being in some way removed from society, superheroes still step forward to do what they can to make the world a better place, and in so doing inspire us to do the same.

And why? Because humanity, despite Clonus' statement to the contrary, isn't insignificant at all. Humans are the most significant thing in the world. It's the heroes who recognize that, and the villains who treat humans as opportunities for their own desires.

[matrix3]

Well said. Rep!

[Hermit]

Well, I think Bob's said it more eloquently than I could.

*looks for Rep button*

[FenrisUlf]

I also find myself bound to Rep Mister Greenwade for his wise words.

[Dead guy on tab]

I just started a new thread to discuss a potential metric to brings these aspects into a campaign:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59326

[Doctor Agenda]

You don't see it much in the comics, but what about Volunteer Heroes? Tens of thousands of people donate some of their time to worthy causes...it's kind of the essence of heroism to see something wrong and decide to do something about it yourself. People with super powers have unique resources they can bring to their volunteerism. Usually this is a great thing, but it can wander into moral hazard if you bring rain to drought-stricken areas, rebuild burnt-down tenemants, or the like.

Maybe someone should offer a course in superhuman ethics, this stuff can make your head (and heart) hurt!

[nexus]

In the original thread something cropped up that has bugged me for some time. Its line of thought that is often seen in critiques of Superhero comics and genre tropes; that is that superheroe stories are just fights and soap opera and the character never do anything "worthwhile" with their powers. The observation seems to stem from a faulty premise. That all the actions of supers exist in a some sort of bubble. The Avanger fight Dr Doom for no apparent reason and it has no impact whatever in their "world which has all the same problems of the "real" world which super heroes willfully ignore.

That never seemed entirely fair. In their given setting how many lives have Superman, the JLU, etc saved? How much property damage have that prevented and how much unbelivable strife have their sacrifices for others averted? Its like claiming that firefighters, policemen and soldiers don't do anything "worthwhile" because they haven't ended world hunger or cured cancer. Truly, many superheroes couldn't do those things either or they could turn their efforts to being super scientists and relief workers instead of crimefighters and defenders but not both.

There's is also the simple fact that maybe these things are going on n the background but a 32 page brightly colored book detailing extesnive lab research into reversing Global Warming and reclaiming the Sahara probably wouldn't sell very well outside of a small niche of "realists" and would be more suited for science fiction that comics, IMO. Yes, comics are escapist fun not meant for "realism" (which ususally means cynicism, IMO).

[SilentMan]

I agree with robertliguori.

Personally i believe life is supposed to be about competition and perseverance. We set ourselves more or less rational goals, do our best to achieve them as our capabilities and limitations allow.Sometimes you win,sometimes you lose and then you try again and work harder. But we are not supposed to blame world which does not owe anyone success or happiness.

In Marvels comic book limited series are revealed some of the motives for humanity's apparent disregard for its heroes, courtesy of Jameson - a mixture of jealousy and insecurity, knowledge that everyday, average humans cannot compete with the selfless heroism and nobility displayed by the Marvels.

In real life human race is nr.1; no doubts about it but in fictional realities it goes like this:

Nr.1 goes Cosmic Beings: Marvel: Eternity,Death,galactus,etc.
Dc:Spectre,Presence,Lucifer,etc.Fantasy settings: gods like Ao or Eru Ilúvatar.Space Operas: Q,Metrons,etc:

Nr.2/3 Demigods on earth like Jla and Authority and extraterrestial supercivilizations(which one is more important is disputable).
Nr.4 ordinary humans

1. In Marvel and Dc common humanity is still treated as dominant factor,though they are not powerful and competent for that position anymore.Reason for this is publishers´ "world outside window and do not change status quo" policies
2. If JLA or Authority can deal with extraterrestial spacefleets,
US military should be irrelevant. "They have nukes,big deal, we can handle Death Star"
3. If Joe Average can not compete, he can´t, so what.

In RL men have sent women to kitchen, children to kindergarden,blacks to slavery, mentally ill to asylums.

In these fictional worlds it is Normal man who must now be the loser.

Captain Atom:Armageddon #3

Captain Atom:What sort of thing is that to say ? Only human ?
I´m human or i least i was but even now even with these powers, it´s the man inside that matters.
U.S president: That´s touching, it really is. But it doesn´t apply here.Here, it´s others- the one like you and majestic-who matter.They are the ones who decide who runs things, the ones that decide who lives and dies and who goes home.
Here, normal people, even normal people with the word "president" in front of their name. They don´t count too much in the grand scheme of things.Here, we answer to a higher authority.

World does not automically become dysutopian hellhole if there are few levels of power above humanity.

Comics are escapism but it does not require PIS.

[Trebuchet]

World does not automically become dysutopian hellhole if there are few levels of power above humanity.I agree, if only because the vast mojority of those persons with superpowers were ordinary humans before they became superheroes (or villains). They have all the inherent nobility, quirky character traits, and foibles those ordinary humans have. Like the Greek gods, supers are just humans writ large - and despite many bad individuals, most people are fairly decent. Most people live peaceful lives because Homo sapiens is a very social animal and in general gets along pretty well with others of his species.


