How flawed is your Super?

[nexus]

Susano's "Soon I will be invincible" thread sparked a brief discussion (and some strong opinions) about flawed superheroes vs costumed jerks. So rather than derail his thread I thought I'd start a new one to ask the question: How flawed do you like your superheroes to be? Is there an upper limit to how much of a jerk you can be (without being "Criminal") and still be considered a hero in your opinion? Where does you preference lie on the scale of "Flawless Paragon of Virtue" to "You can't tell he's the hero until you read the script."

[NestorDRod]

I generally play my characters with a strong core of decency, but once in a while I'll stretch out and explore the dark side, so to speak.

In Susano's original Kazei 5 game, I played Carlos Jagger, the chromed ex-cop. I decided to play him with a strong prejudice against replicants and espers. It was an interesting exercise examining the inner workings of a functional bigot.

Recently, in the second run of Shadows Angelus, I played a half-human/half-demon hybrid with empathic-vampiric powers. I had a lot of fun out-wierding the GM. (The campaign involved super-powered cops fighting Lovecraftian beings, and the GM loved coming up with disturbing imagery).

My favorite memory in that one was when the rookies (the PCs) were given a tour of the precinct and presented with a haunted cell, where legend had it prisoners would commit suicide if put in it (shades of Steven King's 1408). My character's reaction was to rub her cheek against the bars and purr in pleasure. :eg:

[Bloodstone]

Probably about in the middle of the Bronze Age and I think Wolverine would be my preferable limit.

Logan from that time was a man willing to kill but fighting down bestial urge to do so. When he did take a life, it was extraordinary because no one else ever did it... and because he himself was remorseful at having given in to his animal side. I still remember his fight with Angel from Classic X-men #1, where he sat in the rain looking miserable and warning Jean that Warren was, right... he was a killer.

Wolverine leading X-Force as a crack black ops team is a lot less appealing (though it still could have been great had it been done better).

[Cassandra]

Flawed doesn't mean that a character would break the law or use excessive force. It might mean that they are so obsessed with their mission that they miss out on important things.

There was a Batman where he travels to another timeline in pursuit of a villain. In that timeline Bruce Wayne was killed while his parents lived. Rather then spending time with them, he still goes after the criminal.

[Vulcan]

In my opinion, the flaws are what makes the character interesting. Otherwise the character is, well, pretty two-dimensional.

I tend to play characters on the darker side of the campaign setting (like Wolverine in Silver age - and in an Iron Age setting I can get very dark indeed), but there is always a core belief that what he is doing is right - and a definite set of limitations on how far into the darkness he is willing to go. As the Joker showed us in The Dark Knight, there are things you can do to someone that are far worse than just killing them...

So in a Silver Age campaign, I played Living Target - a shapechanging Secret Service agent. He played by the police rules of engagement - if something poses a lethal threat, lethal force may be applied. Granted, he would do something else first if the option presented, but he was willing to kill the bad guys if that was the only way to stop them.

And in the current Iron Age game, Vigil used to be an agent for an underground villian agency, until he discovered they'd been lying to him all along. The consequences of that was pretty intersting when it came out.

So the conflict is always there. Does this person/situation merit killing? And what are the personal and emotional consequences of doing so? Questions like this are what makes characters come alive.

[casualplayer]

I use flaws to tell my GM what rails I would like the game to run along.

The original definition of character was the flaw struck on a coin to make it distinctive, unique and hard to copy. Without those marks, any hack can create copies all day long.

[hfergus]

All my characters have some sort of flaw, and most are a Hero disad. It can be anything from uneasy speaking in front of crowds (Volt); to likely to kill someonw who he thinks deserves it, even after they are defeated (Olorin - he has not done it yet, but it's bound to happen eventually.)

Each and every one is basically heroic and protective of innocents. Olorin will eventually break laws he thinks is stupid and costs lives. (Like letting Dark Seraph live after defeating him. He thinks this was a big mistake, but obeyed the law as "he is supposed to be a hero." <Sigh>.) He also has a "unfamiliar with modern earth culture" disad that causes problems - he is not politically correct - even when he knows what is.