Comics are escapism but it does not require PIS.PIS? :confused:

[SilentMan]

PIS = Plot-Induced Stupidity

To keep Status Quo, writers prevent characters using their abilities to full potential or using creative solutions.

1. Nearly any situation should be easily solvable by the Flash, since he can move hundreds and hundreds of times faster than anything else on earth.
2. If Batman does not want kill Joker, just recruit Doctor Fate.
"Thanks to this handy spell, if Joker escapes he is automatically teleported back to Arkham." Of course, this means no more Cool Joker-stories.
3. If Superman does not want to make humans dependent on him
this what Bob Ingersoll said:

The reason Superman gives is that he doesn't want to retard man's development by making man too dependant on a superman. That reason is buffalo bagels.

Mankind has a viable solution for nuclear arms control, arms reduction. The problem is that reduction requires a system of verification, which has eluded us. Verification would be no problem to old X-ray eyes. (And Superman's other super senses would compensate, if someone started putting their weapons in lead silos.)

Mankind has a solution for pollution, installing scrubbers and other pollution control devices on pollution creators. There are some truly effective scrubbers in the planning stage, which are not being used, because they would be so ungodly expensive to install. Superman could install them at a fraction of the cost.

Mankind has several potential solutions to the hunger problem, the creation of higher yield crops, advanced hydroponics or converting presently unarable land into farm land are among them. Development of the first two is only just beginning however a good source of irrigation could turn acres of desert into farms. One suggestion for the water source is move an iceberg to the desert. But that would cost more than it book to produce all four Star Wars movies and their Special EditionsTitanic combined. Quite a lot more to be honest. Superman could fly an iceberg to the Sahara at no cost, letting the ice attone for that whole Titanic thing, and still get home for breakfast.

And just because we'd be using Superman in the solutions, wouldn't mean we were too dependant on him or that he was retarding development. We use the sun, it isn't retarding development. Rather, because it is there, we develop solutions to problems incorporating it. Just as we could develop solutions to problems incorporating Superman, because he was there. We wouldn't be waiting for Superman to solve our problems, we'd just be coming up with solutions he could help us implement, and is that too much to ask?

Superman doesn't help solve the world's problems, because he's a wimp, who doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions.

[input.jack]

Whats PIS?!?

[nexus]

PIS? :confused:

Plot Induced Stupidity

[BobGreenwade]

I believe there have been stories of superheroes trying to make social differences: the X-Men helping feed the starving in the face of an African famine, Superman taking everyone's nuclear weapons away (truly classic film, right?), and so forth. Looking at those stories shows why superheroes in our media don't do those things: they make for really lousy stories. They make for good backdrop (hasn't Bruce Banner done something in the way of AIDS research, or am I mistaken?), but as the main thrust of a story they really suck.

But the X-Men and Superman stories I cited above also illustrated why they don't do more: they just can't. Someone of the scope of the Spectre or the Phantom Stranger probably could have the energy, but Superman can't solve global warming and stop global invaders and have a personal life.

But the can set a kind of example: they can lend their faces to causes, make proportionate contributions of time and energy, not becoming the solution themselves but inspiring others to do so. That's a large part of what the costume is about: the superhero is much more than just the individual doing what he does. He's a symbol, an archetype, a role model for not just our youth but for everyone.

Superman taking away all the nuclear weapons wasn't going to work because, whether we like it or not, treating us like children who just can't play right with our toys will stop us from becoming mature as a people. I could write quite a long treatise about how certain coddling government policies have done exactly that, but you can take my word for it: conservative and liberal, US and abroad, just such policies are not only in place but are taken for granted.

In the X-Men story, the heroes themselves learned just the lesson I cite: superheroes facing social challenges can't make all the difference, but they can make enough of a difference, and encourage others to do the same. The X-Men didn't have any status of celebrity (in the Marvel Universe, I mean) and so couldn't use that to bring attention to the problem in their own world, but they helped bring some attention to it in the real world.

Superman carrying an iceberg to the Sahara might be a nice short-term solution something (I'm not sure what), but it's only a short-term solution. (And I might mention that, at least in the Silver Age, he did this sort of thing all the time; he just did it between the published stories.)

And before we complain about why superheroes aren't doing more things to help the social problems of their world, let's ask why regular people aren't doing more things to help the real world's problems. The answers are probably pretty close to the same.

[FenrisUlf]

In the original thread something cropped up that has bugged me for some time. Its line of thought that is often seen in critiques of Superhero comics and genre tropes; that is that superheroe stories are just fights and soap opera and the character never do anything "worthwhile" with their powers. The observation seems to stem from a faulty premise. That all the actions of supers exist in a some sort of bubble. The Avanger fight Dr Doom for no apparent reason and it has no impact whatever in their "world which has all the same problems of the "real" world which super heroes willfully ignore.

That never seemed entirely fair. In their given setting how many lives have Superman, the JLU, etc saved? How much property damage have that prevented and how much unbelivable strife have their sacrifices for others averted? Its like claiming that firefighters, policemen and soldiers don't do anything "worthwhile" because they haven't ended world hunger or cured cancer. Truly, many superheroes couldn't do those things either or they could turn their efforts to being super scientists and relief workers instead of crimefighters and defenders but not both.

There's is also the simple fact that maybe these things are going on n the background but a 32 page brightly colored book detailing extesnive lab research into reversing Global Warming and reclaiming the Sahara probably wouldn't sell very well outside of a small niche of "realists" and would be more suited for science fiction that comics, IMO. Yes, comics are escapist fun not meant for "realism" (which ususally means cynicism, IMO).

I think OddHat has stated elsewhere that "In a superhero universe, alien invasions, rampaging giant monsters, and world-conquering supervillains are the real big problems."

[SilentMan]

There have been some exceptions.

For example Miracle Man who solved all world´s problems and established Utopia.

There is argument that imaginary world which does not match real world to a point would not be accepted by readers.

Well, there is Judge Dredd-comic.In Dredd´s world unemployment is between 90% and 99%(population is on lifelong welfare) ,robots do most of work and most important course in schools is Study of Unemployment (how to spent your life when you are not allowed to do anything).

Main reason humans have to grow up is that there is nothing more advanced than adult humans in real world.In fictional worlds humans might as well be locked up in zoos.

And yes,Superman could change world, according to DC editors he is invincible and all-powerful.

Joe Casey (comic book writer) states that Superman can re-arrange the Solar System and tear a star apart. "I've always seen Superman as this completely over-the-top, fantastic character who has no limits whatsoever," writes Casey. Unencumbered by mental blocks, "Superman is unbeatable."

[nexus]

I think OddHat has stated elsewhere that "In a superhero universe, alien invasions, rampaging giant monsters, and world-conquering supervillains are the real big problems."

Yep, exactly and that's a point many of these types of criticisms miss. Many satires do miss it as well while they're trying to be "biting" and insightful they seem set in a world where superhumans seem to be in fight clubs or sort of LARP instead of actually interacting with the rest of the setting.

Which I guess could make an offbeat and possibly fun setting but isn't the default for superhero universes.

[SilentMan]

Yep, exactly and that's a point many of these types of criticisms miss. Many satires do miss it as well while they're trying to be "biting" and insightful they seem set in a world where superhumans seem to be in fight clubs or sort of LARP instead of actually interacting with the rest of the setting.It is always:

Heroes can´t stop WW2 because they can´t do it in real world.
Heroes can´t prevent famines because they can´t do it in real world.
Heroes can´t cure diseases because they can´t do it in real world.

Please check: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.ReedRichardsIsUseless

[Clonus]

And just because we'd be using Superman in the solutions, wouldn't mean we were too dependant on him or that he was retarding development. We use the sun, it isn't retarding development.

Perhaps you should use something a little less reliable and indispensible than the sun in your analogy. If a supervillain kills the sun, we're all dead. Period. We are dependant on the sun, pretty much totally, but fortunately the sun is even harder than a superhero to lose.

[Hermit]

I've always wanted to see Dan Slott or some other writer with humor do a What If/Else World where the heroes, belittled and made to feel bad for "merely" fighting supervillains with their powers, all rushed off to use their awesome powers to do things like fight starvation, cure disease, solve global Warming, and help with college grants. Then they return from the weeks/months that took, only to find out some mega supervillain laid waste to several cities while the superheroes were busy.

"Superman! Where have you been?"
"I just brought 3 huge icebergs from deep space to Earth, had to take it slow and use my cooling breath, but that should help with global warming and provide water to the Sahara..."
"Yeah, well, thanks but seeing as Darkseid has transformed Earth into another Apoclypse with its own fire pits and billions are dead, little bit too little too late."
"Ah hushpuppies!"

[Pariah]

For some reason, as I've been reading this thread, Marvel's recent Civil War has come to mind.

Am I way off point here, or does it seem to me we've already seen what could happen if some super-genius like Reed Richards decided to change everything for the 'common good' of the rest of us?


If superheroes prevented all traffic accidents for us, how would we ever learn to wisely develop and use methods of transportation for ourselves?

If they dress us every morning, how would we learn to dress ourselves?

If doing reckless, stupid things always resulted in rescue by superhero instead of pain, injury and possibly death, wouldn't we all become recklessly stupid? Er, more recklessly stupid, I mean?

This problem moral hazard isn't absolute, of course.

There are things we could all learn from superheroic examples, too.

These are excellent points. The only way we seem to be able to learn anything of value is to do it for ourselves. Protecting people from their own choices--or from the consequences of their own choices, may be a better way to say it--teaches them that it's not important to make good, sound, and reasonable choices.