Every one of my characters is somewhat irritating in one way or another, and some tread the non-heroic at times.

[Shigeru]

I have an interestign thing going on in my Hero Central game. All the PCs are presently VIPER agents, but none of them have that outright villainous nature about them. They are generally products of bad luck, scheming and a lack of opportunities.

The intention os for all the agents to undergo a "radiation accident" which will give them powers. As soon as they have powers, a world of change opens up before them.

But I wonder how far gone some PCs will be intot their current psyche that being "heroic" will be a lot more difficult than being selfish? THat's going to be interestign to play out. The game was originally intended to be as 4-color as I coddl make it, but its just not possible given the many variances in characterizations and motives and the fact that a turn from bad-to-good has to come with yet more emotional turmoil to make them distrust others.

Its a scary sort of idealogical Darwinism and while its fun, its also goign to get very crazy. And I'm going to throw superpowers on it, to boot.

[penemue]

I ran an all villain campaign once, but the villains were all pretty level headed and didn't try to kill anyone on purpose. They always managed to succeed at putting the town's premier superhero team in the hospital on a regular basis.

[Badger]

I tend to like going with a honorable type but one who is willing to kill if necessary. Now, I am not saying casual killer. But, someone like the Joker who escapes so regularly, a good chance they might kill the Joker unless CvK type allies strongly intervene.

COurse, one common trait I do seem to give them is a total aversion of the media. (Maybe it comes from my own personal distastes, but I cant seem to enjoy the media wh*** type, unless it is an intentional goofy type character, just my tastes).

[Drhoz]

In Sundog's Hero campaign, my character Vitus of Clan Scorpion is an arsehole. Foul tempered, casual killer, perfectly willing to cut an unconscious woman's throat ( the woman was Gravitar. The Defenders stopped him )

He also has nothing but respect for Doctor Lin Wu, has exchanged polite correspondence with Dr Destroyer, invited Menton over for a social meal, supplies VIPER with research notes on major spells (no point letting Global Castration go to waste, after all ), had a truce with the War Machine for as long as they could keep him supplied with mutagenic drugs, and is considering doing a lecture tour for the Red Circle.

He also fully intends to murder Scorpia the next time he sees Eurostar, possibly with some torture first if he has time. And he has detailed notes on how to kill his teammates.

On the other hand, he likes kids, and will do anything to restore his homeworld and the various sentient races that lived there.

[DocSamson]

My cop-out answer is that it varies from character to character and concept to concept but I "usually" create my supers with the same magnitude of flaws you would find in a normal everday person. In game it creates for fun roleplaying and gives the GM something to work from outside of combats. We encourage our newer players to handle their Disads the same way they would their powers, i.e. if it suits the concept we encourage them to select their disads based on a common theme.

My current "main character" (if there is such a thing as I switch characters frequently) I would say is average to moderately flawed. He is a super animal rights activist who has clashed with legitimate research companies, police, and even other superheroes over his beliefs. If you are an animal lover, you might say its easy to see that he is a hero, but to animal researchers and even the police he is an extremist who comes close to getting himself arrested almost every time he makes an appearance.

Another concept I recycle from time to time is the reformed supervillain. The character genuinely wants to be reformed but like a normal ex-con, he has a sullied reputation, has trouble finding work, and may even be harassesd by the police and other heroes. I think the dichotomy between real life problems and superpowers makes the game more interesting.

My most flawed character has what are unfortunately realistic flaws, but they complicated by his powers. He is a "mental metamorph" with Dissociative Identity Disorder (each of his personalities has access to a different set of powers that are related to the personality). The personalities range from fairly normal to extremely flawed in their own right.

[Psybolt]

I prefer the characters with definite flaws. Of course, my personal favorite super hero is Spider-man, who would never kill anyone under nearly any circumstances... no matter what JMS says.... but has plenty of character flaws.

I am one who would not consider the Punisher a hero. Any time he teamed up with Spidey, I found that to be wrong. The best Spidey/Punisher team up was in some series(I don't remember which... I think it was Spider-man) where they kind of worked together but Spidey tried to capture him as well.