And you can't just eradicate choice. The Cold War should have taught us that.

[megaplayboy]

I do agree with the argument...to a point. I think that the average consumer and medical technology in a comic book setting should be significantly better(by anywhere from a decade to a whole century) than its real world counterpart, simply because it would strain credulity otherwise. I think human-induced genocide would and should be a pretty uncommon event, simply because it also strains credulity that some super team wouldn't take the time to stop thousands or millions from being slaughtered.
Also, the existence of angels, demons and aliens, if publicly known, would pretty obviously have an impact on human society. Atheists could still say, though, "well, sure this 'God' may exist, but I tend to doubt 'He' is anything more than a dimensional entity of some sort, perhaps even a manifestation of our collective unconscious--I don't see any particular need to worship him or follow his dictates".
The guys who invent FTL drive and make the first major interstellar trade deal--can you say "trillionaire", boys and girls?

I do think there's a certain desire to keep the world of the comics from looking too far different from the real world, for fear that the setting will become too difficult for the readers to relate to/identify with. If Captain Combat can simply replace his ex-girlfriends with android duplicates whipped up by his teammate, SmartGuy, there's not much of a sub-plot there, eh? (Well, maybe, but then they have to move the comic to the "Adults Only" rack). If every superhero can use their powers to make millions, there go all those "Spiderman has money problems again" stories, too.

As for supers taking matters into their own hands and setting themselves above humanity, well, there can be pretty good reasons for not attempting that. First, obviously, there's the possibility of being corrupted by all that power. Second, who wants that kind of hassle--there would be literally millions of different things the HeroKing would have to make decisions on. Third, more powerful doesn't always equal smarter, and smarter doesn't always equal wiser. Fourth, does humanity still control its own evolution, or is it now subject to the whims of its self-appointed guardians and saviors? Perhaps humanity was originally supposed to evolve in a way that was beneficial to the survival of the universe, but the forced evolution into super-powerful beings before they overcame their aggressive tendencies will now lead to galactic destruction and mayhem. Lastly, if an alien species or race of gods sees that superbeings have appointed themselves the arbiters of justice over one species, what's to stop them from imposing their will on other species/races? An Authority type of team may inadvertently give a casus belli to some coalition even they can't possibly handle.

In my own campaign I try to reflect a setting where superpowers have had an impact on the world, but humanity is still basically running their own lives, supervillains still exist, and there's still a variety of "real" problems to deal with that aren't easily solved by super-powers.:)

[nexus]

I definitely think there is a desire to keep superhero settings at least similar to the real world. You can explain/rationalize it in a number of ways but it boils to that after a point it stops being a comic book superhero story and becomes transhumanist or space opera sci fi, not bad genres but not what most readers expect or possibly want.

[megaplayboy]

I can see where each of these things(super-tech/aliens/gods and angels/other dimensions/time travel) could be explained away, in isolation, but in the aggregate it just really strains the ol' suspension of disbelief thing. Even if it's a fictional world with extraordinary things going on, it still has to follow some kind of causality.;)

[nexus]

I can see where each of these things(super-tech/aliens/gods and angels/other dimensions/time travel) could be explained away, in isolation, but in the aggregate it just really strains the ol' suspension of disbelief thing. Even if it's a fictional world with extraordinary things going on, it still has to follow some kind of causality.;)

Like anything else of this nature, its a matter of personal taste. Some people's SOD is more flexible than others. Afterall some can't accept comic book superhumans (who tend to violate several laws of physics just by existing) at all.

[OddHat]

A related trope worth examining is the "Superhero as Other". Partly because American Superhero stories are mainly aimed at a younger audience convinced of their outsider status, and partly because people like to categorize, these conversations often focus on the idea of the Superhero as an outside force or racial minority, separate and distinct from his own society. When they act to solve a societal problem, it's put in terms of outsiders stepping in to fix that problem, sparking anger and resentment from "real" people.

I'd rather look at it as members of a particular society stepping forward and dealing with an issue. When a real world scientist works to cure a disease, most people accept that it's a case of society dealing with the problem (and a few will sometimes argue that the problem shouldn't be solved); in a world with Super geniuses, I'd write the story from the POV that most people accept Reed Richards curing cancer as the way things are done. The Great Man Theory of history would be demonstrably true; "Great Events occur because Great Men act, problems are solved when Great Men step forward and solve them."

Whether that's true or not in the real world has little bearing on the case in a world of Supers.

And yup, Alien Invasions, Supervillains, and Giant Monsters are real problems in Superhero worlds. No one is going to be left to whinge about the cause of the week if the Superheroes are all so busy attending protest marches they let Galactus eat the planet. ;)

[megaplayboy]

Like anything else of this nature, its a matter of personal taste. Some people's SOD is more flexible than others. Afterall some can't accept comic book superhumans (who tend to violate several laws of physics just by existing) at all.

True. I think one way around this in a campaign setting is to simply say 1) there aren't all that many supers around; and 2) they haven't been around very long(and, option 3) they aren't all THAT powerful). That way, they really haven't had much of a chance to change things around.
Of course, in the DC Universe, supers have been around since WW2, exist in fairly large numbers, and many of them are awesomely powerful, so it would be logical to expect they've had a big impact on society(of course, a cynic would argue that their biggest impact seems to be that reality needs to be "rebooted" every 10-20 years).

[Hermit]

And yup, Alien Invasions, Supervillains, and Giant Monsters are real problems in Superhero worlds. No one is going to be left to whinge about the cause of the week if the Superheroes are all so busy attending protest marches they let Galactus eat the planet. ;)

*Crunch crunch Gulp* "Mmm, Socially Conscious Earth was tasty, but confused elaborate seasoning with meaty substance ..."

[megaplayboy]

A related trope worth examining is the "Superhero as Other". Partly because American Superhero stories are mainly aimed at a younger audience convinced of their outsider status, and partly because people like to categorize, these conversations often focus on the idea of the Superhero as an outside force or racial minority, separate and distinct from his own society. When they act to solve a societal problem, it's put in terms of outsiders stepping in to fix that problem, sparking anger and resentment from "real" people.

I'd rather look at it as members of a particular society stepping forward and dealing with an issue. When a real world scientist works to cure a disease, most people accept that it's a case of society dealing with the problem (and a few will sometimes argue that the problem shouldn't be solved); in a world with Super geniuses, I'd write the story from the POV that most people accept Reed Richards curing cancer as the way things are done. The Great Man Theory of history would be demonstrably true; "Great Events occur because Great Men act, problems are solved when Great Men step forward and solve them."

Whether that's true or not in the real world has little bearing on the case in a world of Supers.

And yup, Alien Invasions, Supervillains, and Giant Monsters are real problems in Superhero worlds. No one is going to be left to whinge about the cause of the week if the Superheroes are all so busy attending protest marches they let Galactus eat the planet. ;)

It could be a reasonable explanation to state that Reed Richards et al would have gotten a lot further on curing cancer, except 90% of their professional time is taken up fighting Galactus, Doom, etc.:)

[OddHat]

*Crunch crunch Gulp* "Mmm, Socially Conscious Earth was tasty, but confused elaborate seasoning with meaty substance ..."

Need to rep this, and your earlier contribution as well, but can't yet. ;)

[nexus]

For being so much more "realistic" I did notice that in the Authority the teams and their opponent's actions seemed to have little impact on the rest of their world. Several major cities are decimated, the nation of Japan basically ceases to exist, several other cataclysms strike and that's in the first series. Mass death is apparently common in that universe, a group of rogue supers execute the president of the United States and take over. Oh, and everyone on the planet is displaced into another dimenion for awhile. On a positive note its mentioned that the Engineer has developed cures for most types of cancer and, IIRC, AIDS at one point. Surely, these things woud have had masssive social, political, economic, even spiritual impact but things are still basically the same or any changes are glossed over.

[OddHat]

Surely, these things woud have masssive social, political, economic, even spiritual impact but things are still basically the same or any changes are glossed over.

Yup. Crappy writing is a force that's difficult for even the mightiest Superhero to challenge. ;)

Personally, one of my favorite bits in Alan Moore's work, especially Miracleman, LoEG, and Tom Strong, is that the presence of Supers has a real measurable impact on the world and daily life, in large ways and small.

[assault]

Of course, in the DC Universe, supers have been around since WW2, exist in fairly large numbers, and many of them are awesomely powerful, so it would be logical to expect they've had a big impact on society

The interesting thing about this is that it is a relatively recent development.

In the early Silver Age, characters more or less existed in their own worlds. There were occasional crossovers, but the DC "universe" was effectively a set of parallel universes.

The JLA notionally changed this, but the real-world driving force was probably competition with Marvel's more integrated universe.

Even then, the universe effectively "began" with the emergence of the current generation of heroes, with very little in the way of a previous generation. Earth-2 was somewhat different, with the first generation of heroes emerging in the 40s, but with relatively few heroes from the next generation.

Crisis On Infinite Earths broke things, by forcing the timelines together. All of a sudden, heroes *had* been around since the 40s, in numbers that couldn't be ignored. It was no longer a case of passing over the changes that had happened in the few years since Superboy appeared. (Admittedly, those changes should have been substantial!)

Superhero roleplaying universes often seem to be based on this "lots of heroes for a long time" model. I've suspected for some years that this is a case of creating a rod for our own backs. These little exercises in Creative Writing, while fun, actually push the bounds of suspension of disbelief further than is necessary, and require huge applications of handwavium and duct tape to avoid falling appart.