When I play a character (which is rare) I love giving them disads. I usually start with the disads before anything else. So I say that flawed heroes are different than heroes that kill. The heroes from Soon I Will Be Invincible were flawed heroes, not killers.

[Hermit]

Most of my characters are nice guys, or meant to be such....that said:
Flaws mmm
Aquatic: Pessimistic, often down on himself, and far too vulnerable to sob stories which rake him with indecision. Gets petty enjoyment out of calling the current field leader 'Chief' despite her dislike of the term :)

Banner: Flawless...hes' the son of Captain America for crying out loud... jk... he's got concerns about living up to his father's rep.

Goliath: No doubt his whimsy defense is not always appropriate. A bit jealous of his sister

Mole: Cocky, tends to joke without always realizing how others might see it. Gets bored way too easily though is maturing.

[CrosshairCollie]

I agree with the line of thought that a murderous protagonist is not a 'flawed hero', but rather a villain.

All my characters are flawed if for no other reason, they're played by an imperfect human. Either way, the 20pt CvK is absolutely mandatory for any character I play in the supers genre.

[Bloodstone]

Either way, the 20pt CvK is absolutely mandatory for any character I play in the supers genre.

Whereas the opposite is true for me.

I pretty much refuse to take it if I don't have to, even for those character that I play as if they have a 20pt CvK.

I like having full control over that decision if/when the time comes...

[bubba smith]

Whereas the opposite is true for me.

I pretty much refuse to take it if I don't have to, even for those character that I play as if they have a 20pt CvK.

I like having full control over that decision if/when the time comes...
i'd think a 10 pt. cvk would suffice for that

[nexus]

i'd think a 10 pt. cvk would suffice for that

I don't agree. A Moderate psych lim doesn't mean the player can ignore it when they feel like it. It means there's no hard enforcement. They should still play a character for whom killing is a last resort and tries to avoid it, IMO. But I've issues with players that assume Moderate Psychological limitations go away when the become inconvenient so I've become something of a hardcase about it.

OTOH, I don't often get 20 CAKs because outside of really four color worlds where the situation will never comes up they're more trouble than they are worth. A 20 CAK character will watch the world burn rather than take a life and they can't be just as "villainous" as killing, barring Gm's discretion. There's a difference between murderous and willing to use lethal force if required or absolutely nesscecary. For me the line is determined by the situation, the setting, genre and how the character acts. There isn't a universal answer.


Police officers sometimes have to kill, soldiers often too, normal people have too to defend theirs or others lives and they're not considered villains unless it was unwarranted. I usually get the 10-15 point level for shiny types. My darker characters. Shidoku and Tao have CAKs at all. Shidoku would only overtly murder those she considers truly vile but doesn't pull punches in combat and uses lethal weapons. Tao is a genetically engineered super soldier with no hesitation about using lethal force but she's been ordered not to use lethal force unless authorized so she doesn't. I role play Valkyrie and Eve as if they have 20 point CAKs but they only have 15.

[CrosshairCollie]

Police and soldiers aren't superheroes. There's a big difference, to me, between a trained normal with a gun and actual costumed superheroics.

[nexus]

Police and soldiers aren't superheroes. There's a big difference, to me, between a trained normal with a gun and actual costumed superheroics.

Too each their own. Superheroes are entirely fictional and different fans have different preferences in their depiction. Mine doesn't exclude willingness to use or actual use of lethal force or being completely unwilling to use it regardless of the situation as nessecarily heroic. I like to judge by the character as a whole.

[Vulcan]

So what about the cop/soldier who becomes a costumed superhero? Does he automatically forget his years of training and experience and become 'Awful good' just because he puts on a costume? I don't think so.

Some people enjoy playing the Superman/Spiderman CvK. And that's fine. There are enough of them that I feel free to explore the darker heroes. I usually stick to the same rules of engagement as the police do. As long as the villians are beating on the heros, and noone's in danger of dying, then non-lethal force is all that is called for. But as soon as noncombatants are targeted, or an attack that was clearly intended to be lethal is used, then the gloves come off. If killing a villain will save an innocent life, so be it.