One experiment I engaged in a couple of years ago was to recreate the Marvel universe at the point it was after the first dozen or so issues of the Fantastic Four. It worked out pretty well. There were other heroes for the FF to interact with (Spidey, Hulk), as well as a good variety of bad guys. There was a sparse history of previous heroes (Cap!), but basically the world was a blank slate, ready to be created.

I'm beginning to suspect that that might be the approach I will take if and when I ever get around to running another game. Writing histories and constructing timelines is fun, but they're actually pretty unnecessary for a game.

Yep. From now on, I'm running "universe-lite".

I like this post. I might copy it to my blog.

[Trebuchet]

We avoided this in our MidGuard campaign by having metahumans first appear in the year 2000. There aren't a whole lot of them worldwide; maybe a couple thousand total - most of whom are more pulp than super in power level.

[Doctor Agenda]

I am having my metahumans appear the day the game starts, also more pulp-level types than supers. This doesn't make my load lighter as I have to deal with social disturbances from the appearance of supers (a goodly number of them, too), which I'm hoping to enjoy, but I have a time before the 'why haven't they cured cancer yet?' question pops up.

[Funksaw]

This is why superheroes - classic ones, anyway - don't kill people even if it saves more lives than killing would.

Imagine that there is a runaway train that you cannot stop. It is set to plow into five people waiting at the terminal - they cannot get away in time and will surely die.

There is a switch that you can reach, but if you pull that switch, the train will jump off the track and hit a man standing off to the side. He cannot get away in time either.

Most people would pull the switch.

Now imagine a similar scenario. Speeding train, terminal of five people. Only this time, there is no switch. However, you are standing above the train on a bridge with an exceedingly fat man - and you know that if you push the fat man onto the tracks, he will die, but it WILL stop the train.

Most people would NOT push the fat man.

The difference seems minute - and in fact it is - but it's still significant. In the first scenario, the man is a victim of circumstance - he is unlucky to be there, but the situation is dire and he's just in an unlucky situation.

In the second situation, you become the active initiator of the man's death. You have to willfully harm someone - putting them directly in harms way through your direct action - in order to save the lives of other people.

That's not what we think of when we think of being heroic.

Now, there are people who (supposedly) are active agents of willful harm in order to save the lives of people. Soldiers. (Let's not get into a discussion - let's just examine the generic idea of a soldier.) A soldier, however, needs to dehumanize the enemy in order to kill him. Dehumanizing people is not the mark of a hero.

[assault]

A soldier, however, needs to dehumanize the enemy in order to kill him.

Why?

[LoresLost]

A soldier, however, needs to dehumanize the enemy in order to kill him.

Why?

Off Topic but I had to answer:
The one word is empathy. If you think of your enemy just as human as you then you are less likely to pull the trigger to kill them. That is why the US training and propaganda films from WWII show Japanese as buck tooth, slant eyed savages and Germans as butchering 'Huns', it makes them less then human, less like my neighbor and friends, so I would think of them as demons and/or animals that needed to be put down.

ON TOPIC:
But the more I think of it this is part of the answer to the why heroes do not change the world... We would lose an empathic connection to them. If there world does not have a connection we can relate to on the simplest terms (Comics were originally a 'child's' media) then we might lose that empathic connection.

(I think too much) :ugly:

[assault]

Off Topic but I had to answer:
The one word is empathy. If you think of your enemy just as human as you then you are less likely to pull the trigger to kill them.

Yes, it is off topic, and I apologise.

I will, however, point out that "fraternisation" has an interesting history.

Hopefully the threadjack will more or less end here.


But the more I think of it this is part of the answer to the why heroes do not change the world... We would lose an empathic connection to them.

Yes. They would become weird and alien.

Even Science Fiction, where "weird and alien" is a good thing, needs a point of empathic contact with the readers/viewers/whatever. Usually, this is the viewpoint of the protagonist. Unfortunately, in the "superheroes change the world" situation, humans are either bystanders - or opponents!

If you want an active human protagonist in this situation, the opponent option is most probably the easiest - which brings us back to the superhumans being supervillains situation, all moral ambiguity aside.

[Kevin Schultz]

Yes, it is off topic, and I apologise.

I will, however, point out that "fraternisation" has an interesting history.

Hopefully the threadjack will more or less end here.


Ha! No threadjack ending for you!

Anyway, I was reading up on a thread a couple of years ago, and this point came up; however, several US ex-soldiers piped up and commented that while dehumanizing your opponent is ONE way to make it easier to kill, modern western armies don't teach it. Instead, they claimed that there are three ways to get a soldier to override the flinch response and to get them to kill:

1. intensive training - so that when the right combination of stimulus occurs, the soldier automatically pulls the trigger. This is one of the biggies in the US military.

2. Acceptance of consequences - this includes accepting the necessity of killing your enemy, and understanding why it is you're killing them: basically, ideology training. This also includes accepting your own mortality, and being at peace with your own death: religious training. Both are used in the US military, but not as much as the first.