But, as has been pointed out, flaws are not resticted to CvK or lack thereof. Every psychological limitation is, in the end, a flaw of sorts. And that's where the character becomes interesting.

[Major Tom]

Originally posted by Drhoz:


He also fully intends to murder Scorpia the next time he sees Eurostar, possibly with some
torture first if he has the time. And he has detailed notes on how to kill his teammates.


Oooo... I see a new "Protocols" thread in the making.



Major Tom :eg:

[BcAugust]

Hmm....well, it depends on how you define flaws. Two of my characters are very much "nonhuman" in views, some of which could be seen as flaws.

Cyrande had her pride and sense of duty stopping her from connecting with people, along with having very little idea of what "good" is. That plus no real knowledge of the value of property(She comes from a world where zero point energy and replicators are a reality, at least Malva is in our game) and being the result of over a million years of transhumanism led to quite a few issues. She also had no CvK and just a code to protect innocents.

Artemis...well, she's not much of a "superhero". Then again, the game she is in's tagline is "What would you do with the power of a god...and everyone treated you as one." For flaws...well, how about not thinking of herself as human at all, loves certain people with all her heart(Which includes several members of the party, several enemies of the party, and a couple of npcs), has no compunctions about killing if it's needed, and tends to view "politics" with the kind of distaste most people reserve for vissection.

Nox is the only character of mine with a CvK, and it's a total. Then again, she is actually powerful enough now that it's valid for her to have tons of options that are non-killing. She has no compunctions against violence against "souless" creatures, like non sentient robots, golems or demons. Flaws....original version, well...self esteem, and she was also spending a lot of time soul searching about what the role of a hero was. Vanguard? She keeps secrets, and there's always a bit of distance she puts herself at from others. She's certainly not evil, but being a bit of the Dr. Strange part of the team with the mystical side leads to that.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Eh, being an ex-Army guy, Hal Fleisner doesn't have anything against killing. He just doesn't as it's no longer part of his job. He really isn't a superhero, really, he's a licensed Bounty Hunter.

[steamteck]

Mine are very flawed but nothing to make them unheroic. The heroes flaws and quirks are what make them interesting. My group always hit the campaign limit on psychological limitations and they all really build the character and his history.

[Lord Mhoram]

Either way, the 20pt CvK is absolutely mandatory for any character I play in the supers genre.

That's mandatory for any supers game I GM. :)

Well... I'll let a 15 in there. Sometimes.

[Lord Mhoram]

My characters all have flaws, but they are not debilitating types. I can't play a character I wouldn't like in real life, so they tend to be nice... at least mostly.

Of my current characters:

Blackcat - She tends to see things in black and white, and she is something of an ascetic, so she can look down on those that are not so focused. But not much. A character that has been played for 17 or so years, and whose personality is all about self improvement, has a tendency to (in character) try and remove character flaws. :)

Terminal Velocity - He is wishywashy. He tends to let others take the lead. He started superheroing thinking it was something of a game, and then there was a nasty run-in with Genocide that really changed his perception. He almost quit the whole superbiz over that (a bit petulant there), but toughed it out.

Meeb - he can be passive. He also tends to take jokes and run them into the ground. He is possibly my nicest character. He never gets angry or upset about stuff - he just takes things as they happen.

Sift is much the same. A very nice person. Her major character flaw is that she is too aggressive about her own abilities. If she knows she can do something, she can push someone else out of the way to do it.

I don't play jerks, I don't play idiots.

I try and play characters that would be someone I could respect, or want to be. So I guess to answer the thread - not very flawed.

[nexus]

I think my most non heroic character is Tao. She's cold, machine like and finds most humans and the race as a whole, illogical, wasteful, confusing and frustrating. She's with the Guardians primarily because they discovered her in some organization's research facility and she more or less imprinted on them so assumed a place in their "unit". It also gives her a function and a place which her psyche needs and it's very close to what she was built to be: a super soldier but the morality of it and "heroic" motivations behind it currently elude her though she understand enforcing order.