3. Dehumanization of your foe - so that you don't consider them human, so that you can kill them more easily. This is actively NOT used by the US military, as the consequences are too difficult to control in a post-war scenario: ie, you don't want a bunch of soldiers thinking that group X isn't human, when group Y looks and talks a great deal like group X, but group Y is a significant minority in your country.

[OddHat]

YUnfortunately, in the "superheroes change the world" situation, humans are either bystanders - or opponents!

Don't agree here. I've been running games for a couple of decades now where technology and some aspects of politics and religion have been changed by the presence of supers, without turning non-supers into passive bystanders or opponents. Aberrant was an entire RPG setting where Supers had changed the world, and not a bad one in and of itself despite White Wolfisms that eventually wrecked it for many players. Alan Moore's Tom Strong manages it (albeit with a serious dose of whimsy), as did Watchmen (where a single super was the cause of much of the change) and LoeG (though you'd need to read the annotations to notice some of the changes if you're not a UK history buff). Sci Fi writers have managed stories where people with strange powers have an impact, positive and negative, for over a century. Whether these stories work or not is pretty much a matter of taste.

[OddHat]

Pulled from a thread on rpg.net. I thought it was pretty thought provoking even if I don't emtirely agree with the assement. Thoughts?



Thoughts?

Here's a link to the original thread as well

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=354856

Getting back to the first post, the idea that superior people (almost always meaning "Us") have the right and obligation to rule inferior people ("them") is one of the oldest saws in politics and philosophy. Looking at it from the point of view of Superhero comics just gives a group that's undeniably superior in some ways. Kind of a moot point with the Supers example, imo; rulers past the small group level are chosen based on their ability to organize and lead. Person A might lift heavier weights than George Bush or John Howard, and his standardized test scores might be better, but very few people would consider those to be serious qualifications for running a country.

I'm more a "Good government requires the informed and willing consent of the governed" type myself.

[BobGreenwade]

Unfortunately, in the "superheroes change the world" situation, humans are either bystanders - or opponents!I'm recalling an adventure of Superman in which Kobra had the Man of Steel down, and to his surprise started getting pelted with bricks. The bystanders were taking a stand for Supes! (They didn't have any real effect, of course, but they did provide enough of a distraction for Supres to sucker-punch Kobra.) So, clearly, a superhero who becomes sufficiently iconic and engages the public's heart can make a real difference in how we think (or at least how the public thinks in their own world).

[OddHat]

I'm recalling an adventure of Superman in which Kobra had the Man of Steel down, and to his surprise started getting pelted with bricks. The bystanders were taking a stand for Supes! (They didn't have any real effect, of course, but they did provide enough of a distraction for Supres to sucker-punch Kobra.) So, clearly, a superhero who becomes sufficiently iconic and engages the public's heart can make a real difference in how we think (or at least how the public thinks in their own world).

And the idea of Superheroes inspiring the public to be better people is one of the oldest in the genre, as well as one referenced in many popular films (Superman II, Batman Begins, Spiderman II).

[Damascan]

Regarding the 'Why don't supers cure cancer?' gripe --- I guess in a more realistic reality they might. The question is, what would nature throw at us to take cancer's place, if cancer serves a purpose in nature?

If you cure cancer, couldn't you possibly engender a mutation that could have worse consequences for humanity? Maybe the brainy supers realized that curing cancer would cause some horrible repercussions that we are not yet ready to accept.

Then again, maybe the supers are constantly battling more hideous viruses and diseases, but we never hear about them because the public would go into panic mode, riots would start, end of the world parties, etc.

[Trebuchet]

I find myself wondering why anyone would wonder why fictional beings who can fly, shoot beams of energy out of their eyes, and deliver punches with near-astronomical levels of kinetic energy would expect any of those abilities to be useful against the myriad types of cancer? :nonp:

[Zed-F]

How about folks with healing powers, superscientist egghead types, witches in various fancy stockings with 'anything goes' magic, or cosmic power dudes who can pretty much do anything? ;)

In a world where people had superpowers, maybe there would be someone who's just plain better at the job of ruling than everyone else. That doesn't mean he'd be the one with power, though -- that would be the one who's better at convincing others he's the best one for the job: aka the super-politician.

If you want to get 'realistic' about the effect superpowers would have on a world, I don't think anyone can accurately predict what would really happen. There are far too many variables involved. Anything from a complete and total breakdown of society, leading to a post-apocalypse world, to utopia on the other end, is a possibility.

[OddHat]

I find myself wondering why anyone would wonder why fictional beings who can fly, shoot beams of energy out of their eyes, and deliver punches with near-astronomical levels of kinetic energy would expect any of those abilities to be useful against the myriad types of cancer? :nonp:

Because Heroic Literature is mostly about problems that can be solved by finding the right person and then punching* him.

You could argue that in many worlds with both superheroes and cancer, cancer should ultimately be the fault of somebody you can punch. ;)

*Or kicking, shooting, setting on fire, etc.



In a world where people had superpowers, maybe there would be someone who's just plain better at the job of ruling than everyone else. That doesn't mean he'd be the one with power, though -- that would be the one who's better at convincing others he's the best one for the job: aka the super-politician.
Yup. One of the better (and most difficult to GM well) ideas in Aberrant was the suite of super-social powers. It's something that's under-explored in the comics and sci-fi as well, though it does show up now and then. Might be that it's not used often because it's just harder to deliver an interesting and convincing story about someone Super Charming (without direct mind control) than it is about someone who can punch through a bank vault door.

[megaplayboy]

Because Heroic Literature is mostly about problems that can be solved by finding the right person and then punching* him.

You could argue that in many worlds with both superheroes and cancer, cancer should ultimately be the fault of somebody you can punch. ;)

*Or kicking, shooting, setting on fire, etc.


Yup. One of the better (and most difficult to GM well) ideas in Aberrant was the suite of super-social powers. It's something that's under-explored in the comics and sci-fi as well, though it does show up now and then. Might be that it's not used often because it's just harder to deliver an interesting and convincing story about someone Super Charming (without direct mind control) than it is about someone who can punch through a bank vault door.

There was an episode of a tv show like that once(a guy who was so "wonderful and likable", that people just did stuff for him, even though he was technically a criminal), and also a comic book where a guy basically had always on MC at the +10/15 or +20/25 level--people would just do things for him that he wanted. He pseudo-reformed at the end of the story--a guy offered to give him his car, and he said, "no, that's not fair--I'll pay you a dollar for it."
The anime involving my avatar does a halfway decent job of modeling what Super Charisma might be like;)

It is a little scary that you could probably build the mortal Jesus on 350 points(healing/resurrection/self-resurrection/walking on water/changing water to wine/creating food/precognition/prophecy), change the name, background and psych lims, and have a "cult leader" with an extremely devoted following...

[Clonus]

Don't agree here. I've been running games for a couple of decades now where technology and some aspects of politics and religion have been changed by the presence of supers, without turning non-supers into passive bystanders or opponents. Aberrant was an entire RPG setting where Supers had changed the world, and not a bad one in and of itself despite White Wolfisms that eventually wrecked it for many players. Alan Moore's Tom Strong manages it (albeit with a serious dose of whimsy), .

Hm. Is Tom Strong really an environment in which the normals are more than bystanders? Thinking back the only normals I can remember in the series are Strong's fanclub of children, and the guy who wanted to commit suicide because he felt so insignificant so Strong pretended to need saving by him. Wait...maybe the Russian chick on the space flight? But I can't remember what she actually did...

[FenrisUlf]

I'd say that in most settings normals will be more than bystanders, if only because they've got the supers outnumbered a million to one or so.

If nothing else, someone has to make all the foolish decisions to give the heroes a reason to save the day when you're getting tired of supervillains. ;)

One good way of handling it would be to look at nearly any ASTRO CITY comic by Busiek. He does some of the best 'normal stories' in superhero comics right now. Especially the opening story in his most recent collection, LOCAL HEROES, which deals with a man who starts out feeling insignificant around the supers, and winds up finding and accepting his own place in the world after he saves an infant's life.

[OddHat]

Hm. Is Tom Strong really an environment in which the normals are more than bystanders? Thinking back the only normals I can remember in the series are Strong's fanclub of children, and the guy who wanted to commit suicide because he felt so insignificant so Strong pretended to need saving by him. Wait...maybe the Russian chick on the space flight? But I can't remember what she actually did...

Two issues here; first, Tom's fanclub of normal kids had real story impact, many of the other superheroes and villains are just trained normal people in costumes or with gadgets, normal FBI agents were a serious threat to Promethea (whose adventures take place in the same universe), and her normal friend took a significant role in her story.

Second, stories are mainly about the protagonists. If the protagonists have superpowers, of course people with superpowers are central to the story. That doesn't mean that those without superpowers are not important actors; Superman without his supporting normal cast (Lois, Jimmy, Perry, Lana, arguably Lex and Bruce) wouldn't be nearly as interesting, and all of them saved Supes, the world or each-other from time to time. If a writer can't think of a use other than "bystander" for someone without powers in a superhero story, that's the writer's problem, not the genres.

[Kevin Schultz]

Regarding the 'Why don't supers cure cancer?' gripe --- I guess in a more realistic reality they might. The question is, what would nature throw at us to take cancer's place, if cancer serves a purpose in nature?


From what I understand of evolution, hereditary cancers exist not because they serve a purpose, but becuase the change to DNA that causes the cancer doesn't kill the carrier off before they have kids. It's like bad eyesight: it hinders, but does not prevent, the individual from reproducing. However, there is no 'benefit' to bad eyesight: it's just not bad enough to get culled from the gene pool through natural selection.

Kevin Schultz, who is looking forward to gene therapy for stuff like that.