"Risking my existence for people I don't like for reasons I don't fully understand" sums up her existence pretty well at the moment. I hope to play her growth into a more fully fledged individual and heroic persona over time and exposure. It's been pretty fun playing her development so far.

I guess Shidoku would be considered non heroic by some. She's crass, foul mouthed, rather free with her "affections" violent, can and does kill. But also has a strong sense of right and wrong, justice (if not nesseararily Law) and is self less in pursuing them in the hopes of at least helping a few people avoid the kind of life she had growing up.

[nexus]

To pose the same question in a slightly different way. In your personal opinion what disqualifies a character from being a superhero in your opinion? Some have voiced that the use or even willingness to use lethal force does so, for example. What other personal limits do you have? Being a womanizer or catting around? Drinking? Racism?

[Vulcan]

Attacking the helpless (not to be confused with ambushing someone of a similar power level).

Rape/child molesting is a big one for me. Being promiscuous is a flaw for a hero, but isn't a disqualifying one.

Burglary or Fraud for personal gain (Batman repeatedly uses both in pursuit of Justice, which I am okay with for a fictional hero).

Severe addictions which control the character.

Being willing to kill - or even killing - does not prevent one from being a hero. Ask any cop or soldier. Murder (unprovoked and/or for personal gain), on the other hand is a no-no.

In general, motive is the big difference. A hero can be less than perfect - even a lot less than perfect - so long as his heart is in the right place and he is always striving to do better. And the general actions are heroic, whether he sees it that way or not. After all, the greatest heros rarely do things for recognition, but because it is the right thing to do.

YMMV, of course.

[Drhoz]

Hmm. In the case of Vitus you also have to consider that he's been translated over from a fantasy RPG where "Killing Ugly People And Taking Their Stuff" is an acceptable motivation. Plus, it was a Bronze-age slave-keeping culture, and nobody in their right mind ( or at least nobody that counted ) had a problem with that.

So, on the strength of that, is Vitus a suitable hero of Champions?

Hell no! He was a cranky bastard even before he got stuck on Earth.

On the other hand, Samuria had a number of cultural rules that complicate matters - hospitality for example. Indeed, those rules are the only thing keeping teammates and landlord Felicity alive given the amount of times she's killingly insulted Vitus's magic.

And Samuria was never very typical as far as killing other races for cash goes - for example, the dead are buried with valuables to ensure a head start in the afterlife, and *not* burying a merchant NPC with a handful of jewels would be unthinkable.

And Vitus despite appearences is not selfish - he just has higher concerns that consume him. Indeed, in the past he has been very generous with any cash he doesn't need for accomodation and spell research. He's not greedy. Or even interested in power, except as a means to an end.

And he'll readily risk his life to to protect kids, or to achieve his eventual aim. This is the gnoll who bit open his own wrists because he needed a quick supply of sacrificial blood, in the middle of the ritual to delay the destruction of a world he doesn't even like!

[Vulcan]

Just thought of another hero disqualifier.

While being willing to kill (or even having actually killed someone) does not make one 'not a hero', being eager to kill - enjoying killing - does.

[bubba smith]

good point

[DusterBoy]

How flawed are we talking here, exactly? "Watchmen" flawed, or just "ordinary guy" flawed?

And even in Watchmen, there was a spectrum - with say, Rorschach and the Comedian on one end and Night Owl and Silk Spectre at the other.

[nexus]

Just thought of another hero disqualifier.

While being willing to kill (or even having actually killed someone) does not make one 'not a hero', being eager to kill - enjoying killing - does.

That, in a nutshell is what turned me off about the Authority after Ellis left.

[Vulcan]

How flawed are we talking here, exactly? "Watchmen" flawed, or just "ordinary guy" flawed?

And even in Watchmen, there was a spectrum - with say, Rorschach and the Comedian on one end and Night Owl and Silk Spectre at the other.

That's the question being asked. "Just how flawed a character are your usual characters?"